Volume 657 Week 23 - Tuesday 8 September 2009(continued on Wednesday 9 September 2009) 
Volume 657 Week 23 - Tuesday 8 September 2009(continued on Wednesday 9 September 2009) 
[Volume:657;Page:6105] 
Tuesday 8 September 2009 
( 
continued on Wednesday 9 September 2009 
) 
Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am delighted to again speak in this debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement. I note with interest that we are privileged to have the Minister of Defence the Hon Wayne Mapp in the chair. He has assured me this morning that unlike the Minister of Finance he will be available for exhaustive questioning commentary and analysis on this very important bill. I know that my whip may not appreciate this but I am very happy to yield to the Minister if he would pick up where last night’s debate left off and answer the myriad of questions that the Opposition put up on what is a very important bill which I have to say has the support of the Labour Party and I believe most if not all parties here. It is a very very important bill. We are here under urgency because of the nature of this bill and I see that the Leader of the House is here and that the reinforcements have arrived. The Minister of Defence is in the chair and the 25 pound howitzer is in the Chamber as well. So a military connotation is taking over this debate—the blunderbuss is on the way! 
I just reiterate a number of the questions that colleagues put up last night in this debate because we are under urgency. This is an important bill but we fail to see the Minister of Finance—but I am sure this Minister in the chair Wayne Mapp will be equal to the challenge—taking up and responding to a number of important questions that the Opposition raised. 
Hon Member 
: We did—last night! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member said that yes he did. Well she is right that last night at about 3 minutes to 10 he took I think the longest call he has taken in the whole debate. He got up and answered a couple of questions. Of course I would have thought that this deposit guarantee scheme would be very close to the Minister of Finance’s heart not just because it is the responsible thing to do which of course we did when we were in Government. At its very essence this bill guarantees the deposits of Kiwi investors as we know. We put money in the bank and the Government provides a deposit to agencies that have a BB rating and those deposits for deposit holders are secure. If it was the case for instance that someone was renting a property and getting maybe 700 bucks a week per house—as the Minister of Finance was—I am sure that the Minister of Finance as the Minister in the chair would be very very much in support of this bill which would guarantee his $700 a week deposit in a bank or financial entity that had a BB rating. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Even in a time of restraint. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Even in a time of restraint my colleague says. I think that anybody who has discretionary income of around 700 bucks a week—perhaps on rent on a property—would be absolutely in need of a commitment from the Government of the day to guarantee that $700 per week deposit. I think that is imperative and it is interesting that the Minister of Finance of course is sponsoring this bill. I would never accuse the Minister of Finance of having some pecuniary interest in this bill because that would be unparliamentary and it would not be appropriate. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And he would declare it anyway. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And he would declare it anyway as my colleague says. I just note that those people who are in the privileged position of renting out their own properties perhaps and gaining rents in the order of 700 bucks a week will sleep easy in their beds tonight as we pass this legislation. 
I ask the Minister in the chair Dr Mapp the Minister of Defence who has kindly parachuted into the Chamber whether he will answer some of the questions. Of course some of the questions pertain to why the criteria and the eligibility for the BB rating are in the hands of the Minister of Finance and not put in statute. We have asked repeatedly why that is and whether there is a risk that smaller financial institutions cannot meet the BB rating. Mr Gilmore who has been there done that climbed the mountain done everything and qualified for everything said that it is easy for a financial institution to get a BB rating and that one just sort of pays the money and people rock up—just like when he got his qualification at university; he paid his fees and they handed it out to him. 
Well to get a BB rating from a financial agency especially if one is a smaller financial institution requires a high level of commitment and cost. It is not just a matter as I said yesterday of people rocking up to McDonald’s and saying they will have the double meat hamburger and chips paying the money and getting it. For a lot of these financial institutions it is a huge commitment and the question is of course whether there will be a flight of capital if those institutions do not meet that BB rating. I said yesterday that no one wishes that on anyone—no one is predicting it and no one is wishing it—it is a question we are asking and I ask that question of the Minister of Defence. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am awaiting a response from the Minister in the chair. I have made this point in the first and second reading debates on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill and I make it now in the debate on the title clause of the bill about how we propose to transition out of the deposit guarantee scheme given the distortions that it causes in the financial markets. I repeat my concern because the current Minister in the chair Dr Mapp is not the Minister who was there last night. I raise with Dr Mapp the issue that is touched upon in the regulatory impact statement: the distortion that is caused between different classes of investments. 
The bill says one of its objectives is to minimise those distortions. That is tantamount to an admission that it creates them. The regulatory impact statement itself highlights one of the distortions that have been caused and that is in the finance company sector. Because some of the risk that is normally faced by depositors in finance companies is being taken away by the Crown guarantee the amount deposited into finance companies has increased quite substantially against a prior trend where because of perceived risk the amount deposited in that sector was decreasing. That is one distortion that we have caused; we have had an increase in finance company deposits. 
A related but different distortion is that we have seen a flight of funds away from safer investments than traditional finance companies such as investments in mortgage trusts. Mortgage trusts are where people invest their money in a trust vehicle. It can be a group investment fund or a unit trust under the Unit Trusts Act and in some cases it can be a contributory mortgage. But in all those three cases the investor is effectively investing in a first mortgage over land. The nature of investors’ security is a debt security; they are owed money. It is not nominally a debt security within the definition of the Securities Act but it is very similar to other debt securities in that investors invest a dollar amount it is secured—in this case over land—and their right to repayment is the right to repayment of the capital they are investing plus the interest that they get. Effectively that is the interest paid by the mortgagors under the mortgages. That is a far more secure sort of investment than a finance company investment yet it is not covered by this guarantee scheme. So one of the distortions we have seen under this financial guarantee is increased money going into the more risky end of the market—the finance companies—and we have seen a run on the funds invested in the mortgage trusts. They have been serious runs on funds. 
We in this Committee all know that one of the two primary reasons that we have this legislation is to ensure liquidity and protect against runs on funds. Without this guarantee scheme effectively there were concerns that there would be runs on financial institutions. We were already seeing that occur in the finance company sector and that contagion could easily have spread to the banks. Confidence is all in financial institutions and no financial institution can easily withstand a run on its funds. All those institutions anticipate having reasonably secure deposit books. We have a distortion being created and we have not yet heard from the Minister about how he plans to exit from the scheme. 
Through this legislation we have some new rules. A minimum credit rating of BB is required for anyone to participate in the retail deposit scheme and that will in itself cut off some of the smaller financial institutions. That causes another distortion that we are creating here: we are preferring large institutions over small institutions by virtue of the nature of this guarantee. Again I have a problem with that because I think that in New Zealand we are overly reliant on a small number of very large institutions. Hyman Minsky a now deceased American economist has had recent accolades for his prediction of some of the things that went wrong in the recent financial crisis around the world. He believed that financial institutions rather than being self-correcting and essentially levelling would always participate in riskier and riskier behaviour the longer the period of stability was and he was right about that. One of his other theories was that financial institutions should reflect the size of the economy. He believed that a small economy that had a lot of small businesses should have a large number of smaller financial intermediaries rather than being reliant on a small number of large intermediaries. This legislation goes in the other way from that because it gives preference to the interests of the big end of town. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to pick up the point that my colleague David Parker was referring to and come back to the detailed regulatory impact statement which is to be found only on the Treasury website. I repeat how disturbing I find it that the detailed analysis that this statement contains is not available to the general public by way of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill which is the normal place to find the full regulatory impact statement. I think that is an undesirable course of action. 
I refer to a couple of matters that are in the statement. I would like the Minister of Finance to take a call to explain them. One of the matters is directly related to an issue that we were debating last night around collective investment schemes. First of all paragraph 26 of the regulatory impact statement states that “Blanket retail deposit guarantees are generally undesirable because of the economic distortions they create.” That is exactly the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making. “Economic distortions include encouraging guaranteed depositors and deposit taking institutions to make riskier investment decisions since gains are privatized and losses are socialised.” This is from Treasury which actually gets the problem that we face when we privatise the gains but socialise the losses. This has a huge distortionary impact on the market and is described as a moral hazard. 
I come to paragraph 43 which states: “There is a significant degree of uncertainty associated with what could happen if the current DGS is left to expire on October 2010. This reflects uncertainty about whether and how quickly the economy will recover over the next 18 months whether financial markets will continue to stabilize and what will happen to asset prices. It also reflects uncertainty about the position of entities in the scheme the extent of likely contagion resulting from the failure of any entities in the scheme and the extent of any possible deposit flight to Australian guaranteed banks due to the mismatch of guarantee periods. The impact will also depend in a large part on depositor sentiment which is very difficult to predict.” In the report the officials say that the banks do not think there is any risk of this flight to Australian guaranteed banks. I have to ask the Minister why we are doing this. I honestly think that some larger contribution to the debate could have been made if we had had a couple of days at the select committee where we could have debated the detail with officials. I am not saying that we are opposed to it; in principle we are not and we support the passage of the bill. But we think that it is an important issue that the Minister should respond to in some detail. The strongest argument for this change is in order to match with Australia yet the very reason why we would match with Australia is not regarded by the banks as a priority in the decision making in this area. In fact according to the regulatory impact statement the banks do not support the extension of this scheme. 
Last night I was asking the Minister in the chair—who was the Minister of Finance Bill English—about collective investment schemes. I said to him that these were not dealt with in detail in the regulatory impact statement. He referred me to page 20. Page 20 is one of the annexes to the regulatory impact statement. So yes the collective investment schemes are dealt with in this particular part of the statement. But I advise the House that the detail there does not answer the question that I raise. 
Let me again read into the record what the regulatory impact statement says: “Removing this limited category of CISs from the extended DGS’s coverage would be consistent with the core coverage of the DGS. 
It would also reduce one of the boundary issues that has arisen between CISs and other institutions (such as mortgage trusts)”— this was the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making—“with similar legal structures (but different investment approaches) that are not covered by the present DGS and result in slightly reduced administration costs associated with managing separate deeds of guarantee. There may be some shifting of investors from CISs to guaranteed deposits but this would be minimal.” What is that based on? 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The point I am making is about the claim that there may be some shifting of investors from collective investment schemes to guaranteed deposits but that this would be minimal. What is that claim based on? What have the officials based that advice on? How much shifting is classified as minimal? Why are we again allowing a potential risk to our collective investment schemes the portfolio investment entities that are all registered there at the moment when we do not what the risk is? The statement says the risk would be minimal but how do we know? What is the basis for it? 
The statement says: “Retaining CISs in an extended DGS would not cause any particular issues other than potentially raising again the boundary issues with non-guaranteed schemes. The extended DGS proposes excluding CISs in order to assist with moving toward tighter and more limited coverage.” Well that goes against the whole theory of the extension which is to allow for an orderly transition out of the scheme. I have this terrible fear we are delaying the inevitable because it will not be the case that all finance companies that are currently in the scheme will be able to opt into this scheme with the BB rating requirement that will be in place from October next year. 
I think we are entitled to ask these questions in this Chamber when debating a bill that has been introduced under urgency a bill that we did not see until it was laid on the Table of the House. We have been denied the opportunity for a select committee hearing which Treasury officials themselves recommended take place for 1 to 2 days and which would enable us to ask these questions and have a proper discussion about it. I think we have been denied the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation. As my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has said on many occasions this is only framework legislation. It will allow the Minister to extend the scheme on whatever conditions are negotiated or agreed with Cabinet. I think Parliament ought to have a greater say over this legislation. 
This week is Financial Awareness Week. I am almost speechless at the way the Government celebrates the fact that a lot of investors in this country have absolutely no idea of the level of risk they are taking with their hard-earned money. The Commerce Committee is undertaking an inquiry into certain elements relating to the collapse of the finance companies. Why? Because there are gaps and clearly a lack of understanding of risk. The other thing we have seen is that finance companies that have failed have almost without exception underpriced the level of risk in order to disguise from their potential investors the level of risk they were taking with their hard-earned money. This scheme is almost saying they are off the hook for another year before they have to face up to the reality of the market in this situation. 
I have some really serious concerns about the quality of the debate around this important matter. We have seen this debate deliberately shut down on many occasions so far. The Minister of Finance has taken about three calls in the entire Committee stage of this bill and they have been very short calls pointing me to annex 2 of the regulatory impact statement on page 20 for example on the collective investment scheme and basically reading out a paragraph from the regulatory impact statement. That is not the sort of quality discussion that one would expect to occur in such an important debate. I am very disappointed in the way the Government has chosen to treat this particular issue. 
As I say the Opposition is not opposed to the concept of extending the scheme. But I think we ought to have a much clearer exposition from the Government as to why the extension is a year long why conditions have been attached to the extension and why collective investment schemes are excluded from the ability to renew their coverage under the deposit guarantee scheme when the new one comes in. The Minister has not even discussed the issues around the content of the agreement. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I will back up a lot of what my colleagues have said around the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Labour supports it for a number of important reasons. The first of three main reasons relates to the fact that at the time the retail deposit guarantee scheme was set up by the Labour Government the world was going through a period of intense financial crisis. I mentioned that the BNZ was literally days away from putting in place its crisis management strategy plan for operating a major financial institution without the ability to raise overseas funds. That was done on a Sunday evening. I think Dr Cullen worked for 48 hours flat without sleep to get it implemented and I think it was done a day after the Australians announced their scheme. It came in at pretty much the same time. The reason for that as has been outlined is that there was a belief that if the Australians had set up such a scheme and New Zealand had not then there may be a run on funds from New Zealand banks across the Tasman therefore necessitating the collapse of the New Zealand banking sector. We all know that would have been a complete and utter disaster for our economy. 
First and foremost the measure was undertaken to shore up the financial sector. That was vitally important. The second reason why we support this bill—and it relates to a lot of Part 2—is that a social cost is involved. It is disappointing because I do not think the National Government has once mentioned the social benefit of this scheme. 
Amy Adams 
: Yes I mentioned it twice. 
STUART NASH 
: Ms Adams has mentioned it. Well done. That member did it once. That must be once out of about 30 calls. Mind you members opposite have stopped taking calls to shut down this debate. But the social aspect of this is quite significant. Dr Cullen and the Labour Government made it very clear that one of the major reasons Labour was implementing this retail deposit guarantee scheme was to prevent a further deterioration in confidence in our financial sector in addition to that which existed because of the collapse of around 30-odd finance companies. It was 30 or 40; the number escapes me. It is incredible that so many New Zealanders lost so much money. 
David Parker and Lianne Dalziel talked at length about the distortions a retail guarantee scheme puts in place and that is what I will lead into at the moment. The banks are now debating their continued participation in this scheme. There is a huge difference between now and a year ago due to the nature of the crisis. Global liquidity has freed up to a certain extent. To be part of the scheme banks had to pay money so they are now undertaking a cost-benefit analysis around it. The concern I have relates to the non-bank sector. In respect of retail companies we saw a lot of savers versus investors. There is a very important distinction there. Savers are those people who are putting their money away and who have paid taxes all their lives. They have put their money away for their retirement for their children’s education or for their grandchildren’s education for whatever reason. But they squirreled away money in those companies and they have lost it. They have nothing to go back to. I firmly believe they did not price risk. As mentioned this week is actually financial literacy week. I firmly believe New Zealanders have very much a DIY attitude to their financial management which is not the right way to go about it. When they see icons like Sir Colin Meads stand up and say that an investment is as solid as houses or as solid as the proverbial— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He said: “Solid as.” And he is Sir Colin Meads. 
STUART NASH 
: I am sorry; Sir Colin Meads. He said it was “solid as” and many New Zealanders believed him without pricing risk without going through the disclosure statements and they lost their money. I believe that the shift towards finance companies has gone from savers to investors. Investors understand that their funds are guaranteed under the current scheme. Evidence of that is $880 million in deposits put into finance companies since the scheme was implemented. That is an increase of 19 percent in funds in a sector in which the deposits had begun to shrink. They had absolutely begun to shrink. My one major concern is that investors are now the main contributors to finance companies. What will happen when the scheme runs out? There are two options—two things might happen. Investors who are probably in a better position to price risk will say that investment in a finance company has now— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a quick call on this discussion on the bill’s title and commencement. I will pick up on a couple of themes that my colleagues have raised. My colleague Lianne Dalziel has rightly raised the issue of process and the lack of consultation and she was very effective in that regard. I also realise that we have had some important discussion by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Hon David Parker around collective investment vehicles and the fact that they are excluded from the coverage of the bill. 
The Labour caucus has had particular concern about the status of bonus bonds. Many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have bonus bonds. They are an important part of investment for many small investors—rational or otherwise. Bonus bonds are excluded because they are a form of collective investment vehicle. The analysis of the bill is that 70 percent of the underlying securities are covered through various means by the intended legislation. But none the less we considered introducing an amendment to specifically list them. However we decided that it would do too much damage to the structure of the coverage and we moved away from an amendment. But I say particularly to bonus-bond holders that the Labour Opposition has specifically considered their case. 
Craig Foss 
: Declare your interest. How many bonus bonds do you have? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member will be pleased to know that I have no particular investments in New Zealand whatsoever in order to avoid just those questions. 
I will touch on a very serious theme which my colleague David Parker raised—that is the concentration of risk. There are two aspects. The first is the concentration of risk in entities that are equal to or greater than a BB rating. That will cut from the market those smaller institutions that cannot make a BB rating. We welcome the Minister back into the Chamber. Many of those investment holders will move to larger institutions primarily the banks. The big banks will increase market share at the expense of small companies. Big banks already hold 95 percent total market share as reflected in the premium stream. That is the first aspect; that is one side. 
The second aspect of concentration of risk is the source of the funds. Ten years ago about the time I entered Parliament inbound foreign investment to New Zealand came roughly equally from five sources—Australia the United States the United Kingdom Asia and all others. Now 80 percent of it— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I thought the Standing Orders require the Minister responsible for the bill to be in the chair when he or she is in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call on the Hon David Cunliffe to continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Thank you. We welcome the Minister to the chair. He has checked his numbers this morning and found they are still there which is good. It must be a trying time for his camp but we wish him well. 
Ten years ago investment was from five sources; now 80 percent of it comes from one source: Australia. That situation has pros and cons. The pros are that we are fortunate that the Australian banking system is the soundest in the world. A large share of the world’s triple A rating banks reside in Australia. That is a good thing. 
Craig Foss 
: Most sound. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Australian banking system is the most sound in the world as my colleague says which is to be welcomed. I am not going on a roo hunt here but I am worried about strategic concentration of risk wherever that risk came from. When one has all one’s eggs in one basket one becomes rather more dependent on the basket. The fact is that when 80 percent of our inbound foreign direct investment comes from one country we run the risk of what they call in economics the marginal market phenomenon. They are much more important to us than we are to them. 
In the banking inquiry a very interesting fact came to light which was that approaching 30 percent of the book debt of the four big banks in Australia is now denominated in New Zealand dollars or New Zealand securities. It is the old phrase that when one owes the bank $100 one has a problem and when one owes it $100 million the bank has a problem. Surprise surprise! Australia is starting to worry about the systemic risk of its investments in New Zealand. That is why in the last 2 weeks we have had the call from Australia from Ralph Norris to merge our regulators and to have the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority take over financial supervision in New Zealand and we have had John Key fly the kite of a common currency. Make no mistake: when the Prime Minister says that we want to adopt someone else’s currency he is not doing it by accident. He did not wake up one morning with a rush of blood to the head. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill be now read a third time 
. We have had a reasonably wide-ranging debate on the bill and that was always likely to be the case despite the fact that the bill does not have a lot of the detail of the scheme in it. The Committee stage gave members the opportunity to work through most of the substantial issues that had been considered in bringing the policy together. 
The Opposition in the spirit of cooperation around this particular issue that we have followed for the last 12 months or so raised a number of quite reasonable points. I will respond in a very general way. A lot of the points that members of the Opposition made had merit. The Government made judgments on issues to do with coverage pricing and product exclusions based on the principle that we want to move back to normal market conditions in a reasonable time. I thank members for the quality of that debate. 
I will just remind the House of the general principles that are driving this bill. First we want to ensure that depositor confidence promotes system-wide financial stability. One of the advantages the New Zealand economy has enjoyed over the last 12 months is that it has retained financial stability. In part that is to do with the fact that although they were vulnerable our Australian banks were in good shape when the financial crisis came along. That was partly because of actions taken by the previous Government in installing the guarantees to ensure that confidence in their stability was maintained and partly because the wide range of tools that the Reserve Bank supplied to the financial system enabled it to get through the period of crisis into a period now of relative stability. 
The second principle driving this legislation is the need to minimise economic distortions and ensure well-priced credit markets. There is no doubt that the guarantee does create some distortions and an obvious one is the fact that deposits into our non-bank deposit taking sector actually grew or have grown during the time of the guarantee. I think anyone would say that in the absence of the guarantee that might not have happened. We need to reflect on the fact that one of the reasons for the financial crisis was mispriced credit risk. That is why it is important that in responding to the financial crisis we do not perpetuate for longer than necessary distortions in credit pricing. It is really important that we revert to normal market conditions where people who are making deposits and making investments are facing a realistic trade-off of risk and return. That is another principle behind the bill. 
The third principle is the need to do our best to ensure a viable non-bank sector in the future. A number of speakers through the Committee stage stressed a point that I think is important about how the four Australian banks dominate our financial intermediation. A large number of businesses and activities in New Zealand are not the natural customers of those banks and therefore the non-bank sector is important. One of the principles is to ensure that the non-bank sector consolidates and rationalises itself in a way that means at the end of the guarantee we have places where people can go to borrow money for their ditch digger truck or other business need that a bank will not necessarily respond to. I would keep in mind though that because of that demand it is likely that other players will come into the non-bank market. 
Finally we want to manage the Crown’s exposure in terms of fiscal costs. Any institution that fails under this guarantee imposes a cost on taxpayers and taxpayers deserve their interest in these institutions to be looked after with due care. That has ruled out options such as unilaterally or quickly withdrawing the guarantee in a way that could put taxpayers in the position of paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to institutions that fail. Those are the same hundreds of millions of dollars that we need to run our health services police force and schools so we are keen to ensure that the Crown and the taxpayer enjoy the potential benefits of an uplift in the economy where asset prices stabilise where confidence grows and where there is a realistic opportunity that these guarantees will not be realised. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise to the public if I reiterate that Labour will be supporting this bill. We do so because we believe firstly that it is appropriate for us to have framework legislation that provides powers to the Minister to bring down policy in this area and to regularise what was necessarily done by emergency or reserve powers under the Public Finance Act after Parliament was prorogued just before the last election. The process we are going through is broadly appropriate; therefore we support it. 
It is right as has been said by the Minister of Finance who has just resumed his seat that this has been a wide-ranging debate. It is right for two reasons. Firstly as my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has been at pains to point out unfortunately there has been no select committee process which I think is both unfortunate in itself and becoming a hallmark of this Government—that it considers that the standard safeguards of democracy are somehow pliable or dispensable. 
We have a regret that in consultation on this bill we did not perhaps make even clearer our concern that there should be an opportunity to more formally question officials and to give members of the sector and of the public the opportunity to raise their issues because although the Reserve Bank and Treasury have been talking to the institutions that is far from the public view. So I guess we go into this third reading debate with an enduring sense of having missed something important along the way. 
I want to firstly recap briefly the Minister of Finance’s summary of the justification for the bill because I think he has encapsulated quite well the rationale. In recalling from our first reading debate the broad scheme of this was that there were three options. Having got the scheme in place we could go cold turkey and let it expire at the end of next year we could have a limited extension with limitations around risk and distortion—which is what the Government has chosen to do—or we could transition gradually to a permanent deposit guarantee scheme which would have some enduring advantages for deposit holders. That is something we believe that the Government rightly still has in consideration. We commend that work and we look forward to a good bipartisan discussion on it. 
Within that the Minister has reiterated three rationales for taking the middle course. We think the middle course is the right course but we have some questions about the nature of the rationale. The first one was system stability. Of course system stability is important and the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge that it was supported by the original retail and wholesale guarantee schemes that the then Labour Government put in place. I reiterate by acknowledging that it is also being supported by the strong presence of the very stable Australian banking system in New Zealand—and that is to be welcomed. It was not caught up in the derivatives-driven mess of Wall Street in the northern hemisphere and it does provide some of the largest share of triple A rated banks in the world. We are fortunate that our system does not suffer from financial stability risk. Where we part company with the Government on this point however is that an acknowledgment of overall stability should not be an excuse to turn a blind eye to second-tier risks and longer-term issues that will be of strategic importance to this economy down the track. Our responsibility is to provide not only for stability today but also for sovereignty tomorrow. It is in those issues that we believe a level of concern is shared by many New Zealanders. 
The minimisation of distortion is important and we agree that part of the seeds of the bursting of the global finance bubble was in the masking of risk through other instruments than we are considering today—things like real estate - backed securities collateralised debt obligations and derivatives which are a different story and not about this issue. But we agree that it is prudent to have some limitation around risk. The line has been drawn here at a credit rating of BB. We believe that there are arguments on both sides of the House. My colleague David Parker has been eloquent in setting out the pros and cons of that line and the fallout for members of the non-bank finance sector that by very issue of scale as opposed to inherent portfolio risk are either too small or cannot stand the transaction cost of getting rated. 
The Minister responded that they have to anyway for other reasons down the track. That does not change the fact that there will be fallout from that market in addition to the fallout that has already occurred and from that we will see a further concentration of that market. That is where we think the Government is on the weakest ground. We would like to have further discussion to help it out on this. The Minister said: “ensure a viable non-bank market”. That is where we believe most of the risk is here. At the end of the Committee stage debate we were coming on to the issue of concentration of risk not only by type—95 percent in major banks—but also concentration by source of funds about 80 percent from Australia into our market and by sector largely into real estate largely fuelling the housing bubble. 
There are some huge issues there for Parliament the Government and Opposition to work together on in the public good to first avoid a further housing bubble and collapse and second to avoid us becoming pawns in somebody else’s banking game and to ensure that New Zealand has a diversity of sources of funds from many different lenders. We must do that so that we are insured against the marginal market problem—that is when you are a very small borrower from a very big person and that person does not need you. Of course the irony is that latterly we are starting to see the emergence of a different issue in that Australia is looking at New Zealand and saying: “Goodness me! You’re about or coming up to a third of our risk pool and you might be riskier than some of our onshore assets. We’d like to take a closer look at your regulation.” Australia might ask the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to oversee our financial system. 
It is there that we come whether we like it or not to longer-term questions of sovereignty. Those are the issues that in addition to the pass through of interest rates the parliamentary banking inquiry uncovered in the last several weeks and we believe on our side of the House that that was an extremely worthwhile exercise. We had 50-odd submissions despite the work of the Beehive to shut the inquiry down—and I hate to be so harsh but there is no other way to put it. The Beehive tried to roll its own members to vote against the inquiry taking place after the members had proposed a very worthwhile exercise in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That was our first preference and where it should have happened. 
I really want to thank the Green Party and the Progressive party for working very cooperatively in inviting all other parties in Parliament but where was the Maori Party? It purports to represent people who have interests similar to Labour’s own people—the ordinary folk of New Zealand. We would have welcomed the Maori Party being there. Where was the ACT Party? It has clear views about financial regulation and speaks a lot of sense from time to time. It would have made a contribution. But oh no! The word went out from the Beehive: “Thou shalt not play.” And the word went out from the Beehive to the boardrooms of the banking sector and they stayed away—some of them. Some of them like Kiwibank in particular and groups like Federated Farmers the Manufacturers and Exporters Association the Productive Economy Council—and even the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) goodness me—had the courage of their convictions and said: “Whether you like it or not these issues affect our members.” I commend them for coming along to the inquiry and I am confident that with the further research that is going on we will have a very substantive contribution to make to the ongoing debate. 
In conclusion and coming back to the substance of this bill this is framework legislation. It provides the power for the Minister to bring down by regulation through the Gazette the policy that he has announced in the last couple of weeks—that is to extend by 1 year the retail deposit guarantee scheme. In so doing we can understand that that is the middle option between three and broadly we support both the process and the strategic option shown. But significant issues have arisen in this debate around the lack of consultation the lack of public disclosure of issues the concentration of risk the fallout for the non-bank finance sector the risks around the exclusion of collective investment vehicles and as the Opposition has been at pains to point out the error in our view of allowing the major banks to opt out when they represent 90 to 95 percent of the coverage 90 to 95 percent of the revenue stream to the Government by way of premiums for this retail deposit scheme. The beneficiaries of the wholesale deposit scheme should be in the retail deposit scheme. That in our view was a strategic error. It will result in cherry-picking and it will result in a concentration of risk. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I am glad the House is finally on the third reading of the very good Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. First of all I acknowledge the support across the House for the bill and the contributions of members particularly those of the Hon Lianne Dalziel in the Committee stage. She talked about the regulatory impact statement and raised some very good questions in and around it. I acknowledge also some of the questions of some of her colleagues. 
One point that kept being raised was why the bill was not referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I note again that the original decision made by the previous administration to bring in the retail deposit guarantee in the first instance did not ever go before the select committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Parliament was prorogued. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: It was an election period. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Parliament was not sitting. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: That is quite correct but even after that it did not go before the select committee when the new Parliament was confirmed. But there were plenty of opportunities for members opposite to ask the finance Ministers and Treasury at various stages as part of reviews about this particular question. In fact many members did ask about it at the select committee. 
Also there are market sensitivities around this type of bill. I refer to equity prices and debt prices and to whether an extension of the guarantee is assured particularly for the lower-tiered and lower-rated institutions which many members opposite say they are concerned about. Providing certainty as far out as possible is the best thing. I struggle to see why some members cannot see that. After the Royal assent—let us say that occurs on 15 or 16 September—any institution can voluntarily join and basically have the deposit guarantee for another year subject to terms and conditions and that will allow them to do term funding. As many members will have noticed there is a wall of funding maturity occurring in October next year and this bill starts to address that issue. 
There is one thing I cannot let go. The previous speaker talked about risk as did many speakers on the other side of the House. Under the previous Government the most wealth-destroying regime in New Zealand’s history about $9 billion to $12 billion was wiped off the Crown’s balance sheet. Members opposite should not get up prophesy and dictate to us about risk when their track record is not very flash. The losses included $7 billion to $9 billion from superannuation $2 billion to $3 billion from accident compensation about $1 billion from the National Provident Fund and $1 billion from the railways. Those members should not get up and talk about risk and risk management. Well I guess they can but they should declare what their track record is. Under the previous Minister of Commerce depositors in various finance companies lost about $1 billion. That is not the individual’s fault; of course it is not. Those members should not get up and dictate to the House about risk and risk management when their track record is very very shabby. I do not imagine that the previous Government’s track record of risk management will ever be repeated for a long long time. Certainly in the history of this country it had never been seen before. About $8 billion to $10 billion was wiped off under the previous Government’s watch. 
A couple of points were raised during the Committee stage. Members opposite talked about the exit strategy—how institutions will transition out of the new extension. They seem to forget that it is voluntary. How will institutions transition out? I go back to the original scheme. It would have stopped on 12 October 2010; it would have stopped cold turkey on 12 October 2010. Look at the funding maturity occurring in early October 2010. The scheme was to have gone cold turkey then. If this bill is not passed—hopefully it will be—the scheme will stop cold turkey. Liquidators and receivers will be in there by the dozen simply because of the inability of the institutions to get themselves out of the current funding and liquidity trough. Members get up to ask questions about the transition phase but this measure is the transition phase out of the existing rules. It is quite simple. It is prudential it is common sense it better prices the risk and it is voluntary. I know that is a point the previous speaker has issues with but it is voluntary. From the point of view of the Government of the Crown accounts this measure is a very good option. If the recession continues and/or worsens it is there; it is virtually the status quo. If the economy improves then the downside for taxpayers who have underwritten all these liabilities is very much diminished to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. In that context it is a very very good transitional measure out for the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
Another speaker on the other side of the House seemed confused about what is insured. It is retail deposits under $1 million that are insured under the current scheme. Yes the limit is going down to $500000 but it is not the shareholders’ equity that is insured. Yes the scheme helps institutions but it is not their equity that is insured. If we want to test that we should look at the share prices of institutions both in this country and in Australia since the scheme came in and see whether they have gone up or down. Share prices have actually plummeted. Again the shareholders’ equity in those institutions the asset valuations are not insured; they have nothing to do with this scheme. It is deposit insurance only. 
Mr Norman spoke yesterday and Mr Cunliffe picked up some of his points as well; I guess Mr Norman will give another speech in a minute. Their solution seems to be to nationalise everything to internalise all banking thereby forgetting that New Zealand owes $130 billion to the rest of the world and forgetting that in 2000 it was about half that amount. Those members are trying to forget the last few years of history. If we take the content of some of those speeches to their logical extreme they think that if we fix the exchange rate somehow fix interest rates and bring in reserve asset ratios—from the book of Muldoon—then everything will be fine! It just does not seem— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Reserve Bank’s doing it; it’s called Basel II. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I note that the member who is interrupting has another solution which is to potentially increase the tax rates on portfolio investment entities. He was quoted in the  
National Business Review  
about that recently. Is that a solution or not? I do not know; I am quite happy for the member to clarify that. I am sure I saw an article about it in the  
National Business Review 
 recently. 
Quite frankly given the track record of the previous administration and the track record of many of the speakers opposite who had ministerial warrants or were associated with the finance part of the previous administration for them to get up and dictate and preach about risk and risk management is very very hollow indeed. The numbers do not stack up. I appreciate and agree with their concerns about the vulnerability of the New Zealand financial system but when they start talking about our losing our sovereignty to Australia and things like that I look at the fact that we are continuing discussions that started under the previous administration. Discussions relating to the back office and the regulatory regime involving the Australasian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Treasury discussions and ministerial discussions are all continuing. Those members should take pride in the fact that they started to try to coordinate the back-office and regulatory arrangements with Australia. Much of the legislation that came in under the previous Minister of Commerce in terms of non-bank deposit takers looked at what happens over in Australia. Members should take pride in that rather than scaring the horses about something that just does not exist. 
This is very very good legislation. It is a transition out of a very awkward situation that all members acknowledge. I for one hope this country does not ever get into a situation where such a guarantee in such unusual circumstances is needed again. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Before addressing the bill it behoves me to respond to some of the comments made by the member who has just resumed his seat the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee National’s Craig Foss. I would have thought that that revisionist view of history was beneath him. It is plain that when the last Labour Government took office Government debt was 39 percent of GDP. When we left office it was 17 percent of GDP. Net debt was virtually nil—for the first time in New Zealand’s history I understand. So far from leaving the books in a poor state we left them in a very good state. During the period of our tenure New Zealand’s growth rate was higher on average than that of Australia the United States Europe and Japan. So on the growth front we did better as well. 
During the period of the Labour Government we built up savings to fund the future bulge in superannuation. We established what is colloquially called the Cullen fund—the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—which now has over $10 billion of savings in it to go towards superannuation in the future—contributions to which of course have been suspended by the current National Government which is another example of its mismanagement of the economy. 
Mr Foss’ contribution and criticism needs to also be reflected upon in the context of the fact that the Opposition is supporting this bill. I am afraid that Mr Foss having served that up will have to take a little bit back. The reality is that we expect judgment to be shown by the Government and judgment to be shown by the Minister of Finance. When he makes those sorts of accusations against us I am afraid he will find it coming flying back because the headline of today’s paper shows that his Government is a Government without ethics—“Fresh housing woes for English”. Mr English was trying to line his own pocket and he showed terrible misjudgement in his personal dealings in respect of something that was going to privately profit him. So the member should not come here and lecture us about ethics when there is that sort of thing on the front page with the Minister in charge of this bill. 
I want to return to the topic which is the financial stability that is ensured through this retail deposit guarantee scheme. Mr Foss misrepresented my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe’s comments about this being compulsory or voluntary. We have never suggested that it ought to be compulsory. The point he was making is that if an institution is going to pick up the wholesale guarantee it should pick up the retail one as well. Otherwise we are saying that we need the guarantee for the big fellas who are lending to New Zealand from offshore hundreds of millions or billions of dollars but ma and pa investors who are only investing $1000 don’t get the benefit of the guarantee. That is the point the Hon David Cunliffe was making and it should not be misrepresented by Government members. 
Another own goal by Mr Foss was that he said the prior instrument was introduced without a select committee. Of course it was; Parliament was not sitting. Parliament had risen for the last election so it could not go to a select committee. In response to that little faux pas Craig Foss said off the cuff: “Oh well of course it could have gone to a select committee straight after the election.” He is right but National was the Government by then so how that was the Labour Party’s fault I am not quite sure. I think that is 3 nil so far to the Labour Party; they were all own goals by Craig Foss. 
I return to one of the other issues that my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe touched upon because it is a concern both he and I share. It relates to overall financial stability and the size of our financial institutions. I want to place on record as the Hon David Cunliffe did that we are fortunate to have a stable banking sector in no small part because of the strong major Australian banks. I am not criticising them as entities but their interests do not necessarily always coincide with New Zealand’s interests. I am concerned that the fee structure and the limits to the ambit of the scheme are set out in a way which again prefers the big end of town. The major banks have a lower fee structure because by virtue of their size and the scale of their businesses they are more likely to get a high credit rating than a smaller financial institution. One of New Zealand’s problems is the concentration of our finance sector in four main banking institutions. That is a long-term problem for New Zealand in terms of both the effect it has on New Zealand credit markets and the effect it has on our current account deficit through the repatriation of profits of those banks the combined profit of which is bigger—and correct me if I am wrong Mr Cunliffe—than the total profit of the rest of the New Zealand stock exchange put together. That is an enormous issue. The profits in total of the four big banks are more than the whole of the New Zealand stock exchange. Further cementing the advantages that those main banks have over smaller New Zealand competitors is not good policy because it further entrenches that advantage and will see them grow their market share further. That is one of the distortions that is extended by this guarantee scheme. 
We support the scheme because we do not see that there is presently a better option. We concede that we need a retail guarantee scheme and we think it should be compulsory for those who have bought into the wholesale scheme but otherwise it should be voluntary. But we think that the fee structure is in some ways wrong in that a large Australian institution gets a lower fee structure than a New Zealand building society despite the fact that the risk profile of a New Zealand building society is quite low. I think that that is a problem. 
I am quite attracted to some of the writings of Hyman Minsky an American economist who died about 10 years ago. He predicted some of the difficulties we have seen in financial markets around the world. There were two main parts to his theory. The first was that the longer the period of financial stability the more risk taking we see on the part of financial enterprises. That is true. They forget the last cleanout they chase a higher market share and they want to justify the huge bonuses the chief executives get so they embark upon more and more risky transactions. They try and get around existing regulations by doing transactions that are off-balance-sheet in terms of the regulator. He said that that means there would be a constant update of regulatory oversight and he was right. That is one of the problems we have seen internationally. It allowed a lot of those large financial institutions to engage in transactions that were outside the regulatory package that related to their equity requirements and therefore they were able to embark upon very risky transactions while pretending that they were low-risk institutions. 
The second part of Hyman Minsky’s theory which I think is also sound is that financial enterprises ought to be of a size that reflects the size of the actors in the economy. He said that we ought not to be reliant on one two three four or five large institutions to an undue extent; we ought to have a healthy competitive array of financial institutions and they need to be in the bank and the non-bank sector. One problem this guarantee scheme causes is that some of the non-bank scheme is hampered. One of the reasons this ought to in my view have had a little bit more scrutiny is that although the regulatory impact statement says that one of the problems has been to encourage more risk-taking investment—because it has encouraged people to think that investing in finance companies is low risk because of the presence of the Government guarantee—we have not had information as to what the deleterious effect has been on other parts of the non-bank sector. I know that many hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions; I do not have the information and I cannot get it because there is no select committee process—worth of funds have fled from other parts of the non-bank sector that are not covered by the guarantee scheme. Rather than encouraging the spread of financial institutions and the growth of a range of financial institutions including in the non-bank sector the guarantee scheme has the effect of concentrating the size and the market advantage of our existing major participants and that is not good. 
I think that is a real issue for New Zealand for the future. It is an issue not just related to the current account deficit but also to the control of the economy economic sovereignty and the proper functioning and efficiency of credit markets. We need more smaller institutions. Having said that the Labour Party supports this legislation as being necessary. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We think that it is essential to maintain long-term stability in the financial sector. 
The only reason we are here today is because of the global financial crisis. The only reason we have to deal with this bill is because the “masters of the universe” as they like to call themselves just collapsed the global economy. The reason taxpayers have to underwrite the banking sector both in wholesale and retail and the reason taxpayers have to underwrite the global financial system is that the people who were running it collapsed it through mismanagement poor management and genuine greed. They collapsed the global financial system and hence collapsed the global economy. 
In New Zealand we have a particular problem. Our problem is not the same as the problems that are found elsewhere in the world. Fundamentally our problems revolve around the distortions that are present in the tax system and in the economic system that encourage investment in property rather than in the productive sector. That is the fundamental problem we have; it is quite different to some of the problems elsewhere in the world. New Zealand has a very specific problem. 
Some of the evidence we received during the bank inquiry underlined that problem. I want to point to a few statistics around it. Over the last 9 months—during 2009—the banks have loaned another $3 billion into the housing market which takes it up to around $165 billion. At the same time lending by banks to businesses slumped by about $3 billion. Over the last 9 months of this year lending into the housing market increased by $3 billion while lending to businesses decreased by $3 billion. To me this epitomises the problem that we have. We have a banking system that is accustomed to and is entirely comfortable with loaning into the housing market. It is what it does well. But we do not have a banking and financial sector that is good at supporting New Zealand businesses. It is not as easy to loan to a productive enterprise working in the tradable sector as it is to loan on housing. The banks do not do it. In fact over the course of the last 9 months of this year they have taken $3 billion out of New Zealand businesses and loaned another $3 billion into the housing sector. 
The incentives around the financial system are wrong: we are incentivising investment into the non-productive part of our economy. The cost of that is enormous. The social cost is enormous. Housing is tremendously expensive in our country and it is now very difficult for people to get into the housing market. Housing consumes a vast amount of people’s income: they have to pay their mortgages and their rent. We have set up incentives that are not good for the New Zealand tradable sector or the New Zealand productive sector and that at the same time inflate the housing market. 
If we look at what those incentives are we see that the incentives around the tax system in particular encourage investment in property. The reason is that by investing in property one can offset the losses on those investment properties against one’s taxable income. One of the most commonly used mechanisms to do that is the loss attributing qualifying company. Losses on loss attributing qualifying companies increased from $750 million in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008. We have set up a system that is encouraging people to invest in investment properties and use the losses on those investment properties quite lawfully to effectively offset their income tax so the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab. People are doing it and banks are loaning into the housing market. We have a tax system that encourages the banks to loan money to people so that they can buy investment properties. They can then offset the losses on those investment properties against their tax. We have established a stupid incentive scheme. It is bad for the New Zealand productive sector. It is bad for the New Zealand tradable sector. In the long run it is extremely dangerous to the New Zealand financial system to lock up billions and billions of dollars into an overinflated housing market. We have set up a bad system. 
If we want in the long run to guarantee the stability of the financial sector which this bill is ostensibly designed to do and if we are serious about doing that we need to address those underlying incentives. The Greens have been criticised because we want to change the tax incentives around housing and investment property but I ask what the alternatives are. We currently have a series of incentives that encourage speculation in housing. We should change those incentives. We know what is involved. We know that we can introduce a capital gains tax excluding the family home. We know that we can ring-fence the losses on investment properties. These policy measures are available to the Government if it has the courage to do what is in the long-term interests of New Zealand—what the Government knows is in the long-term interests of New Zealand. It is worried about short-term political risk because it has a short-term approach I guess. But one has to look at the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy. We cannot continue to throw all of our money into housing while businesses are starved of the money they need to make investments to support productive enterprise in our country. 
The tradable sector is under pressure constantly because the Reserve Bank tries to control inflation by increasing interest rates. The Reserve Bank should be cutting the official cash rate tomorrow. One of the concerns of the Reserve Bank—and why it may not cut the official cash rate—is what will happen to the housing market. If interest rates are low then the housing market will start to bubble again and it knows that is a problem for inflation. Why do we not have additional tools to target the housing market so the Reserve Bank can cut the official cash rate make capital available to businesses and at the same time target the asset bubble in housing so that more inflation does not come out of the housing market? 
We can adopt those tools; this Parliament can adopt those tools. It would be good for New Zealand businesses. It would be good for New Zealand households in the long run to have stable housing prices. We just have to have the courage to say to people that we know they have made legal investments in investment properties and we totally understand why they did it but the long-term interests of our country means we have to make the decision to ring-fence those losses and move away from that system we set up. It is in our children’s interests so that they can have affordable housing. It is in the interests of our children as well so that they do not inherit a massive overseas debt that is being used to fund speculation in the housing market. We are handing over to the next generation a net international investment position of negative 100 percent of GDP. That is what we are passing on to the next generation. We have the choice to change direction. We have dramatically increased the level of overseas debt in order to fund housing speculation. We have housing speculation because of the tax rules. We can change the tax rules. It is within the power of this Parliament to act in the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people and change the rules. 
I call particularly on Government members to embrace their responsibility. Over the course of however long their term of Government is they will never be in a more popular stronger position than they are now. We can all read the polls. The Government is in a very popular strong position. Government members should use that popularity and strength to do what they know is the right thing for the New Zealand economy. Even though they know some political risk is associated with it in the long run they know it is the right thing to do. We all know it is the right thing to do. We cannot continue to borrow to pay the interest on previous borrowings. That is the route to destitution. A country that continues to borrow to pay the interest on previous borrowings is destined to have an economic crisis. We all know that. The Minister of Finance says it every day. We have the opportunity in this House to make the changes that we all know need to be made. I call on the Government to do the responsible thing and make the changes. 
Touching very briefly on affecting reserve ratios it is true as Mr Foss says that in some ways it is an old-fashioned idea but we have a specific problem. We need to look at reserve ratios particularly loaning into the housing market. If it is a way to try to constrain the flood of foreign capital that is being channelled by the banks into the housing market I think we should consider it. We have a major problem. We should not put things off the table just because they have been done before and are associated with a former National Prime Minister. We should consider all options because we now have a major problem. In order to protect our sovereignty housing affordability for future New Zealanders and the productive sector of the New Zealand economy we need to look at all of these measures in order to control that housing asset inflation so that we can get on and assist the tradable and productive sectors. This bill is part of that and we will support it but we need to go beyond the bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I start by addressing some of the issues raised by the Opposition about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Opposition members talked about the growth in the finance company sector as a result of the guarantee that was introduced last year. They said deposits into the finance company sector had been declining but following the introduction of the Government guarantee last year those deposits had taken a turn and were now going upwards. 
The first point is that we need to acknowledge that it is good to have a very strong secondary market beyond the banks in the non-banking sector and to use the words of the Minister of Finance to have someone to fund the diggers and the trucks. I ask Opposition members why they would not expect deposits to grow. Of course we would expect them to grow. Since the guarantee was put in place 12 months ago for a 2-year term anyone lending to a finance company was basically lending to the Government. People were lending to the Government for a period of up to 2 years; as long as their deposit did not go beyond I think 14 October 2010 they were lending to the Government. 
The guarantee that was put in place did not actually cost most finance companies anything because the guarantee was priced on a figure that was based on a margin over a company’s loan book at the date plus a 15 percent margin. If a finance company owed its depositors and equity holders $100 million and had invested $100 million it was able to get the benefit of a Government guarantee for free as long as its loan book did not exceed $115 million—so the base loan at the date the guarantee was introduced plus a 15 percent margin. 
I thought that the Hon Lianne Dalziel gave a very interesting commentary on this bill and I accept her concern that it was introduced at a very late stage. The Labour Opposition has a genuine reason for expressing disappointment that it was not given copies of the bill earlier. But Lianne Dalziel talked about privatising the gains and socialising the losses. It was the guarantee put in place by the previous Labour Government that privatised the gains and socialised the losses because although there was a need for a guarantee and although it was put in place because of international circumstances it could have been priced entirely differently from how it has been. It would have been quite possible to put a pricing structure in place that had the finance companies paying for the benefit of what they got. In essence the previous Labour Government gave a free gift to the owners of those finance companies. It was the Labour Government that ensured the gains were privatised. 
I say that because within a day of the guarantee being put in place on that Sunday on the Monday I had emails inviting me to invest in various institutions. I was told the investments would meet the requirements of the Government guarantee and I could invest in a particular institution and earn an interest rate of 7 8 or 9 percent—and many people did. The finance companies were flooded with money and that is why we had a growth in deposits. Those companies would have moved to drop their interest rates had they needed to pay the full price of the Government guarantee. So of course there were distortions and those distortions were generated because of the structure that was put in place. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So were you against our guarantee? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No I am not against the Government guarantee I say to Mr Cosgrove. What I am concerned about is the way that it was priced. If there was any reason to privatise the gains and socialise the losses it arose from the way that the previous Labour Government priced the guarantee. 
Let me move on. The Hon Lianne Dalziel made the very good point that a lot of investors have absolutely no idea of the risks they are taking. I want to come back to an issue that I raised in this House last night and to talk about one particular finance company. That company is Strategic Finance. That company went into a moratorium. It had its bondholders its note holders and its debenture-holders vote for a moratorium on 22 December 3 days before Christmas last year. The company owes roughly $400 million to its debenture-holders and its creditors. On 15 July this year Strategic Finance announced that it anticipated making a loss of $98 million and that was reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. But the report went on to say that the loss might be bigger than that as the company was still discussing its accounts and was yet to finalise them with its auditors. Strategic Finance stated rather surprisingly: “It is the Board’s assessment that the provisional full year results have no impact on the forecast repayment of 100 cents in the dollar of principal and all interest to depositors debentureholders or the prior ranking BOS International (Australia) facility.” It announced what amounted to a loss of a quarter of its loan book but it said that would have no impact. 
Ten days ago Strategic Finance said the accounts were out the auditors had signed the accounts and it now looked as though the loss was $180 million. That is double the earlier anticipated loss. The company owned up to its investors and said it will not be able to pay out 100 percent of their invested funds to them. It said it looks as though the amount will be from 85 percent to 93 percent. If ever there was an example of investors slowly being let down then this was it. On 22 December voting for a moratorium was held where investors were promised that the base-case projection was that there would be full repayment of principal and interest. In July of this year they lost a quarter of their investment and by the end of August they had lost half of it. 
But the situation is worse than that. There is at least one transaction—there may be more but I have been advised of one—where the money lent by Strategic Finance on a second mortgage was in two tiers. There was a priority second mortgage and then the regular second mortgage. Part of that advance has been lent from funds raised from a privileged group of people who have prior rights to repayment of their money over other contributors to that second mortgage. That group of people also have prior rights to payment of their interest so they have priority as to security and interest. I understand that some of the people who contributed to the top part of that second mortgage were still being paid an interest rate of 17 percent up until quite recently. 
The tragedy of it is that the mums and dads the people who do not comprehend the risk they are taking the people whom Lianne Dalziel referred to when she said that such investors had absolutely no idea of the risk they were taking—all those people—rank in the bottom half of that second mortgage. Essentially it is a third mortgage. The first mortgage is to the Bank of Scotland International as the moratorium refers to; the second mortgage is to a priority group of people; and the rest is to the mums and dads who will get what is left. When markets move down and a company says property values are dropping I ask who misses out? It is always the people at the bottom. 
I am very concerned that regular mums and dads the investors in Strategic Finance will get far less than 85c in the dollar. I say this because the trustee of Strategic Finance Perpetual Trust Ltd is now in the gun. It has to make a decision as to whether it moves to put Strategic Finance in receivership. If it chooses to continue with the moratorium I believe that matter needs to go to a court. I believe Parliament needs to pass legislation to provide that a company cannot simply go for a roll over of its moratorium. There has to be accountability. Independent experts have to take a closer look at the projections because surprisingly in the year to June 2008 Strategic Finance paid a dividend to its shareholders yet 13 months later it said it had lost $200 million. Clearly had those losses been known at the time no dividend would have been paid. 
This area concerns me a great deal because different classes of creditors voted on that moratorium proposal. People with priority rights would clearly have voted for a moratorium because they would have voted to protect their own interests. I come back to the point that regular mum and dad investors—many thousands of them lost their life savings—in many cases did not understand the true risk that they were taking. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to take a call in the third reading debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I have sat in this House and listened to the entire debate on this bill. It has been very interesting and there have been some very worthwhile contributions from all sides of the House. It certainly is good to see support from across the House on this bill. 
Obviously in effect we are continuing the scheme that was put in place by the previous Labour Government in October last year while Parliament was dissolved for the election period. At that time the scheme put in place was to expire in October next year but it is now very apparent that a longer-term transition is needed so now we see primary legislation before the House to put in place a new scheme. But the reality is that it is very much akin to continuing the existing position whereby retail deposits and bank and non-bank lenders can be guaranteed by the Crown. 
In the debate there has been a very wide range of contributions and some very big-picture analysis of the economy risk the banking sector what went wrong who is to blame and where we should go from here. All these things have their place but I am taking a short call to go back to the fundamental operation of the bill. Really it is about investor confidence and the stability of our sector. I think it is worth reiterating the point that my friend Mr Foss made so well in his speech when he said the bill is not about guaranteeing the banks or ensuring that they do not lose money. It is about ensuring mum and dad investors those people who have put money into the banks can have confidence that their money will be there when they come to get it. 
That confidence is important. It is important not only to look after the hard-earned money they have worked hard to save but also to ensure that liquidity stays in our system because those same deposits are then turned around and lent out to businesses and homeowners. Dr Norman talked about the difficulty for businesses in borrowing money. I am sure that is right particularly at the moment. But if we do not have deposits the banks will not lend. It is a pretty simple equation. That is why this system is so important. 
In this bill we have a system that ensures that any or all debt securities as defined in the Securities Act in an eligible entity can be guaranteed by the Crown. But—and it is an important “but”—that is only if the Minister believes it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to do so. I make that point and I made it during an earlier contribution because even if the eligibility criteria are met it is still up to the Minister’s discretion to determine whether granting any particular guarantee is in the public interest. That is the overriding test here. It is not about what the institutions want and not about whether they want to be able to put it on their website; it is about whether it is in the public interest for that particular entity to be guaranteed and for those particular debt securities to be guaranteed. 
We have a system that has a number of safeguards in place. It really makes it clear that the principle consideration in this entire system is the public interest. As I said the public interest is about protecting the funds of the mum and dad investors but also about the stability of our system. That stability has been more important in the last 12 months than ever before. If ever we have had to wonder about the stability of our banking system now we know first that we have a fairly good system compared with the rest of the world and second that that is crucial. It is crucial to New Zealand’s ability to weather the worst of the storm and to come out of it I will not say “untouched” because certainly a lot of people have been hurt terribly in this recession but in a considerably better position than we might otherwise have been. The bill is a good bill. I commend it to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I like a previous speaker Amy Adams have spent a fair amount of time listening to the debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. It is correct to say that the Opposition is supporting the bill. The previous Labour Government brought in the initial guarantee scheme in October 2008. High priority has to be given to the security of investments and to the stability of financial institutions within an economy. That is a bedrock principle. The Opposition though in supporting the legislation has raised a number of questions. If we look at the history of the initial guarantee scheme which the previous speaker said rightly was put in place on the eve of the last election we see that the overseas funding—the wholesale area of banking—was provided with a guarantee. Without legislation or regulation the then Labour Government negotiated with the banks to ensure that those guarantees extended to the retail sector and to mum and dad Kiwis. There is always a lot of criticism over regulation and legislation. Ironically this was an instance where negotiation occurred in extremely turbulent and volatile times and on the eve of an election. The banks after discussion and agreement actively participated in that retail space and mum and dad investors had their deposits guaranteed. 
The argument that we make here is about the question of what would have happened if the banks had not agreed to participate in that retail space. Who knows? I suspect as we have said in this debate that it would have been unacceptable—and it should be unacceptable today—that banks are given a cast-iron Government guarantee without the Government requiring a reasonable price. By that I mean that banks participate in the retail end of the market. The Government has guaranteed quite properly for overseas interests and overseas financial markets that provide equity and funding to our banking institutions that if the bank goes belly up then those international funds are guaranteed. Why is that? As I have said those guarantees are necessary in times such as we live in now to ensure that the money—if you like the lifeblood—flows through the veins of the financial institutions in respect of liquidity. 
What is missing therefore is a price for that Government commitment. I disagree with Mr Gilmore when he says this scheme will not benefit the shareholders of the banks. For goodness’ sake as a man who purports to be the resident genius of this Parliament in the commercial and in every other non-academic and academic area does he not realise—[ 
Interruption 
] Suddenly the National members are awake. Does Mr Gilmore not realise that any time a Government— 
Amy Adams 
: It’s very hard to stay awake. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: National members chirp away when it comes to giving a wee bit of stick but they do not chirp away when it comes to guaranteeing and supporting the average mum and dad Kiwi investor. 
Amy Adams 
: That’s what this bill is doing. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh no! Bill English as the Minister in the chair sat there silent as if he were dead. He might be dead politically after today’s headline let me put it that way. 
National members are very chirpy when it comes to having a bit of a dig but when it comes to actually supporting mum and dad investors there is a deathly silence. Any time a Government gives a guarantee to a business or financial institution that is a huge point of differentiation from any other participant in the market. If I am an investor and a bank has a cast-iron guarantee of the Crown behind it of course I will invest in it before anything else. I could not lose could I? Why would I not invest in a bank that has a Government guarantee? I would be in a no-lose situation. Mr Gilmore should whip back to Canterbury University and to the remedial class for the MBA programme in the economics department dust off the textbooks and have another go. 
The problem in this debate is that the National members have reverted to type. They have backed the big end of town but when it comes to mum and dad investors they have not required a high price from the banks which is that they participate in the retail end of the market. We managed to do that not through legislation regulation red tape or bureaucracy but through partnership and negotiation. We put it on the banks. If they had not participated in the retail end of the market we may have had to look at other more formal mechanisms. But we got their agreement to do it and as a result mum and dad Kiwi investors had their deposits guaranteed. International financial agencies—lenders to our banks—had their investment guaranteed and like our Australian cousins we averted massive volatility instability and lack of confidence in our financial sector. 
Then we come to the progression of this scheme. As I say we support the bill but we raised yesterday and we raise again today the question of why the Government would not go to the banks and even attempt to negotiate their agreement to participate in the retail end of the market. What is the cost? The Government would not even get the banks in a room as we did and say that if it was going to put the taxpayers’ money on the line to back them they had to come to the party and back their deposit holders the mum and dad Kiwi investors. The Government could not be bothered. 
I raise that issue again because no one wishes for volatility and instability that could tip over a financial entity as we have seen in the past and put mum and dad Kiwi investments at risk. Nobody would wish that; nobody wants that. I accept that that is not the intent of the Government or of this side of the House. But the problem still exists. Why does the Government give the big end of town a gilt-edged guarantee and not give the small end of town—perhaps some of the young folks who are in our schools and who deposit money every day or every week through their school account—a guarantee at the retail end of the market? I say again to Mr Gilmore that any financial entity that has a Government guarantee—[ 
Interruption 
] The voice has gone up an octave. Any agency that gets a financial guarantee has a differentiation point in the market. An investor cannot lose so will back that agency. The share price will go up as a result. That is the point. 
I also make the point to the Government members that in respect of the eligibility criteria the Minister as we know has the authority to determine eligibility. The height bar for that eligibility is centred round the BB credit rating. Again I say to Mr Gilmore who takes this view that in order—[ 
Interruption 
] The voice has gone up an octave again; I am not sure which member it is. For smaller financial organisations achieving a BB rating is not a matter of simply paying the money and filling out the form. These agencies’ own financial and professional reputations are on the line so they do not give out credit ratings just because financial organisations pay their fee. I am sure that the member being the learned expert he is—far more so than me—will give us a dissertation on the intricate aspects of gaining a high BB credit rating. But putting the detail aside we know that there is a cost. That cost can be marginalised if you will by a large financial institution but a substantial cost is visited upon a small financial institution. There are huge responsibilities which is as it should be involved in gaining that credit rating. If smaller financial institutions cannot gain that rating then the question is whether there will be flight in terms of investment. No one would wish this to occur but it is worth posing the question of whether there would be flight in terms of investment from those smaller institutions which would therefore create instability and the situation where they could fall over and where mum and dad Kiwi investors’ money would be in jeopardy. 
Members on this side of the House support the bill but we also put on record that we are concerned about the small end of town. Government members are concerned about the big end of town and that is all they are concerned about. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I acknowledge the earlier speakers who have contributed to this debate. A number of issues have been raised and a number of questions have been asked. I acknowledge those who have made a contribution. 
Rather than talking about the wider issues of the financial industry we are talking today about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. As many members stated earlier the scheme was put together last October with a degree of haste by the previous Government in its waning days. It was one of its last acts— 
Amy Adams 
: 8½ years wasn’t it of waning? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —yes—in Government. We stand to support the scheme. The scheme is about giving confidence certainty and stability to an important industry in New Zealand. 
I will touch on the views held by members opposite about the role of Australian banks in this country. From the diatribe that has come from some members across the Chamber it would seem that Australian banks are big nasty evil institutions but they are not. I put it to members that without the investment in this country from the four Australian banks our economy and our businesses would not be as well funded as they are today. We have a long way to go in terms of funding and access to capital but to paint the large Australian banks as evil institutions is I think a little bit rich coming from members across the Chamber. It is about our accessing capital in this day and age—the electronic age the Internet age—when we can access capital from around the world. 
One speaker referred to 80 percent of the flow of funds coming from Australia. Yes it would be positive if that flow of funds was diversified around the world but it is not and that is the situation we find ourselves in. Our economy is inextricably linked with the Australian economy. We heard a number of points raised about the way that we align ourselves with Australia and the way that we harmonise not just our financial industry but also a number of industries across our country with those of our Australian brothers and sisters. It is a positive to work with our Australian counterparts and a ministerial delegation went across the Ditch in the last couple of weeks. 
Another point that was raised by my colleagues across the Chamber was distortions. Yes there are distortions from this scheme being in place. There will always be distortions where there is any form of Government intervention in an industry. But to say that larger institutions gain the most benefit from this particular scheme because they have better credit ratings is to misunderstand the nature of credit ratings. The only financial institution that holds a triple A credit rating is not a US institution; it is a Dutch institution called Rabobank. Rabobank as many members will know is not the largest bank in the world. In fact it is not even the largest bank in the Netherlands where it is based. It is a bank that has a quality book and that is what determines ultimately the credit rating it receives. Size and scale have nothing to do with the nature of one’s credit rating. 
It is about jobs growth and exports and Labour members have to admit that exports have declined year on year for the last 5 years. I do not know how those members can complain about some of the moves that this Government is putting in place. It is about jobs it is about growth and it is about exports and the scheme will go a long way to alleviating some of those problems. 
Finally the bill provides a transition away from the scheme. By December 2011 the scheme will expire. It is our hope and it is certainly the hope of many across this country that the economic recession will have subsided by that time. It is our hope that this type of scheme will not be required and that the banks and the financial institutions will be able to go out into the markets raise capital and offer capital for our businesses to grow and expand. 
In brief I support the bill. I think it has much credibility in terms of bringing stability and confidence and the right amount of investment in our financial institutions. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to express some concern about the quality of the debate and I do so reluctantly having listened to the contribution from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga the honourable member and councillor who has just resumed his seat. The reason I am a little concerned about the quality of the debate is the way that this Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill is being dealt with. It is being dealt with under urgency and I believe that bills such as this one should not be dealt with as a matter of course under urgency. There is a serious issue about legislation not having the quality of scrutiny that the public would expect in the circumstances. As my colleagues have said repeatedly the Opposition is not in opposition to the bill as a matter of principle. The underlying desire to ensure financial stability at this time is obviously a desire that we support. But Treasury officials recommended that referring the bill to a select committee for 1 to 2 days would not be a problem and they said that it would enhance what they considered to be a flaw in their consultation process because they were not able to have the degree of consultation that they would expect. 
I will say why referring the bill to a select committee for 1 or 2 days would not have made any difference. One reason is that it would not have held the bill up for a time of any great moment and we still would have had the legislation in place 1 year before the expiry of the current guarantee scheme. We could have still met the timetable that the Government has set for the implementation of this legislation so it was not an argument about the amount of time the bill would have spent before a select committee. Nobody on this side of the House suggested that it should go there for the normal 6 months. 
The advantage of sending it to a select committee is that members of the committee get to test assumptions. All of the decisions that the Government is making in this respect are based on assumptions that have been proposed by officials from both the Reserve Bank and Treasury and it would be really helpful to the Opposition for us to be able to test those assumptions to push back on some of them and to have some serious debate about these serious financial issues. 
The second reason is that we can work through the analysis that lies behind the advice. How are our assumptions formed? They are based on analysis that has been undertaken. I have some issues with some of the analysis that we have been presented with in the regulatory impact statement but I will come to those in a minute. 
The third reason why select committee processes are important even if they are truncated is that we can get answers about the balance between what the regulatory impact statement itself says was a line call between the status quo and the extension of the scheme especially when the banks do not favour the extension according to the regulatory impact statement. These are serious matters and they are reasons why with a short period of reference to a select committee we could have dealt with this bill through its remaining stages next week also under urgency and there would have been less opposition from the Opposition to the process. As I say we are generally on board with the underlying principles. 
This brings me to the regulatory impact statement. I do not recall seeing such an extensive regulatory impact statement. Of course those who know me will know that I tend to bang on about the quality of regulatory impact statements. Since we have had a Minister for Regulatory Reform the quality has actually gone down but this regulatory impact statement stands out. It is the best regulatory impact statement I have ever seen but it is not written in the bill. It is not included in the bill. All they did was put the executive summary in the bill and then publish the regulatory impact statement on the Treasury website. So of course I downloaded that over the dinner break yesterday— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Of course you did! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Of course I did because I like doing things like reading regulatory impact statements. 
But the thing that really upsets me is that the regulatory impact statement shows all of the reasons why we should have had a select committee process to work through all of the issues that it raises and I want to go through those. I know that the Minister in whose name this bill sits the Hon Bill English is very famous for using the phrase “The devil is in the detail.” I have found by going through the regulatory impact statement that the devil is indeed in the detail some of which has not yet been determined. I wonder whether this is in fact going to be the last bill we see from the Hon Bill English before he resigns his portfolio which I suspect will be very very soon. 
The regulatory impact statement raises the following issues: first of all on page 4 we get the reason why the decision needs to be made now. The reason the decision needs to be made now is to “Provide greater certainty to investors and enable them to make sensible reinvestment decisions.” When does the application have to be lodged by? It has to be lodged by 12 October next year so the whole idea that this has suddenly got to be done a year out does not make sense when entities get a whole year to apply. It simply does not make sense. When we look further on in the report we see something very interesting: most large entities already have credit ratings so I would say that those that want to opt in are going to opt in relatively quickly. Entities in the process of getting a credit rating will not have certainty until they have received their rating since the credit rating of BB or above is a requirement to be eligible for the extended deposit guarantee scheme. Under the new prudential requirements for non-bank deposit-taking institutions credit ratings are required by 1 March 2010 for entities with liabilities greater than $20 million dollars. 
Why not link the application to the close-off date for the non-bank deposit takers’ credit rating requirements of the new prudential supervision arrangements? I do not understand why that is the case. That is why reference to a select committee would have enabled these questions to be asked and answered. So to say that the depositors will have the assurance they need is just nonsense because we know that the assurance is in relation to the finance companies. Entities in the finance company sector do not get to do this until they have got the BB rating. The ones that are in the scheme at the moment do not all have BB ratings therefore there is a period of time of uncertainty that does not link to this urgency we are seeing here today. 
The second point that the regulatory impact statement raises is the question of economic distortion. The point is raised in paragraph 26 on page 5 of the report and I think that it really does identify the line call that the officials made when they made the recommendation to the Government: “Allowing the DGS to lapse”—which is on October 2010 obviously—“avoids the additional period of economic distortion.” We have all agreed that economic distortion happens when we have a retail deposit guarantee scheme. “Moreover the DGS ceasing in October 2010 would avoid the possibility of firms using the longer DGS period to imprudently grow their retail deposit books increasing the Crown’s exposure.” Actually that is what this is about. It is about the Crown’s exposure to the risk of failure and the view that this would all collapse around the October 2010 deadline. We do get it. 
I guess that the real motive for the change is certainly spelt out on page 8: “If the DGS ceasing in October 2010 resulted in concentration of defaults in the lead up to the end of the guarantee period then that could also lead to assets being realized over a short period depressing asset prices and reducing recovery rates and so increasing the net costs to the Crown of the default event.” That is perfectly obvious in the discussion documents but we have not had this debate in the House. We have not had the opportunity to get that exchange happening that we would have had at a select committee hearing which is my point. 
The final element contained within the report is the option beyond the status quo which is essentially to extend the deposit guarantee scheme under tighter terms. That is what the Government has been trying to say but not saying very well. It is about easing the process out of the market so that we can return to a period where the entire sector is operating in a guarantee-free environment. We do get that but I think it is really important for the House to remember that when we are dealing with issues of such substance we really ought to have officials in front of the members of a committee so that there can be that exchange. 
On that note and as many of my colleagues have said I say we are supporting the passage of the bill. Other considerations could have been taken up in the way the scheme is being developed but I would like to hope that because this is framework legislation and the detail is still to be worked out the Government will extend the cooperation we have extended both ways on a lot of finance company issues to engage with us on some of the detail about how the scheme might progress into the future. I will certainly be pleased to see the bill pass its final stage. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 That was Lianne Dalziel the previous Minister of Commerce in the Labour Government that oversaw a large number of finance companies lose I think about a billion dollars during the time of her reign. But I think I heard more validity and understanding of the finance sector regulations in that last speech than I did in her speeches in her entire time as Minister of Commerce. Some very good points were raised by the previous Minister of Commerce in that last speech. 
I will raise a couple of issues including why this legislation is going through under urgency. It is pretty simple: the financial sector is unbelievably sensitive to information about changing a regulation. The financial sector is one where people have a good understanding of what goes on and when we look at what has occurred we see that even Treasury—in its great regulatory impact statement that Lianne Dalziel the member over there was speaking about—talked about the need for urgency for this legislation. The finance sector needs certainty and surety in relation to this legislation being passed. Even the regulatory impact statement goes into some detail about the need for urgency. The previous scheme which this scheme is replacing was implemented urgently without any select committee process. Giving a number of days for a select committee process would only drag this legislative process out and remove the certainty the finance sector needs for such legislation. 
I will touch a little on credit ratings. There have been a number of statements about credit ratings and a bit of misunderstanding about what a credit rating is: what is in what is out and how people get one. I suffered here from statements from a member on the other side of the House who criticised my understanding of credit ratings. I will say two things. The first is that on 1 March 2010 all non-bank deposit lenders with assets of over $20 million will be required to have a credit rating—all of them. That is existing law. Secondly the reality is that yes for about $100000 anybody can get a credit rating. Apart from that people do not know what credit rating they might get until they go through a process. 
Amy Adams 
: Like a box of chocolates. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Like a box of chocolates. When one goes through the process one might get A AAA B BBB or C but one does not know until one goes through the process. There are very well defined guidelines and rules about what credit ratings are given to what entities given their financial strength. That is well-known public information: to get the grade one has to go through a process that will cost about $100000. 
We also heard an outcry from the other side of the House about why we need to guarantee the banks. We believe that this regulation is needed to lubricate the wheels of industry. Lubricating the wheels of industry is very important. We heard from the Greens earlier today. Those members do not want to lubricate the wheels. They want to put a grinding halt on them and throw some sand in the wheels of industry. They want to control everything under the sun. What that says is that we would have no lending at all. I would look forward to that situation under that member’s control. I do not think many members on this side of the House would want to be in New Zealand. 
We also heard about the lack of consultation on this bill. Again the grand regulatory impact statement stated that the Reserve Bank and Treasury have had large amounts of consultation with many players in the industry: finance companies banks and everyone else in between. I think it is remiss to ignore that consultation. 
I want to talk about one more aspect and that is the issue of the fees. That is linked to the issue of the credit rating. Obviously the fee scheme we have here is risk-based. If one is riskier to the taxpayer the users will pay more. 
The final aspect that I want to touch on is the aspect around whom this guarantee covers. It does not cover the banks and it does not cover the finance companies; it covers the people who give their money to the banks and to the finance sector. I think that is a good thing. 
As the final National member to speak on this bill I think I have outlined that there are a number of good aspects to it. Hopefully it will be passed and will give confidence to the finance sector. I think that is a good thing for New Zealand. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill in its third reading. It appears that there will be two things that will expire in October 2011—the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme and by the look of things the National Government. Bring that on! As has been previously alluded to the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme was urgently put into place by the Labour Government for a number of social and financial reasons. The main financial reason however was to create a level of global confidence in the New Zealand banking sector through the provision of Crown guarantees thereby allowing the level of liquidity required to allow New Zealand - domiciled banks to operate. Put more simply the scheme allowed our banks to continue to borrow money when there was a risk that they could not. That risk was not good. Australia had instigated a similar scheme just the day before I believe and if New Zealand - domiciled banks were to be able to gain access to a very tight pool of global funds the scheme was imperative. 
Members will remember at the time—a year ago—global financial institutions and household names like Lehman Brothers Bear Stearns Bank of America Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had either failed or were in the process of failing. They were huge institutions with enough leverage to cause the type of credit crunch that the world was beginning to experience. At this point we were not sure what depositors in New Zealand would do. Would they do what they had previously done to the finance companies—namely start a run on deposits caused by a crisis of confidence leading to a sector-wide collapse and near extinction? The scheme came into effect on 13 October 2008 and was to last for 2 years. Hence the reason we are in this House today debating the passage of this bill. 
As I mentioned and many of the Labour speakers have mentioned it I have some concerns over the urgency nature of this bill because I believe it favours the rule of money over the right of the people to have their say through the select committee process which is a fundamental principle of our democracy. Of course the dire and urgent circumstances under which the first Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme was implemented are markedly different from the state of the current global financial sector today. The reason the original scheme did not have its own legislation is simply that the House had been dissolved in the countdown to the general election and therefore technically there was no ability to take this through the legislative route but most important in October 2008 the world’s financial system was in meltdown and decisive action was required. That is why it was done in 24 hours and implementation was immediate. 
The times have changed. If nothing else we now know the state of the global economic situation and this knowledge has allowed Governments around the world to put in place packages that have alleviated the worst of the effects of the global meltdown. That knowledge has allowed prudent banks including those operating in the New Zealand market to rethink their fundamental philosophies around the pricing of risk and the management of growth. That has allowed them to develop strategies that are in line with the state of the market as we now know it. Actually we are now at the point where the large banks are currently analysing the cost versus the benefit of their participation in the retail deposit guarantee scheme. There is a price for participation. For example a bank with $20 billion in retail deposits would pay around $15 million in fees per annum. That is more than the Government has cut from adult and community education in the Budget which means that for example in Napier no high school will be running night classes in 2010. So the 6000 students who took those classes in Hawke’s Bay will not have the opportunity to upskill socialise or improve themselves personally or professionally. Our people in our communities are the worse for it. But that is another story. 
The reason that I bring up the change in circumstances is that this bill need not have been forced through under urgency. It could have had a very tight reporting-back time. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee assuming that the bill had come to that committee I would have been most interested in hearing submissions from all affected parties especially submissions for the major banks—except that the major banks are averse to presenting submissions. That is the irony of this bill. The major Australian banks have done very well out of this scheme as have the New Zealand economy and New Zealand depositors. Do not get me wrong; I understand the value to the New Zealand economy of the big Australian banks. But the irony of this bill is that the banks have taken advantage of the scheme but they have refused to appear before a banking inquiry to alleviate the fears and dispel the rumours about the current state of the banking industry and the way they are treating ordinary Kiwis in terms of the amount they are charging on short-term floating mortgage rates. I spoke to one of the bigwigs of one of these large banks and asked him why he did not just come along to the inquiry just to show and prove to Kiwis that in fact the banks are not ripping off ordinary New Zealanders to dispel that rumour and dispel that perception. He said: “Cobber you are probably right.” but it did not change the bank’s stance. 
Anyway as I was saying the true urgency has actually now disappeared from this scheme. It has another 13 months to run in its current form and therefore there is enough time to follow the proper course for passing legislation. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that he made a call due to the need for certainty. I accept the fact that financial markets operate optimally in an environment of certainty but I would contend that we could still have afforded certainty 13 months out. I also ask if this bill was important enough to rush through under urgency why it was not on the Order Paper 6 months ago when we were debating the secondhand-car dealer bill or other legislation that although important perhaps did not have the same national interest as this Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme does. After all this bill will protect over $120 billion in deposits currently held by the banking and non-banking sector. Did Gerry forget to put it on the Order Paper? 
That Minister of Finance coincidentally was also the Minister of Finance during the last crisis of the 20th century. Most economic commentators and historians have concluded that he handled that crisis pretty badly. Coincidentally he is still trying to implement 20th century stimulus packages when the rest of the world has left Friedman behind and started limiting economic measures to those targeted at people who need them—those on low and middle incomes—instead of a third of all tax cuts going to the top 3 percent of wage and salary earners. Do members know that if a person earns under $40000 that person receives nothing from the Government tax cuts? In Hawke’s Bay that is around 75 percent of the population who receive not a penny in tax cuts from Mr English and the National Government. Anyway I digress. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much did Labour give in 9 years? They put their tax up for 9 years. 
STUART NASH 
: That is very interesting because I would say that the Labour Government was in fact the only Government in two generations that cut the corporate tax rate. And do you know what? Nick Smith voted against it. Nick Smith voted against a cut to the corporate tax rate. Goodness me! Anyway I digress. 
Along with all my colleagues I support the substance intention and philosophy of this bill but I reiterate my grave concern about the lack of any sort of transparent consultation with the wider community. In my view meetings with Treasury and the Reserve Bank do not constitute wide consultation with the affected participants that make up the bank sector and non-bank sector in all its many and varied permutations. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a third time. 
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 In accordance with agreement reached by the whips I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to be a 5-hour debate with members having an unlimited number of speeches of 5 minutes each and for the provisions of the bill to be put at the conclusion of the 5-hour debate as one question. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put the leave the notice in front of me states that it is a 4-hour debate. Has it changed to 5 hours? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would first like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered 840 submissions on this huge bill. The select committee did a good job on what is a very complex area of law and in a tight time frame. The House should acknowledge the huge number of submissions received and heard by the committee the long hours it worked and the considered way that it dealt with a number of very contentious issues. 
The bill was developed with the assistance of the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group led by practitioner Alan Dormer which I appointed last December. I thank that group for its hard yards I thank the expert panel that was appointed by the committee for its assistance and I thank the officials whose work on drafting the bill was done to a pretty challenging timetable. 
This Government was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and specifically on a programme to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act. Our focus has been on reducing the costs reducing the delays and reducing the uncertainties of the Act without compromising its underlying environmental integrity. This bill is about addressing the vexatious frivolous and anti-competitive objections that can add tens of thousands of dollars to the costs of ratepayers and consent applicants. This bill is about getting a single-step process in place to enable major infrastructure projects to get consent in a more timely way. We want to consign to history the notion that it takes longer to get a resource consent for a piece of infrastructure than it takes to actually build it. This bill is also about speeding up resource consent processing for smaller projects. I do not think there is a member of this House who would not know of a resource management horror story in his or her electorate. The Government wants to give council officials much more discretion when the effects of a resource consent are minor. We want to simplify the decision making but we also want to hold the councils to account for processing consents in a timely way. 
The bill is also about improving the separation of powers that operate within the Act. Politicians nationally and locally make rules and laws but it is for the courts and for independent commissioners to make decisions on individual consents. That is why under this bill applicants and objectors are being given the choice of having independent commissioners and it is why Ministers in future will not be able as we have seen occur in relation to restricted coastal activities to overrule decisions made by independent commissioners or the Environment Court. 
The bill also tackles the arcane bureaucracy of blanket tree protection rules whereby people have to apply for a resource consent to do none other than trim their own tree. The 5000 consents in this area cannot be justified. I am sure that in the Committee stage we will debate those provisions some more but I say that an underlying principle is that before a council restricts what homeowners can do with their own trees the council should consult them and go through a process of listing those trees or groups of trees in a district plan or schedule. 
The bill is also about improving the plan-making process because anyone who works in the area of the Resource Management Act knows that it is only as good as the quality of the local plans. The bill also strengthens compliance with the Resource Management Act by upping the penalties for those who breach the Act. It provides that the Crown can be prosecuted like anybody else and it provides for a wider range of enforcement measures. 
I want to note a number of the changes that were made by the Local Government and Environment Committee. First the committee has dropped the proposal in the original bill to do away with the non-complying activity class. It is my view that our Resource Management Act has too many activity classes and that adds to its complexity and that if we were to start afresh we probably would not have this class. However given that we are 18 years down the track with this Act the select committee had to weigh up the gains of removing that activity class compared with the costs that removing it would impose on the councils. I think the committee has fairly concluded that the provision is not worth its salt. 
The most challenging job for the committee was the issue of plan changes further submissions and appeals. The changes made by the committee reflect just how hard this area of law is. People want their say they want their cross-submission rights and they want their appeal rights but they all agree that the process is too cumbersome and slow. The bill contains some useful amendments which will improve things in this area but we will have to give this issue further consideration as we move into the Government’s second phase of reforms. 
I particularly commend the committee for its work on timely resource consent processing. After the bill was introduced I received and the committee studied the latest report of the Ministry for the Environment on resource consent processing. It shows that in 28 percent of cases consents are not processed on time and worryingly that does not even take into account the 31 percent of consents where the councils grant themselves extensions. What is of concern is that this situation has become worse with every single survey since 2000 and that there has been a ninefold increase—ninefold—in the number of times when councils grant themselves extensions. The select committee’s changes in requiring the councils to report on the processing of consents providing for a nationwide system of financial penalties and restricting the extension of consent processing times are in my view a very strong step forward. I am confident that these changes will result in the more efficient processing of consents. 
I also note the committee’s caution in respect of the changes to designations and notices of requirement and where the decision making lies. This is a complex area and in the second phase of reforms we need to take into account the select committee’s conclusions. 
I conclude by making two points. First the Resource Management Act is by nature a fraught area of law. We all believe we should be able to do whatever we like on our own property but if our neighbour wants to do anything we expect to have a say and to be consulted. This bill is about improving the balance by reducing the bureaucracy in some of the more arcane areas while maintaining the underlying environmental integrity of the Act. This bill will make a positive difference but it is only the first phase of the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act. We have 10 important work streams going on in water aquaculture infrastructure urban design further work on the Environmental Protection Authority and work on the interaction of the Resource Management Act with forestry with building with conservation and with the Historic Places Act. As well further work is being done on some generic issues that could not be advanced in the time frame required of this first reform bill. 
Again I thank all those involved in the hard yards of progressing the bill through to this point and I look forward to the more detailed debate in the Committee stage. I am pleased to commend the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. It is a rather unusual feeling I have. As a youngster in the late 1980s I was a member of the core group reporting to Sir Geoffrey Palmer that wrote the Resource Management Act along with Denise Church Kathryn Ashley-Jones and Joan Allen. That some 20-odd years later I have the privilege of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee to work on improvements to the legislation shows that I am growing older but hopefully wiser. 
Labour will support this bill but with some important reservations. Colleagues of mine will be addressing those reservations during the Committee stage which with flair and a bit of innovation will prove to be a very focused and I think entertaining debate. Firstly let me join with the Minister in acknowledging the work that was carried out by the officials. This is a complex area and select committees are really only as good as the quality of the advisers consultants etc. and the actual clerical staff of the committee. The committee was well served during that period. 
This bill deals with a number of very deep issues. The first issue is devolution. We have a system which this bill largely keeps intact of enabling New Zealand citizens through the agency of both regional and local government to influence plans policies and allocation decisions that are made in relation to the environment they live in. I think that spirit of fairness deeply rooted in the Kiwi personality means they should be allowed—and the law should sanction it—a whole host of rights to participate and indeed to go on and appeal those decisions. 
Against that right which is what led to some of the more creative debates in our committee there is the fear that 50000 statutory consents is quite excessive. It represents a cost and a burden upon ordinary citizens trying to do things with their property upon investors and indeed upon others who fear that some of the decisions that are being made are not in the best interests of either the community they live in or the environment. As a Parliament this is a debate for us. Have we got it right? Ought devolution remain the exclusive basis upon which our major resource management decisions are made or should they be moved to a level that some might argue is more efficient? We look forward to phase two. Yes this bill is a simplifying and streamlining initiative but the big business I rather suspect lies in phase two. I look forward along with my colleagues to receiving briefings from the Minister in that regard. 
Let us turn to some of the important innovations in this bill. The bill will create an Environmental Protection Authority. We do not know what it will fully do. We know that Gary Taylor has written a paper on the issue. I am not entirely sure whether that will provide the policy basis for the Minister’s new Environmental Protection Authority. We on this side of the House have not been briefed and we do not know the final functions of this authority. But there is an awareness that if it represents a more efficient way of dealing with large resource-intensive resource management decisions then that is not bad. The fear however lies in local communities feeling that their local directly elected representatives are either being circumvented or being completely written out of the script. That is the first thing I would like to point out. 
Secondly there was a fear and fortunately the select committee was able to address it that people were going to lose the ability to contest a statutory decision on the basis of merit. As you know Mr Deputy Speaker along with the rest of us a lot of these resource management decisions are not quantitative decisions alone. They are highly emotional and they are highly expensive and people are making decisions not just on what can be counted but on what can be felt. It was a pleasure to find that colleagues on the other side of the House along with ourselves agreed that New Zealanders ought to be able to contest environmental decisions not on the basis of black-letter law alone but on the basis of merit or dare I say it virtue. 
That was one of the key improvements in this bill. But that in itself is a reflection of how difficult it will be for any Government to buy into a corporatist approach of environmental management that does not allow local communities to continue to have their say. My colleagues from Auckland will be amplifying that message no doubt when we get to the children of Tane Mahuta dwindling in number in Tamaki-makau-rau as we speak. 
There are three elements that we did not agree with. The first is the role of the Minister of Conservation in the coastal environment. For us it is quite a simple issue. If I as an owner of property learn something is happening with my property I ought to be entitled to have a say yea or nay as to whether the proposed usage on such property should be tolerated. That will no longer happen. Once the Minister of Conservation as the putative owner on behalf of the nation of the coastal environment is written out of the script the Crown will be reduced to the role of rule maker or regulator not proxy owner for the nation. Not surprisingly as the people who are still working through the detritus of an earlier attempt to deal with the seabed and foreshore legislation we see a strong ongoing role for the Crown in that regard. We will have Supplementary Order Papers in that respect. 
The second point is notification. The only reason notification has loomed large is that it is the trigger that allows a neighbourhood either to learn or to participate in a decision that they rightly or wrongly believe will affect their quality of life. That is a fundamental tenet about where social democracy meets resource management. For those reasons we do not feel that the bill has the mix right. 
The third point and obviously I have already referred to it is the insistence by the current Government that while it is building a super-city for Auckland it will deny Aucklanders the ability to derive their own rules and regulations as to how they deal with that aspect of the local environment called trees. This is not just about the number of permits. This is a deep issue. It has resulted in the Government’s forcing its will on the neighbourhood the citizenry and the broader community of Auckland as to how they want to deal with trees. The Government through this bill is depriving the Auckland elected local government people and their advisers of the ability to do that. But more on such matters later on. 
As I have said Labour will be agreeing with this bill but the big unanswered questions lie in phase two. We are glad that certain things have been tossed over to phase two not the least of which is designations. Therein lies a great debate as to where social democracy ends and economic efficiency takes over. They are legitimate hotly contested issues and there is no better place to have these arguments than in this House. 
The number of submissions was extensive but unfortunately a number of them were driven by fear because the Government sought to compress far too much in the 100-day initial period of its reign. Had more time been taken and had a greater amount of resource been dedicated to the technical advisory group the committee that tidied up the bill possibly would not have been so busy. 
Just before I sit I say that we experimented with an innovation in our committee time. We secured access to four advisers. They looked at various drafts of the bill and I think both my colleagues on the other side of the House and dare I say even the Minister can see that because of the collective wisdom of these people Judge Skelton and others the bill is a better product is more user-friendly and will actually achieve some of the objectives that Kiwis want which is the ability to make decisions in the most efficient friendly manner to the environment and to their quality of life. Kia ora tatou. 
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. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said Labour is supporting the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill with three main reservations; I intend to focus my comments on one of those reservations clause 52. This debate should be dedicated to the Lorax Dr Seuss’s character who spoke for the trees. Someone has to speak for the trees in this debate because the National-ACT Government surely will not. The contributions from the other side of the House could be dedicated to Ronald Reagan the late President of the United States who once said “Once you’ve seen one tree you’ve seen them all.” and that is pretty much the philosophy demonstrated by the National Government on this issue. The first thing to say about this is that it is a heavy-handed intervention by the Government. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Where was your minority report on section 52? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This is very very interesting; I tell Miss Kaye that she will keep. This intervention by the Government is taking away tools from local government. This is the Government that says local decisions should be made by local communities. Is this not all a bit nanny State? As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said this morning in its editorial: “Rules governing the urban environment should be left for local councils to decide. The Government is grossly overstepping its responsibilities.” Labour believes that local authorities should be able to choose how they protect the trees in their communities. 
The Resource Management Act provides avenues for parties to alter plans to remove general tree protection rules if the community is unhappy with the status quo. The process of developing the district plan and the normal political processes of local government are designed to give citizens the political power they need to hold their representatives accountable and to determine the rules for how their community is developed. It is a fundamental principle of the Resource Management Act to provide for localised decision-making on local issues a principle that this Government often trots out in this House. But this clause is an unwarranted intervention and intrusion by central government by this National-ACT Government in the affairs of local communities. 
What is next? Will the Government write district plans for councils? Is that what is coming down the track? Clause 52 is a kind of trophy in the Government’s crusade against red tape but what confidence should it give us in the quality of the Government’s regulatory reform agenda? Is this the high-water mark of the Government’s commitment to smart regulation—regulation that preserves a careful balance between the public interest and private property rights? Actually it is a case of wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am and to hell with the consequences for our trees and our communities. We should be improving the quality of our regulation not taking an axe to environmental standards. 
Do not tell me it is not possible to improve the tree protection rules; it is. The Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith rejected out of hand very sensible compromise solutions prepared by Jeanette Fitzsimons the former co-leader of the Green Party. The irony is that the Government says it wants to cut red tape but the effect of clause 52 is to force a council to individually list every single tree it wants to protect. It is common sense that that would require an army of tree inspectors going around the suburbs and identifying and assessing each tree. It is obvious that that would be so expensive and so impractical that it will not happen. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said this morning “the procedures of individual tree protection would place far more red tape in the path of protectors than the current rules impose on felling.” 
Here is the rub: the Government does not care because that will not happen. It will be too expensive for both councils and citizens. This Government does not care. It has ignored expert opinion from the arborists the Tree Council and numerous organisations that submitted to the select committee. Of those who submitted to the select committee on this issue 78 percent called for the deletion of clause 52 but this Government is not listening. 
The Government wants to frame this issue as being about trusting homeowners as the Minister just said; opponents of this provision assume negative motives of property owners and only councils value trees. What pathetic nonsense! Does the Government think that Aucklanders are fools? Everyone agrees that most property owners and most people want to protect their trees. The point of the law is to protect the sensible majority from the rogue minority. We have so many laws in place that aim to do that so why not apply the same principle to trees? 
It is especially disappointing that this provision throws out of the window any sense that big historic or valuable trees are a community asset that we all have an interest in protecting. On average we stay in our homes about 7 years. In a real sense we are all the guardians of our properties for future owners. The law recognises that—that our neighbours and the wider community have an interest in big trees even if they sit on our private property. To again quote the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “It has therefore been deemed reasonable that the property owner should need the consent of the community’s representatives before destroying a feature of its skyline.” It goes on to conclude: “This is hardly a frightful interference with private property rights.” 
Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central has been in empathy overdrive in recent weeks as she tries to convince her constituents that she really cares for the trees. She did not care enough to front up to a public meeting in Grey Lynn where 200 people were protesting this policy by the Government. She did not care enough to front up and nor did any of her National Party colleagues. But Nikki Kaye wrote to her constituents “I do have concerns about clause 52.” Well if she has concerns now would be a good time to hear about those concerns. She says “I am currently working within Government to see what I can do to allay those concerns through legislation and policy. I will keep you updated with the outcome of these discussions.” I tell Miss Kaye that now would be a very good time to front up and share with the House her concerns and what she has been able to do about them. We want to hear Miss Kaye’s concerns. This is the second reading and I challenge Miss Kaye to cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to support amendments to clause 52. 
National likes to say that 90 percent of councils including cities like Christchurch and Wellington do not use general tree protection rules and that there is not problem with the trees in those places. I have a question for the Minister: how many new trees have been added to the schedule in Christchurch in the last 10 years? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has asked a question— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To answer the question? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debating point. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I will tell that member how many trees have been added to the list in Christchurch: zero. Not a single tree has been added to the list because it is too complicated too onerous and too expensive. If clause 52 goes through unamended thousands of trees across Auckland many of them hundreds of years old will be at risk. Developers will be able to clear-fell private property sites with impunity. There will be no mechanism in place for them to be required to do remedial planting. Trees that were previously saved from being chopped down will be the first on the list to go. 
Think about the pohutukawa trees that fringe our coastal suburbs. What tree is more symbolic of our environment? Who will stop private property owners and developers from taking a chainsaw to those pohutukawas to get themselves an unobstructed view? The Prime Minister said that we will not see some kind of chainsaw massacre. That is an interesting choice of words. Councils can protect trees through individual notifications. The  
New Zealand Herald  
said this morning that if the Prime Minister believes that he is dreaming. He is in the words of his deputy “bouncing from cloud to cloud”. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is vastly different from the bill that came before the House in February. For that difference I thank warmly the hundreds of submitters who took the trouble to come to the Local Government and Environment Committee. For most of them it was unpaid time; the bill would be much worse without their efforts. But that cannot disguise the fact that the bill’s true purpose is to remove the obstacles of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and other people. 
The Resource Management Act has always been about how we resolve the conflicts in our increasingly overpopulated world between short-term economic gain and the long-term health of the environment that supports out lives. The Act as initially written by Labour and passed by National set out some bold principles. It was to enable people to provide for their economic and social needs while maintaining “the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems;”—even trees. That is the ecological bottom line set out in Part 2 of the Act but these days it is hardly ever referred to. Meanwhile our biodiversity plummets and the kokako and the mohua head for extinction. Our waterways have become filthy and our urban air will not meet World Health Organization standards. 
There has been an incremental process since 1991 to weaken environmental protection under the Act and to weaken the powers of communities to have a say about the places where they live. And here we go again. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the attack on nature even the little of it that remains in cities than the proposal to end protection for urban trees. A city without trees is hot dusty shadeless and ugly. It is a city not worth living in. But so often developers want to cram the maximum possible number of sections into a subdivision and the trees are in the way. Most councils manage without blanket rules for tree protection but the areas where we find them are areas of rapid growth urban infill high land prices that attract greedy developers and where the community values its trees and wants to protect them such as Auckland and the Kapiti Coast. 
It is true that processing consents takes a lot of time and cost for the council. That is why the Greens proposed an amendment that allowed reasonable trimming but not felling without a consent. That would have more than halved the compliance costs. But was the Government interested? No. We will move that amendment later today but the Minister for the Environment Dr Nick Smith has already turned it down. Instead he proposes to saddle councils with the time and cost of describing every tree that is worth protecting and scheduling them and dealing with every submission that opposes scheduling a tree. That will be enormously more trouble than processing consents. Most councils will not do it or will leave out very significant trees that the community values. The Minister knows they will not do it. We will lose the green spaces in our cities the shade the habitat for birds the dappled light and the cooling in the summer heat. Where are the Bluegreens on this issue? Where are their proposed amendments to the bill? 
The attack on community participation begins with the reinstating of the power of the Environment Court to require an objector to put thousands of dollars up front as a bond before he or she can be heard. The Government and the developers know the court will only do this in extreme circumstances but community groups who are having their first tangle with the Resource Management Act do not know it. So it becomes a fearsome weapon that applicants use to deter local people from ever setting foot in court. Planning cases are not just arguments about competing property rights and whether someone’s building blocks someone else’s view; often they are David and Goliath struggles between well-resourced corporates with the best lawyers and community groups with little experience of the law who are running cake stalls to pay for some professional advice on how to protect the natural values of the places where they live. They do not need to be intimidated by the threat of ordering security for costs even if it is unlikely that the judge would ultimately issue such an order. Such groups are to be further disadvantaged by the removal of their right under section 274 to join an appeal brought by another participant. No big firm with full-time lawyers would ever need section 274 but volunteers with a day job and a family often find out too late what is going on and section 274 has enabled them to join the action and to put their case by piggybacking on the submissions of other parties. 
Local knowledge counts. When a goldmining company applied to build a mine in a tailings dam in the beautiful Waitekauri Valley near Waihi those who had lived there for generations told the hearing that the land was unstable. It had slipped before in extreme rainfall and could threaten the integrity of the dam and risk toxic sludge sliding into the Ohinemuri River. But they did not have the money to bring in expert geologists. The mining company did and it found overseas experts to testify that the land was stable. A few years later the land cracked and slipped so badly that it cost $20 million to stabilise it and we still do not know for sure that it really is safe now. But the Minister wants to shut out these people with his changes including the Supplementary Order Paper which further raises the hurdle for public notification. I will expand on that Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. 
The Greens also object to the removal of the role of the Minister of Conservation in consents for restricted coastal activities. These are high-impact activities carried out on public land in the coastal marine area for private purposes. The Minister is there on behalf of all of us who are joint owners to consider the wider public good of the coastal ecosystem that is under threat. There are undoubtedly areas where the local iwi should be in this role and others where perhaps the power should be exercised jointly under a co-management regime. But we should not do away with the power of the joint owners of the commons to decide what can go on there. I am heartened that the select committee and the Minister think that the role of the Minister of Conservation and coastal planning should be examined again in phase two of the reforms. But when we look at the history of allowing the privatisation of public space against the wishes of most local residents I am not too hopeful. 
I want to record again my appreciation of the 850 people who took the trouble to bring to the committee their concerns their expertise their knowledge and their skills. I am pleased that with their help we managed to reverse the proposal to allow no appeals against plans and plan changes because getting the plan right is at the heart of the Resource Management Act process. A poor plan will lead to poor consent decisions for years. It is the most important time for the public to engage and the council cannot be left as the sole arbiter of what will meet the purposes of the Act. Likewise the committee has restored the opportunity to put in cross-submissions if another submitter proposes changes with unwanted effects. Green members sought input on the removal of the non-complying category for resource applications from all the councils that appeared. They told us of the huge cost in workload to rewrite their plans so this silly proposal has gone too. 
I want to record the enormous help given to the committee by a panel of experts—Professor Peter Skelton John Hassan Helen Atkins and Ciaran Keogh all of whom submitted on the bill—who were engaged to advise us on whether the drafting reflected the policy intentions of the committee. They raised many issues that led to substantial clarifications in the bill. The purpose of this bill is supposed to be simplifying and streamlining. No one could object to that purpose. Yet the bill itself adds many pages and layers of complexity. There are now multiple routes to a centralised planning process that can be initiated by the Minister the applicant or the council and that can pass through the Environmental Protection Authority or through the Minister’s office and that can result in either a call in to a board of inquiry or direct referral to the Environment Court—all to achieve basically the same thing. The expert panel noted in its interim report to the committee that the bill as it stood at that time did not simplify and streamline but rather complicated and confused those processes. We are indebted to the panel for its meticulous work with officials under great time pressure to remove many opportunities for misunderstanding and litigation. 
The environment needs more protection not less if the places we value are to endure and if biodiversity soil water and air quality are to be there for our children’s children. Communities need more say not less about the nature of the places where they live and of their landscapes built environments urban trees coastal marine areas and waterways. This bill will not help but at least it will not hinder to the same extent that it would have done in its original form. The Greens will still be voting against it. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In years gone by—or perhaps one should say centuries—a man’s land as well as his home was his castle. [ 
Interruption 
] Or a woman’s land indeed although I do not know whether many castles were owned by women centuries ago. 
Nicky Wagner 
: They just did all the work. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: They did all the work yes or some of it. There was a breakthrough in the 19th century. I say “a breakthrough” because I am a member of the ACT Party not of the Libertarianz. I do not believe that I should be able to put up a chemical factory on my lifestyle block because it suits me. I do not support the idea that anyone can do anything on their land. The first breakthrough in curbing the idea that a person’s land was his or her castle and therefore that a person could do anything on it was a case called  
Rylands v Fletcher 
 in the 19th century. Simply put it was ruled that people who I think I can remember from law school brought filth privies or stenches on to their land were not permitted to do so if the natural course of events would see that material flow on to others’ land. 
But that principle has gone far too far. The Resource Management Act originally written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer then superseded a year later by an amendment Act that was twice as long as the original Act has been inhibiting people for far too long. For far too long the Resource Management Act has been misused by too many people in order to get the results that they want regardless of the costs to those who simply want to enjoy their property as they see fit. Those who designed the Act could not—well let us charitably hope they could not—have envisaged that it would be hijacked by those who see any kind of economic development as taking us one giant leap towards extinction. Were those people around in the 19th century they would have thought our ancestors were mass murderers. The reality is that without the hard work of our ancestors we would not have an economy or a nation of any worth whatsoever. We would have lots of trees but not much else—and I will talk about trees in a moment. If we fast-forward from the 19th century to 2009 we can see that the Act is doing its best to choke out our entrepreneurial spirit. Every council and MP has encountered people who want to abuse the Act for their own ends. 
Like I imagine all other members of this House I have been besieged by a buzzing BlackBerry in the last few days with emails from people who wish to see clause 52 be deleted from the bill. 
Phil Twyford 
: It was a chainsaw not a BlackBerry. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: They all think that there will be some kind of chainsaw massacre as Mr Twyford has just suggested. I will give members an illustration of why that is silly erroneous thinking. I live on a lifestyle block out in the country and the very first thing we did when we moved in there after we whacked down all the 4-foot high weeds was to plant trees. Now I am a right-winger. I am a supposed mad right-wing maniac but the first thing I did was to plant trees. I was not unusual in doing that. When my neighbour Nick bought his house down the road the first thing he did was to buy 400 trees and plant them around his boundary. Now he has so many trees that one can hardly see his house. A bloke has just built a house down the road. I have not met him yet; he has been there only a short time. There are great piles of rubbish from the construction outside the house but what was he doing on Sunday? Planting trees! The very first thing he has done before his wife has even hung the curtains—I am not allowed to say that; before they have hung the curtains—was to get out there and plant trees. The idea that everyone will go mad with a chainsaw is just silly like so much that comes from the party on the other side of the House. 
This amendment bill achieves a number of things. It gives the courts more power to punish those who misuse the Act’s processes and it gives people greater control over their own land without giving them carte blanche to do anything. 
I wish to talk for a short time about the removal of the blanket protection of trees. It has been very interesting that among the avalanche of emails some of them relatively pro forma in nature that I have received regarding clause 52 of the bill there are one or two little currants in the pudding that have said what a good idea it is. One that struck me in particular was from a person in the North Shore of Auckland who has a large pohutukawa tree on her land. It is well past its best; an arborist says it is diseased. Various branches fall off it from time to time and they have not killed anyone yet but they have damaged a car. The tree does not even have much greenery on it any more because it is too old. But because it is a large pohutukawa that homeowner has to go through God knows how many hoops in order to try to remove or even trim it. She is still fighting that battle now. She is delighted at the inclusion of clause 52 in the bill because she can finally remove an old diseased tree that is doing absolutely no one any good and that is not a feature or an enhancement of either her environment or ours. 
Another example I think coincidentally on the North Shore is a tree that is poisonous. I think it was mentioned again in the paper this morning. It has taken a resource consent application several hearings 13 written submissions and a number of reports to gain consent to remove a palm tree that was injuring people and a shrub that has leaves that are lethal when eaten by children. If a city council’s parks department has to jump through as many hoops as that where does that leave the individual landowner? 
Some people out there worry that everyone will as I say go wild with their chainsaws and chop down all the trees. In the eyes of what most people would refer to as the extreme green movement trees have greater rights to live on the Earth than we do. Well I am afraid I do not subscribe to that view although my house is surrounded by trees and will eventually be obscured from view by them I hope like Nick’s house down the road is. To the extreme greenie it does not matter much what sort of tree it is—perhaps it is a native tree and it looks pretty—because the rights of the property owner are trumped by others who remain unaffected if the tree blocks the owner’s light or falls on his or her house. Mr Twyford’s speech gave an example of that when he said that no matter what the circumstances were a pohutukawa should be preserved because it was a pohutukawa. The example I have just given illustrates that that should not always be the case. 
In Auckland if a tree becomes tall enough the council effectively becomes the owner or custodian of it. Property owners cannot remove such a tree unless they get permission no matter what damage the tree is causing to pipes views or physical safety. This bill thank goodness will remove that stupid law from the books. 
Here is one further example. It is the case of a lady called Alice Presley who had a 14-metre high liquidambar tree—which to the best of my knowledge is not a native—on her property. For 10 years it caused no end of problems. Falling leaves made her driveway slippery she had to spend $600 to keep branches away from power lines—there was no choice in that matter; she was forced to do so—and the tree was contaminating her water supply. Alice applied twice to the Auckland City Council for permission to remove the tree and twice she was declined. As the landowner she knew better than anyone the dangers that the tree posed to her property and health. So she cut it down. Good on her! As a result of doing that she was prosecuted and sentenced to 180 hours’ community work as though she was some thug. 
In removing the blanket protection of trees this bill gives property owners a small level of trust and a small level of responsibility which is something they should have always been allowed to have in the first place. Most people contrary to Mr Twyford’s opinion are not mad axemen or mad chainsaw wielders; they like trees. Much more still needs to be done in order to restore some sanity to the issue of private property rights and the ACT Party looks forward to the next round of reforms to the Act to deliver on that. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei ata. I do not intend to use all of our allocation for the second reading to open up all of the questions in respect of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill but I will make some general comments in regard to the Maori Party’s stand and then I will focus on some of the things we want to put to the House by way of Supplementary Order Papers as we go to the Committee stage. 
The Maori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone. Within this we are committed to assisting whanau hapu and iwi as tangata tiaki to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. And so we welcome this bill to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 because of the two key words: “simplifying” and “streamlining”. We fully support the intention to reduce costs uncertainties and delays by simplifying procedures and streamlining appeal processes. At the same time we realise that the penalties must be sufficient to discourage inappropriate practices. Those general statements put fairly clearly the Maori Party’s position in general terms. 
I am advised there was a strong theme in the submissions from iwi to the select committee. They seemed to focus on the notion that the Crown guaranteed to protect the special relationship between tangata whenua and their landscapes and natural environments. It is a consistent theme. We are likely to hear it at many hui with Maori. A Maori world view would be that the Treaty relationship should be accorded respect in any aspect to do with environmental integrity. In fact Maori spend so much time telling agencies about the need for respect for the Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi that some members might have heard about a new concept that has risen throughout the Maori world called “hui fatigue”. “Hui fatigue” was expressed as an issue at the Sustainable Water Programme of Action hui which closely followed hui on the foreshore and seabed land access and aquaculture reforms and the review of the Resource Management Act 1991 with Treaty negotiations also proceeding in some areas. For those unaware of what “hui fatigue” is it comes from the notion I suppose of saying the same thing over and over again without actually being heard. 
And so we are here today putting forward four Supplementary Order Papers—maybe more as we investigate the bill even further—to ensure that the Treaty is acknowledged and the implementation is secure in any development of the resource management legislation. The Maori Party is tabling amendments to strengthen the role of tangata whenua in the Resource Management Act. The first of our Supplementary Order Papers strengthens and elevates Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions already included in the Act and the second will enable hapu and iwi to initiate a transfer of powers from the councils so that mana whenua can manage their lands their waters wahi tapu and other taonga. 
The Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of resource management law and practice and it needs to be recognised as such. We want to ensure that local governments acknowledge the mana and authority of mana whenua. This will require robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua as well as a commitment to establish effective strategies for engaging Maori communities and advancing Maori representation. Issues around water must include mana whenua including water rights and privatisation. Treaty claims to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the context of the Resource Management Act and to do so requires respect for Treaty provisions. So our amendments will strengthen the requirement for all persons to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi in the implementation and administration of the Resource Management Act. This addresses the concerns of whanau hapu and iwi that resource management appropriately reflects obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The second set of amendments address the transfer of powers from the councils to hapu and iwi authorities which for some is probably a fairly radical move. These amendments will allow hapu and iwi authorities to request a transfer of powers for them to manage their lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga when they determine that they are better able to meet the purposes of the Act. We think this is a pretty innovative line to take. Local authorities will be required to give full consideration to the matter including completing a comprehensive evaluation of the request for transfer reporting on the evaluation and making the report publicly available. At present hapu and iwi authorities are not empowered to initiate a consideration of transfer of powers. It relates too to the need to strike the best balance between conservation and the use of natural resources. The law already allows councils to transfer their functions powers and duties under the Act and our amendments simply take that one step further to specify that mana whenua can initiate a transfer of powers process and if they decide to do so the councils must seriously consider their proposal. 
The rationale for our approach comes from the common call for a shared understanding about the relationship of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to everyday life. We believe that many so-called Treaty issues are community issues that are best handled through face-to-face discussion and debate at the local level between the people who are directly affected. There is nothing people need to fear when the Treaty of Waitangi is in discussion. 
The third set of amendments we will be submitting to the House focus on the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of the ministerial veto for coastal permits. These amendments reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. We noted in the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs as it may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those who are simply able to raise the security. We say that is unfair. The Maori Party also proposes that we reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee again revealed that many submitters including Maori were opposed to this amendment. The ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment. 
Finally we will be putting to the House a set of amendments relating to projects of national significance which could go to boards of inquiry and be subject to appeals to the High Court if needed. Some might suggest that these mechanisms make for more bureaucracy and hold up the process even further. But on the other hand we of the Maori Party believe that these protection mechanisms need to stay where they are to ensure that our place the Maori place is still intact if it comes to the crunch. This Supplementary Order Paper introduces a number of amendments to Part 6AA which deals with proposals of national significance. Boards of inquiry will be required to include a representative appointed by mana whenua and will also be required to seek the advice of mana whenua in any matter being considered and to reflect that advice in any decisions and recommendations they make. Any draft and final reports produced by boards of inquiry will be required to be sent to mana whenua and to any other relevant hapu and iwi authorities. The Supplementary Order Paper will remove the limitation applied to appeals so that appeals against decisions based on merit can be brought before the High Court. 
I remind the House that the Maori Party believes in the efficient use of water the conservation of energy and the need for active environmental management. We certainly support the call for simplicity and streamlining and our amendments are put forward in that context. We will be putting up further amendments to address clauses in the bill that hamper Maori involvement in resource management. 
Iwi see the amendment bill now before Parliament as an opportunity to discuss some longstanding issues. As is our practice and our desire we will be advocating on their behalf to ensure their aspirations their voices are heard. We support the second reading of this bill at this stage pending the discussion on the Supplementary Order Papers we will be putting before the House and we reserve our right to vote against the last stage. Kia ora tatou. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I am enormously pleased that the bill has finally come to the House. It has been a long haul but it has been a very important interesting and worthwhile process. I will echo others in thanking everyone including the submitters the two advisory groups officials Crown Law and the Local Government and Environment Committee members who have all worked hard on the bill and added value. The bill is very different now as it comes out of the select committee process. 
The promise to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act was something National campaigned on before the last election. We promised to deliver a bill to the House within 100 days—and we did. The bill is phase one of a significant reform of the Resource Management Act that is ongoing. However the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act and no reductions in environmental protection. The bill provides for significant improvements to the implementation of the principles behind the legislation. 
Over the past 18 years that the Resource Management Act has been in place there has been increased criticism from all parts of the community—from environmental groups local government and businesses—about slow and expensive planning and consent processes. There are absolutely no benefits to the environment from heavy-handed bureaucracy lengthy delays and expensive legal arguments. In fact the length and expense of planning processes have often meant that the environment has suffered. The average time taken for a council to produce a full plan is over 8 years and when it requires several million dollars to be invested it is not surprising that plans are often too inflexible to deal with environmental issues as they arise. 
The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make plan-making more effective more efficient quicker and less costly but it does not compromise the intent of the Resource Management Act which is strongly supported by New Zealanders. 
The bill has now been through a very robust select committee process. As we have heard today there were over 800 submissions and we heard nearly two-thirds of submitters. We worked long hours and we worked well together as a committee. After hearing submissions we have made significant changes to the bill. The key provisions of the bill include the establishment of an environmental protection agency and improved processes for proposals of national significance. The bill provides for a one-step consenting process for resource consent applicants and notices of requirements for designations through direct referral to the Environment Court. 
The bill introduces provisions to deal with the longstanding problem of the Resource Management Act being used for trade competition purposes. The new measures include the introduction of mandatory damages rather than discretionary damages when a party seeks damages against a trade competitor. This will increase the deterrent effect. The bill also reinstates securities of costs. It is true that many community groups were concerned about this provision because they felt that it may have excluded them from participating in environmental decisions. However when we reviewed court decisions from the past when the provision was in place we felt that judges had used it with discretion and that genuine environment groups with genuine concerns were not disadvantaged. It may be that environmental groups need more information about the provision so that they can work with it. 
After listening to submitters we have several provisions that we will not be proceeding with. We will not be removing non-compliant activities and we will not be limiting appeals on plans to points of law. We have deferred changes to decision making for designation until the next phase. Again after hearing suggestions from submitters we have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve their outcome. 
The bill is better as a result of there being much debate and a robust select committee process. The major areas of contention have been worked through successfully by the committee and modifications have been made. Only a very small number of differences of opinion now remain. The bill will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act but let me make it very clear that it does not compromise the intent of the Act or reduce the level of protection of our magnificent national environment and natural resources. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to place on record my view that the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. It is obviously important that we protect the environment and protect neighbours against industrial intrusions in residential zones. That is achieved through the Resource Management Act. 
The Act is cornerstone legislation. When it was passed by the previous National Government back in the 1990s having been designed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the prior Labour Government it was world-breaking legislation. It has stood the test of time. It is now 18 years old. It was passed in 1991; it is now 2009 so it is 18-year-old legislation. Although it is in need of a bit of an update and some housekeeping which this amendment bill largely achieves the underlying principles of having environmental legislation that regulates activity according to its effect on the environment remains sound. That is the underlying principle here; we ought to be preserving the environment so that subsequent generations inherit an environment that can sustain them in the same way as the environment has sustained us during our lives. 
The principles of the Resource Management Act remain sound. There was a lot of talk by the National Party before the election. One would have thought the Resource Management Act was why New Zealand had some sort of poor growth rate. The reality was that during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government New Zealand had a higher growth rate on average than Japan the United States and Europe and an average that was on a par with Australia which is one of the strongest economies in the world. So the idea that somehow the Resource Management Act was an enormous handbrake on economic activity is something that this side of the House has never accepted. I think history will show that after the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is passed New Zealand’s growth rate is not all of a sudden going to jump as a consequence. 
There has been a lot of exaggerated rhetoric from the Government as to the importance of the bill in economic terms. Having said that I think the bill makes some wise changes. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee with the agreement of the Government has changed an issue that I spoke of in the first reading debate which was the limitation on the ability to participate in appeals against plan changes. The fundamental rules that we reply upon in our cities towns and provinces relate to the rules that are effectively in the delegated legislation that is promulgated under the Resource Management Act. That delegated legislation is the district plans and regional plans that are produced by district and regional authorities. 
As originally promoted the bill severely limited the rights of citizens to appeal against changes to plans. In fact there were going to be limitations to appeal only on matters of law which would have excluded the ability of people to appeal when they had a matter of substance a matter of fact that they wanted to challenge. That would have been the most egregious change to the Resource Management Act and it would have severely undermined the effectiveness of the Act to properly protect the environment. So I congratulate the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith because I think he has made a wise decision to keep appeal rights in respect of plans. 
There are a couple of negative points that I must mention. The first relates to coastal permits. This was another of those dog-whistling issues where the Government said that it was somehow improper that the Minister of Conservation retained the right to veto coastal permits. These are developments that are proposed in the coastal area. If there is a development on private land the private landowner can effectively veto it by saying that it will not happen on his or her land. In respect of public lands there is no private owner so we are reliant on an arm of the Government to exercise that right on behalf of us all. The Government is standing in the shoes of the citizens of New Zealand to control what happens in that coastal space. 
The provision that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto proposed developments in the coastal area is but another example of the landowner or the seabed owner in this case—or the person who has custody of it even if he or she does not own it; given the foreshore and seabed debate I should be careful that I do not talk about ownership here—controlling what happens there. The person who is effectively the proxy controller on behalf of us all in respect of that space is the Crown and the person within the Crown who exercises that right of control is the Minister of Conservation. So it is quite proper that the Minister of Conservation has the ability to veto proposed developments in the coastal space. 
That ability to veto is not unconstrained. Principles of law have to be applied by the Minister of Conservation when exercising the discretion of whether to veto a proposed development. We have seen cases in recent years where the decision of the Minister of Conservation was overturned by the courts because the courts found that the Minister had improperly exercised that discretion. That does not mean that the rule that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto certain developments should be completely done away with. In fact that court decision shows that there were proper limits on that right of veto anyway and that there was no need for more intervention from Parliament to remove that right of veto. 
I for one think that it is sad that we are saying that the Crown no longer exercises its right to control what happens in that public space because I expect the Crown to look after that public space. I expect the Crown to let me veto what happens on my land but I expect the Crown to make similar decisions on behalf of the people of New Zealand in respect of the public space in for example the coastal marine area. 
I will raise another issue which is the fact that under urgency we are considering this bill and we also have Supplementary Order Paper 39 which is 45 pages long. I hope that Dr Nick Smith has the decency to smile in respect of this issue because that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the size and complexity of the bill is two or three times the size of the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the emissions trading scheme that we considered last year. I do not know whether Dr Smith can remember as far back as that but if he cares to reflect on the  
Hansard 
 he will note that he was here criticising that Supplementary Order Paper as being a constitutional outrage. 
A couple of comparisons should be made. For a start the proportionate length of the Supplementary Order Paper here is far far longer. The second point to be made is that when we produced the Supplementary Order Paper to the emissions trading scheme legislation we made it intelligible for people by producing a redline version with struck-out provisions in redline highlighting the changes that were made in the bill whereas with the bill now before the House we are effectively blind as to what the effects of this legion of drafting corrections to the bill are. We are told that there are no policy changes and that they are matters of technical drafting. Well I have to say that if these are not policy matters but are matters of technical drafting then it points to pretty slack and sloppy practice on the part of the Government. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He was going to change all that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right; Dr Smith said that would never happen on his watch. Not only is it happening to a greater degree under this National Government but also it is whacking the bill through under urgency. We did not pass the emissions trading scheme under urgency. We used the normal processes of this House and to aid members we showed them that the amendments were merely technical and not policy changes. We produced a tracked changes version of the bill to show how those amendments were to be incorporated. We do not have the advantage of that good process on this occasion. 
I also mention a concern about notification rules. The Resource Management Act changed the old status quo under the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the Town and Country Planning Act one used to have to prove what was called status in legal terms before one could turn up and exercise one’s rights to participate in planning processes. The Resource Management Act changed that and essentially gave people who thought they were interested parties the right to turn up and have their say. The Government not only is trying to constrain that through the reintroduction of rights in respect of security for costs and there are arguments for and against that but also is going further. The Government is saying that in terms of the notification process that precedes the ability of people to know whether something is happening and therefore to take an interest in it it is changing the onus. It is changing the rule under the Resource Management Act that stated that on the balance of doubt notify. If there is any doubt one should notify. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values expectations and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation’s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes. 
The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall I think that this bill will improve the legislation but I have raised some concerns particularly about trees as people will be aware and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue. 
We are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs infrastructure and productivity and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners small businesses farmers and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans making decisions on proposals of national significance preparing and implementing national instruments resource consent applications decision making and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act’s reform. 
I thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall as I have mentioned a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection. 
I will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation including proposals of national significance the Environmental Protection Authority and of course trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions local authority plan changes or variations requests for plan changes requests for preparation of regional plans and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance. 
The other key aspect of this bill which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms as mentioned by a number of speakers. 
We now come to trees. Firstly I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Point of order Jonathan Coleman. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Order! I am on my feet and I have called order. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the barracking has got out of hand. Members are here wanting to listen to this speech. Occasional interjections are fine and are in the tradition of the House but I think there is an attempt over there to break up this member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I would have some sympathy for the member’s point of view had there not been a barrage of interjections from the seats just in front of the member. There has been quite a robust exchange but the point is made: interjections should not be to the detriment of the speaker speaking. The person wants to be heard. I invite Nikki Kaye to continue. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue is absolute politics. I want to use the “h” word but I will not. Members on that side of the House—including Mr Twyford Mr Hawkins and Mr Jones—supported the tree provisions and failed to put in a minority report on this issue. There is no minority report. They are not interested in the policy; they are interested only in politics. 
I personally believe that the current system of tree rules is fraught and has led to individuals and councils spending excessive time and money on resource consents for trees. Most people environmentalists community leaders and local authorities believe that the current system is not working. The question needs to be asked: how do we fix it? I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees without getting resource consent which is what this law change will achieve. My concern lies in Auckland and it lies specifically with the ability of local authorities in Auckland to adequately protect high-value trees via scheduling. Ironically with the reforms in Auckland governance scheduling may become easier with one system for tree scheduling in the future. However rather than politicking on this issue I have been working with the Minister regarding my concerns. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We sometimes find in the House that men with very loud voices are able despite the lack of microphones to completely shout down women who are speaking and I think this is such an occasion. I am not trying to shut down interjections either but in my view this has gone a bit too far. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I could hear the member from here. I could hear her well. She appeared to be coping quite well. I think the sexist implications from that member are regrettable. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Regrettable or not members are entitled to their opinions and this is a place of free speech. They are entitled to express their views strongly and robustly. I think that is a fair enough point. A point of order was raised before by the Hon Jonathan Coleman about the noise and as long as people can be heard I am reluctant to stop interjections. I thought that I had left a hint for some members to ease back a little but it was not taken. Before I invite Nikki Kaye to continue with her speech I say to people that interjections are fair enough but not such that they drown out the person. It was getting very close to that point. Interjections are fine but they should not drown out the speaker who is entitled to be heard. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: I reiterate that Jeanette Fitzsimons has worked very constructively on this issue. 
Rather than politicking on this issue I have been working with the Minister for the Environment with regard to my concerns. The question I have specifically put to him is that if this legislation is passed how can the people of Auckland have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and areas of bush will be protected through scheduling? I have asked the Minister how he can ensure that councils will undertake this work in a consistent efficient manner at a reasonable cost. I know that in the Committee stage the Minister will set out how he will ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that tree scheduling will work in Auckland. I choose to work constructively with local authorities and the Minister to ensure that that will happen. 
Except for my reservations with regard to clause 52 I think that this bill will help to redress the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall this bill will be good for New Zealand. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Talofa lava and kia ora tatou katoa to members of this House. The member who just spoke Nikki Kaye said that she was concerned and she is right to be concerned. I have here copies of over a hundred emails that have come to me from Aucklanders expressing their outrage about a particular amendment in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Many of the people who have sent emails are from Auckland and at the very top of the list of people they have sent emails to is the name of that particular member so she needs to be concerned. The big question that people from the Auckland region will be asking her is what she will do about the particular amendment they are concerned about. 
Labour voted in favour of this bill during its first reading. The reason was that the bill could advance to the select committee process thus providing the public with the opportunity to participate by way of public submissions. National rushed through the first reading of the bill and Opposition members had fewer than 24 hours in which to consider the detail of the bill at its first reading. So it was important that public consultation take place and it was important that Opposition MPs were given the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits or otherwise of a large number of the proposed amendments as outlined by the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Labour expressed some real concerns about the detail of a number of those provisions. We also expressed our willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and public participation. 
Labour members extend our sincere appreciation to those who took the time to give evidence to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this important bill. There were over 840 submissions and we heard directly from about 339 submitters. Other submitters were heard via teleconference. Although there was support from obvious quarters for the Government’s proposed amendments the bill received significant criticism in the select committee for poor drafting and the introduction of unnecessary amendments which were described by submitters as confusing and too complex. I like other MPs in this House continue to receive emails from individuals community groups and small businesses outlining their strong opposition to particular amendments in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill by this Government. Later I will share with the House some of that feedback. 
The Resource Management Act is a balanced piece of legislation which provides for sustainable development local participation in decision making and protection for the natural and physical environment. Labour is generally supportive of ongoing moves to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act. Labour will support measures that reduce unnecessary costs and the delays and objections motivated by trade competition. 
The bill underwent significant changes during the select committee stage which highlights the haste with which the Government put together the changes to this significant Act. Although Labour supports improvements to the bill it does not support proposals that will rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. Labour believes strongly that we should not allow New Zealand’s environment to be degraded. Although we support streamlining the consent process we do not support removing the safeguards for protecting the environment. New Zealanders are rightly proud of our “clean green” brand and there are strong views in the community that the Government simply cannot be allowed to ram through its pet projects without adequate public input and scrutiny. 
One of the principles that undergirds the Resource Management Act is the principle of community participation. The Resource Management Act is about making sure that development is enabled but also that there is collective responsibility for the management and development of valuable natural resources and our beautiful environment. The Resource Management Act permits this by allowing communities and individuals to get a chance to have their say in the development of their local areas. It is important to ensure that communities and people that are adversely affected should be able to have their say. In fact the Minister said in the first reading of the bill: “No changes are proposed to the purposes or principles of the Resource Management Act. I believe that those principles are sound.” 
Labour agrees that the principles of the Resource Management Act are sound. However we believe that there are three key areas that if the Government were to go ahead with them would undermine these sound principles and ultimately undermine the democratic rights of local communities their rights to participate in the local decision-making and the need to protect our environment for the benefit of not only present generations but also future generations. Labour does not support the changes to the way resource consents are notified. Labour does not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in relation to restricted coastal activities. Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow local authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Labour is concerned that the removal of the presumption in favour of notification will undermine public participation and the ability of local communities to be involved in decisions that affect them. 
The bill raises the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. It raises the threshold for effects on the environment before a local authority needs to notify an application. The committee received about 395 submissions on this proposal and 75 percent strongly opposed the change. The main concern of submitters was that the changes would reduce public participation. The removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consent for restricted coastal activities will lessen the environmental protection of the coastal area under the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers allow the Minister to advocate for the public interest on proposed coastal developments. These powers provide an important environmental check on proposed coastal developments. Eighty-three percent of submitters on this amendment strongly opposed it. 
Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow for the general protection of trees. This proposal undermines local decision-making powers and the ability of communities to determine development in their area. Local authorities should be left through their elected representatives to make their own decisions about the protection of trees in their communities. 
I want to share with you Mr Assistant Speaker and with members of the House some of the concerns that have been shared with me and I suspect with many other members of this House. I have here an email from Amanda of Auckland. She says she is standing up to those who think they are king. She expresses her concern and asks that clause 52 be deleted. She says that we need to “retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have an email here from Tony of Piha who says that he lives overlooking the valley of all the old pohutukawa that line the hills. “Every tree that I can see from here is on private land. If clause 52 of the proposed Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill goes through they are all at risk.” Tony’s request is simple: “Please delete the clause and talk to the communities about what level of protection they would like to see.” I have here an email from a Dr Andrew of Mairangi Bay who says: “I request that you delete Clause 52 … retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have one here from Wendy of Auckland who says: “Trees are an important part of the landscape and provide oxygen to the environment and hold the surrounding land together more than we might think. The loss of large historic trees from my neighbourhood would be devastating for me as well as the birdlife that live in them. Please reconsider the above clause.” I have many many more. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. National promised to introduce legislation into the House to amend the Resource Management Act within 100 days of forming a new Government. We have kept our promise. This bill is the first phase of a two-stage process to reform environmental resource management. The Local Government and Environment Committee has been working in a collegial manner on the Resource Management Act. I mention collegiality advisedly. The measured mellifluous Scottish brogue of the chairman sought and received valuable contributions from all members of the committee. I wish to express my appreciation of the efforts of all members submitters and officials whose input informed and shaped this bill. 
There is a broad understanding and appreciation that changes to the Resource Management Act are required to ensure a better balance between environment protection and economic growth and that the cost uncertainty and delays of the current Act are adversely affecting New Zealand. Understandably there are points of difference. The major urban area affected is Greater Auckland where a number of councils have general tree protection laws. Clause 52 is being used to address this issue. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resource. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? Are all these good residents vegetal Visigoths? Are they Philistines of philodendrons? Are they pillagers of Puriri castrators of Kauri? They are not. Are these good people ravagers of rhododendrons? We will talk about this later in the Committee stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: In accordance with a decision of the House there will be a 5-hour debate with members having an unlimited number of speeches of 5 minutes each. At the end of 5 hours all the provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The amendments will be put before the question on the provisions. 
Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I say before we start that it was very enjoyable having you in Te Tai Tokerau to show you the Marsden Point oil refinery and to learn what your party really thinks about climate change. However that is for another time. 
I want to focus on three elements before my colleagues contribute. The first is notification the second is the coast and the third is the decimation of the trees. No more totara no more rimu no more pohutukawa; all we will find in a National-dominated Tamaki-makau-rau is puha and wiwi. I want to know why Government members are spending all this time on developing a super-city but are unwilling to give the authority to the super-city to generate rules plans and safeguards for the resources of that particular area. They are insistent on carrying on with this. It looks like a “ninny State”—a nanny State development out of the National caucus much to the detriment of our people in Auckland. 
However let me come back to notification. Notification is referred to in one or two of the Supplementary Order Papers and the reason why we are very very reluctant to allow this to go unchallenged—and why we will not be agreeing with this particular provision in the context of the Committee debate—is that this is the first opportunity New Zealand neighbours and residents have to know about a proposed activity. We are entrusting far too much to the bureaucracy of the local government as to whether a matter is of a minor character. Once people lose that opportunity they lose goodwill and people feel that they are being denied a key part of what resource management married to social democracy means: a chance to have an influence through a guided process—not a gilded process but a statutory process. That chance has been removed. There has been a presumption that this bill is neutral. We would have preferred to see that citizens could rely on the fact that where an activity is proposed they will receive notice of it. It is highly likely that that activity will not have a deleterious effect on them anyway— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall repeat the word “deleterious” for Mr Henare because it has further to travel in order to educate him. However that is another matter. 
That is why we will focus on the area of public notification. 
I move on to the matter of the coast. The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith has had experience of this issue. I am really looking forward to hearing him explain how we account for stripping away from this area of the law any reference to the putative owner of the coast. Admittedly it is in the context of stewardship. The Minister has told us that the preferred model he presents in this legislation is a focus on rules on effects and on the regulatory responsibilities. But who owns the coast? The Government will not give it back to the tangata whenua and now it does not even want the Crown to hold it. It is almost as if ownership is floating around in some sort of ether. The public of New Zealand for public weal purposes need to know that the Government of the day is prepared to intervene and make a decision on such matters as whether a proposed project or activity ought to occupy that part of the coastal environment. That decision is not made just as to the ability of us to understand the effects; it is made as to whether New Zealanders through the agency of the Crown are comfortable with that portion of our environment being exclusively occupied for a given commercial purpose. That provision has been stripped out. We would like to see that provision not only restored but possibly enlarged so that we know as we move through these treacherous waters as to the Maori claims and the takutai moana that the Crown is not absolving itself of its Treaty responsibilities and its obligations to its Treaty partner. 
I come back very briefly to the matter of the trees. The issue has become very vexed and unfortunately members on the Government side of the Chamber have decided that Aucklanders cannot be trusted to come up with a solution. That is a bad decision and we will have more to say about it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The environment spokesperson for Labour Mr Shane Jones identified a number of issues that Labour wants to debate in the Committee stage. I think he has done a pretty fair measure of identifying the controversial issues: the issues in respect of trees the issues in respect of notification and the issues in respect of the ministerial veto that we are removing in respect of coastal consents. I am looking forward to the debate over the next 5 hours as we canvass some of those issues. 
I want to go straight to the issue of trees. When the environment spokesperson for Labour Mr Shane Jones gave his second reading speech his very first comments were that 50000 resource consents for New Zealand were too many and we need to have fewer. I agree with him. If we ask officials where there are a whole lot of meaningless resource consents that cost a whole lot of money and achieve absolutely nothing the answer has to be tree trimming. Let me give members the numbers. We have 5000 resource consents per year for people who trim trees. Do members know what the most remarkable fact is? That number is for only eight of our 86 councils. There are 5000 resource consents per year so that people can trim a tree. Does this Parliament really distrust ordinary New Zealanders so much that if they want to trim a tree over 3 metres in height they need to get an arborist’s report and lodge the resource consent with their council? The council official has to consider the consent visit the tree and check that it is a proper resource consent. And 97.6 percent of them are approved. Members opposite say that this legislation will result in a chainsaw massacre and that the beautiful landscapes of Auckland will be lost. Well I have just had lunch with the Mayor of Christchurch. Do they have such rules in the Garden City? No they do not. Are there fewer trees in Christchurch as a consequence of not having these nanny State rules? Of course there are not. 
Then there is the argument from Labour. I have to say that I particularly enjoy the contributions from “Mr Triffid”. You see he has gone out publicly— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. His name is Mr Twyford. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was interested to note that Mr Twyford was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would have thought with all his comments criticising the Government that there would be some comments in the select committee report from Labour about urban trees. I searched through all 221 pages. Surely if Mr Twyford has the time to call public meetings and to put out press releases attacking the arrogance of the Government there should be a comment from him in the select committee report on urban trees. But there is not a single sentence—not a word—from Labour in the report. I think that speaks volumes about the ineffective Opposition members. They make a huge deal out of urban trees but when they had the opportunity in the select committee— 
Hon Member 
: Nothing! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not only was there nothing in the report but they voted for the provisions in respect of urban trees. Labour members should get their act together. If they really believe that people should need a resource consent to trim a tree they have learnt nothing from the last election. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Trim or chop? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The law right now and for 9 long years of the Labour administration is that if people in Auckland want to get a tree trimmed they have to get a resource consent. 
Then the members were saying that this is a case of Parliament overruling Auckland. Well what did the Auckland City Council submit to the select committee? The Auckland City Council submitted to the select committee that this provision was ineffective and inefficient and that we should pass this provision to change it. Members opposite are saying that we are overruling the views of Auckland. Do they think we have come down in the last shower? The real motivation of the members of the political left around this issue is that they do not trust homeowners. They basically believe that good old Auckland homeowners should not be trusted with their clippers. They are a real threat to mankind with their tree trimmers and unless we get them to get approval of a council official then they should not be able to use them! 
Yes there has been a pretty active campaign. The Arboricultural Association and a number of the commercial players in Auckland have been very critical of the provision in this bill and I do not blame them. You see for the 5000 resource consents per year that are required for these tree provisions the average cost of getting a council report from an arborist is a bit over $400. People then have to use one of those businesses. They cannot go out there themselves. They cannot chop down or trim their own tree. Is it surprising that the arborist businesses of Auckland would not want this provision? They have employed a flash Wellington public relations consultancy to advocate the cause for them and I simply say that this Parliament needs to get some principles right. 
The principle in this bill around urban trees is actually very straightforward: if a council wants to put controls on the trimming or the removal of a tree it has to talk to the homeowner. Is that not a radical concept? If the council wants to put a restriction on the capacity for a person to be able to trim or remove their own tree they should talk to the person who owns the land. I think that is a very reasonable provision. If we look at the provisions of this bill we see that there is 2½ years in which councils can identify trees. I had a discussion with the Mayor of Timaru which has a beautiful landscape with a large number of trees. Do members know what that council did? It advertised for people to put forward the trees that they thought were worthy of protection. I think that is a pretty smart approach and I encourage the councils of Auckland to do what councils in every other part of New Zealand have done and actually identify the trees and the groups of trees that warrant protection; there certainly are some. It can be done quite effectively and result in the proper protection of trees in Auckland without the bureaucracy that we are proposing to replace with this bill. 
The last point I want to make on trees is that I have seen pictures in newspapers of people in reserves saying that the trees are at risk of being cut down or of people saying that trees along the main streetscape of Auckland are at risk. No they are not. This bill deals only with trees on private land and actually it is about a reflection of property rights. It is the view of members on this side of the Chamber that if one owns the property one has a legal right to trim a tree or to remove it as a general rule unless it is a tree of sufficient significance that it is properly listed in a plan and one has had an opportunity to be consulted about that listing. It is a straightforward provision that makes good common sense. It will reduce hugely the bureaucracy around tree trimming which needs to change and I urge the Committee to support it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 The whole process around the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has been rushed and slipshod. It came to the House later than the Minister promised and he was in a big hurry to get it through. The Local Government and Environment Committee sat for a lot of hours to deal with it and the Green Party is the only opposition here. The Labour Party and every other party in the House except the Green Party is supporting this bill. I think that people who are listening need to know that that is the case. 
The first evidence that this bill was rushed and slipshod was the interim report of the expert panel from which the select committee asked for assistance to determine whether the drafting in fact reflected the policy intention. The panel advised us—actually in quite strong language—that the bill as it stood then would not simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act but would complicate and confuse it which is what we in the Green Party have been saying since the beginning. The bill adds many pages to the Resource Management Act and that is hardly simplifying and streamlining. It puts a lot of words in where there used to be few. It does not clarify; it confuses. 
The Greens asked the expert panel to work with officials and they did under great time pressure and they substantially changed and improved the drafting of the bill. However there was not time to do it properly. What do we have now? We have the 44-page Supplementary Order Paper 39 which amends clauses from the beginning of the bill all the way through to the end and among other things completely replaces new Part 6AA inserted by clause 91. New Part 6AA was in the bill as it was amended by the select committee and then under the advice of officials who have presumably cleared it with the Minister in the Committee the Government has completely rewritten and replaced Part 6AA in the Supplementary Order Paper. In the reported-back version of the bill we can see that the whole of Part 6AA is underlined as new but now we have another replacement of Part 6AA. In the space of a couple of weeks they decided they needed to do it differently again. The meaning of those changes is not possible to determine overnight. I do not know. I have looked at the two texts side by side and they seem to bear little resemblance to each other. We have to take the Minister’s word that there is no substantive policy change there. 
This reminds me of a series of speeches made last year by the then Opposition spokesman on climate change who relentlessly attacked the previous Minister for climate change on the basis that he had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to the legislation that set up the emissions trading scheme that was extremely long and made a lot of technical corrections. When we compare the two we will find that proportionally this Supplementary Order Paper is larger in relation to the bill it amends than the one that the previous Opposition spokesman on the environment attacked the previous Government for. So I am looking forward to an explanation from Nick Smith as to why now that he is a Minister it is OK to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon David Parker 
: Under urgency. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: —under urgency that is so large in relation to the original bill when that was not OK last year for a bill that was opening new ground and dealing with new technicalities. Parliament has dealt with the Resource Management Act lots of times. The courts are familiar with it councils are familiar with it and Parliament is familiar with it. There should be much less reason to have to change it all at the last minute than there was last year. 
I want to speak now about the question of notification. Notification is how one gives effect to the fundamental premise of the Act—that people have a right to be involved in discussing the changes that others want to make to the environment where they live. There have always been two grounds for a notification. One is the effect on the environment where everybody has some right to have a say because we are talking here about the natural environment the resources we and future generations depend on and the other is the right to have a say on something that may affect one’s property rights as a near neighbour. The Resource Management Act has always had two tests for notification. 
This bill changes the wording yet again. The rules on notification have been rewritten so many times that I sat in the Local Government and Environment Committee saying that it was impossible to know just what these changes would mean in practice. The one thing they will mean is that all the case law will be chucked out and the courts will have to start again and define all the various terminology because the tests have changed. 
I had just reached the conclusion that apart from destroying existing case law and requiring it to be rebuilt there was not a lot of change of meaning in the bill as we reported it back. But hang on now the Minister has announced a Supplementary Order Paper that raises the hurdle higher for notification so that fewer applications will get notified. The bill as reported back said that a council must notify an application only if the application may have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor. The Minister has now changed those words to “will have or is likely to have” so a council now cannot notify an application unless it is pretty sure that the adverse effects will be serious. If the adverse effects are unknown but could well occur the council is not allowed to notify; therefore it does not get any evidence from anybody else in the community as to what those adverse effects might be. So the bill will shut out key information that if it is not brought to the Environment Court never goes in front of the judge and never gets considered in the decision making. We have already had a lift in the threshold from “less than minor” to “more than minor”; now we have “may” becomes “will” and “likely to”. So if a council has any doubts at all about the seriousness of the effects it must not notify. 
The Minister came to the select committee and met with us. I appreciated that because Ministers often do not do that with select committees and their bills. He told us that under the changes to notification he did not expect fewer applications to be notified. What he was trying to do was to cut the paperwork for the council. However yesterday he told a briefing of other parties that he did expect fewer public notifications under this changed wording. Obviously the Minister has had another turn against the rights of the public in the 2 weeks since the select committee reported back. The other thing that the notification provisions do is put councils beyond the reach of judicial review of their notification decisions by making it clear that they have absolute discretion as to how they interpret terms like “minor” and “very likely”. In the past there have been some appalling council decisions on notification. People have come home and found huge holes in the section next door that they did not know were going to be dug multi-storey buildings going up and huge areas of trees removed. I fought hard in previous years to get an amendment accepted that would give effect to what the Environment Court itself has said which is that challenges to bad notification decisions should be heard by the Environment Court not by the High Court. The High Court can consider only matters of law. It has no expertise on the facts. The Environment Court is a court of expertise on the facts; it could deal with them very quickly. We got that into section 115 of the 2005 amendment Act but with a provision that it would not come into force until it was brought into force by Order in Council. Successive Governments have refused to bring it into force; I suspect that was always the intention anyway. This Government tried to delete the clause with this bill but we got that changed. It is still not in force so one can still challenge notification decisions only by going to the High Court which is hugely expensive. No ordinary person can afford judicial review and therefore it will not happen. 
So we should expect more cases where the bulldozers move in before the neighbours have any inkling the development is happening and where the bush is felled and the coastline is altered without people’s input because the council could not be sure that the adverse effects would be more than minor. When that happens expect to have no recourse to legal challenge to those council decisions. I want to end with an example. A 15-house subdivision in Waitakere was not notified although it directly bordered 17 neighbouring properties. One neighbouring resident was not aware of the consent until she came home and saw 2000 square metres of exotic and native trees and bush being cleared from the site right next door. The consent stated that there was no need for notification as all effects were deemed to be internal to the site despite a new road earthworks bush clearance loss of shelter privacy and birdlife and destruction of an ecologically significant stream on a neighbouring property. We are going to see a lot more of cases like that as with every amendment that goes through the House notification is tightened. 
Less than 5 percent of applications are notified now. I would like the Minister to say whether he thinks that should go to less than 4 percent or less than 3 percent or just where the ultimate destination is; or are we heading for the kind of State where developers can do what they like and the public be damned? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I would not use the words we heard from the previous speaker Jeanette Fitzsimons to describe the way the bill has gone through the House; I would use the words “thorough” “totally engaged” “committed” and “diligent” to describe the Local Government and Environment Committee’s work and the conduct of each and every member of it. I am surprised. The fact is that the Greens do not like the bill; they have said so from the beginning. That has always been acknowledged. It was not a matter of contention or debate. We approached the whole thing as everybody working together and I am sorry that they wish to downplay the activities of the select committee and sell its work a little cheap. I am sure that the previous speaker did not really intend to do that because we met regularly and we met often. We discussed a wide range of activities. A lot has been said about trees and I will speak about them in a minute. We also heard from some serious committed diligent people from councils. We heard from the Porirua City Council that 90 percent of the consent applications they receive are not in a state ready for processing. This was echoed by other councils. The interesting thing in the whole approach to this bill was the level of support we received from councils planners and people who are involved at the coalface. 
According to planners I have spoken to the changes to notification will save huge amounts of time because of the freedom from needlessly writing reports to justify why they have not notified a particular application. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It’s democracy! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That is right. This is democracy. The bill is neutral on the issue of notification. It does not impose restrictions and it does not prevent notifications from being made. The honourable member opposite Mr Jones who was very good to work with on the select committee talks of democracy but it is sometimes hard for people to see the wood for the trees. That is an appropriate phrase to use in regard to clause 52. Trees will not be put at increased risk as a result of clause 52. 
It is interesting to note that as a legislator one gets a lot of attention from lobbyists. Just a scan of the emails I have received in the last week would make interesting reading for someone from outside Parliament. I have been getting about 150 a day. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Thousands! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: How are they interesting? I will tell the member how they are interesting. I have been getting two sorts of emails. Half of them tell me I should be smacking kids and half of them tell me I should be hugging trees. I like to think that it is the other way round. In fact I misread some of them and I became confused. I thought they said that I should have an approved contractor for smacking. I guess that used to be the role of schoolteachers. All of these emails have been coming from Auckland. I do not think from a casual analysis of them that a single one has been written by people who are worried about trees that they own being at risk under this new law. That is not the case. They all say that they are worried about what will happen to other people’s trees or about what other people will do to their trees. 
I cannot quite see why a change of law will result in—[ 
Interruption 
] My colleague across the Chamber says that Husqvarna shares are going through the roof. Developers have not been cutting trees down. They have not been clear-felling. Developers have been getting consents. Very few applications are denied. What will change? I will tell members what will change. The $1.8 million that Devonport or North Shore City Council spends on processing applications might be used for other purposes. It might be used for planting trees. There is a novel thought! Instead of using all that money to get people to ask if they can trim a tree councils could use the money to plant a tree—if they could find nurseries that supply substantial trees. 
I planted substantial trees in Devonport which was mentioned before. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Flagstaff Hill! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no. The Chair is ringing the bell; I will not take a long call. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Please do! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That member would like me to. Very well. The Leader of the House has asked me to and that is kind. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am leaving now of course. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Ha ha! 
I planted a row of poplars in Shoal Bay Road in Devonport between my house and the houses of two neighbours. It was not very many years before the poplars were huge. They grew beautifully and everyone commented on them but then they blocked the drains between us and our neighbours and a sewerage pipe as well. They were the most inappropriate species of trees to plant in that particular place so down they came. No permits or consents were required. At the same time my wife and her friends suggested that it would be nice to have double flowering cherries and peaches on the berm down the middle of Shoal Bay Road. The community bought the trees and we planted them. The council said it would help maintain them 
Phil Twyford 
: Where is this going? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Those trees are still there. They will not be cut down; everyone likes the trees. Why do members on the other side of the Chamber seem to imagine that everyone hates their trees? They love them. Give them a chance. 
To echo the opening comments of the Minister for the Environment I say that one wonders whether the Opposition has learnt from the last election. People wanted change and they particularly wanted change to the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The trees will be chopped down instead of protected. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: They will not be cut down instead of protected. I have yet to hear—and I look forward to hearing it in the next 4½ hours—any solid reasoning why this cutting-down business could not be done presently. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a call relating to the changes being made to notification in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I do not think that the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole was right when he said that the legislation somehow creates a neutral position and I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. In reading the bill afresh it seems to me that it removes the presumption in favour of notification so that there is now a presumption the other way in favour of non-notification. That means that instead— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why do you say that Charles? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —because it is on the face of the bill I tell Mr Auchinvole—of the council having to notify an application except in certain circumstances a council will now not have to notify an application except in particular circumstances. That is what we call a reversal of the presumption in favour of notification. Under the current provisions of Resource Management Act resource consents they are to be notified unless a consent authority can establish one of three things: that they are satisfied the effects will be no more than minor and approval of the affected parties is obtained; that the application pertains to a controlled activity as defined in which case public notification is not required unless a rule a plan or a proposed plan requires it but notice still has to be served in those cases on an affected person; or that the relevant plan specifically states that notification is not required. 
As I read new clause 68 I see that it will repeal existing sections 93 to 95 and substitute new sections 93 to 95F. Under clause 68 the proposal is that the process for notification be altered so that the following three things occur: the presumption in favour of notification of resource consents comes out—it is gone. So the bill has no general presumption in favour of notification as is the current position. The threshold for when public notification is required is changed in new clause 68 when the effects beyond the immediate environment are “more than minor” and the threshold for affected parties is raised when effects on them are “more than minor” and those are the words in the bill. The bill in new section 95A changes the requirement to notify if the “adverse effects of the activity on the environment may be more than minor;” but as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 39 the requirement is if “the activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are minor;”. That is a significant change. It means that the requirement to notify an application is significantly confined. 
The changes to the notification process that I have just outlined cannot help but reduce public participation under the Resource Management Act because the threshold for notification is set higher. That will inevitably lead to fewer resource consent applications being notified. It was interesting to see kids from Tawa College up in the gallery before. I was out in Tawa last month at a community meeting and the changes to the Resource Management Act particularly the changes proposed around notification and the changes that make it more difficult to access the Environment Court are a real concern to people. People are worried about losing their ability to have a hearing in the Environment Court over local issues that matter to them and that is something that this Parliament should be very very concerned about and very very slow to support. We are lowering the ability of the public to have a say on the adverse effects of an application and Labour cannot support those sorts of proposals. They significantly undermine the ability of local communities to participate in decisions that affect them and this proposal in particular—to remove the presumption of notification in favour of non-notification—increases the thresholds for notification. It is an inevitable way of doing things; if we do the one we get the other. It clearly undermines the ability of the public to participate and members on this side of the Chamber simply cannot support that level of undermining. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The first of those is in respect of the timetable and the intent of the bill. I know it may be a novel concept but the Government is doing what it said it would do. We said we would introduce a bill to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act within our first 100 days in office and we did. We also said we would pass that bill into law within a period of 6 months and we are doing so. I am surprised that other members in the Chamber are criticising us for doing exactly what we told the electorate we would do. 
Mr Charles Chauvel made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of notification. He raised a point that was also raised by Jeannette Fitzsimons of the Green Party. It is a very important point around the thresholds for notification. It is proper that the Committee debate those. In Supplementary Order Paper 39 in terms of adverse effects that may be more than minor my intention is to remove the words “may be” and substitute the words “likely to be”—and I ask members to remember that the consents I am talking about are the minor small ones that are on the margin as to whether they should be notified. We do not want council officials having to spend huge amounts of time trying to work out what is minor so we are saying in the Supplementary Order Paper that those consents are minor or likely to be minor. We are quite deliberately providing a bit more cover for council officials in that regard. 
Other members have given examples but let me give the Chamber an example. There is a real shortage of early childhood centres in my electorate. There are children who cannot get into an early childhood centre and get an early childhood education. I do not think there is a member of this Chamber who would not say that parents living in central Nelson need to have a place for their children to get an early childhood education. 
I have an application from a person to build an early childhood centre. The council said that all the neighbours agreed. The neighbours said they wanted to have the children around. But the people six doors down said there would be increased traffic flows in their street and they insisted on the right to be notified. So the council officials asked what the current law says. The law says that a consent needs to be notified if it has an effect on other people. Well the early childhood centre will have an effect on that street. I would argue it would be a minor effect but it will have an effect. 
Now the impact of all of that and of the old law was that it cost the development of that early childhood centre an extra six months in time and an extra $20000. Who do members of this Committee think will pay the $20000? It will not be the fairies. There is no money tree. It has to be paid for by the parents of those children. So in this debate about notification I make no apologies for saying that the effects have to be more than minor in order to justify the cost the time and the expense of notification. That is all the Government is saying with respect to these provisions. It is my view that the extra wording that has been developed with Local Government New Zealand—that is in terms of effects that are or are “likely to be” more than minor—simply gives councils a little bit of room to apply some common sense. If there is anything that we need to get into the administration of the Resource Management Act it is a good dose of common sense because right now we are adding too much in cost. 
The last point I want to make is that there is a balance to be struck between a level of public participation and the costs and delays because of that participation. In response to Mr Chauvel I say that the Government makes no bones about the fact that we are shifting that balance. If public participation is to be the only criteria under which we run this Act we will be relaxed about the fact that it took 17 years for some consents and a very long time for many others. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to start in this debate by making some general comments because I think in all the detail we do miss some of the general points about the Resource Management Act. I think the Resource Management Act is one of the most maligned misunderstood and misrepresented Acts in our country. It has been attacked repeatedly over and over by vested interests. It has been subjected to absolutely vitriolic attack by those who want to advance the interests of developers and so forth yet the Resource Management Act exists to protect our environment. 
There are two fundamental principles of the Resource Management Act. One is protection of the environment and the other is public participation in decision making. Those are the two fundamental planks of the Resource Management Act. In the midst of the debate around red tape cost and so forth I think we forget that the Resource Management Act is one of the primary bulwarks to protect the New Zealand environment on which we all depend. It is about protecting our land our water and our wildlife. 
I think we also take it for granted that this is New Zealand—clean green and 100 percent pure. We forget that the reason why we have any kind of protection in our country is that community groups have been able to use the Resource Management Act to protect their local environment. As I travel around Aotearoa New Zealand time after time it is community groups it is hapu and it is iwi who find themselves in front of consent panels and in front of the Environment Court doing the hard yards to protect the environment of our country. Yet we have an Act that changes the balance. It changes the balance against the community so that it is harder for the community groups the people the not-for-profit groups and the volunteers who do the work to protect New Zealand’s environment day in day out and year in year out. These are the people who come before the Environment Court and get vilified often by National and others because they dare to stand up for the environment. They dare to clog up the courts as it is told because they dare to stand up for this country. 
The Government of the day has now decided it needs to tilt the balance against the volunteers the iwi and the hapu of our country who constantly stand up to protect the environment. The Government wants to change the balance against those voluntary groups in favour of those who want to destroy the environment. That is what the Government is trying to do with this legislation. It is undermining the fundamental purpose of the legislation which is environmental protection and community participation. 
When we look at New Zealand and at our economy we see that it is highly dependent on being clean green and 100 percent pure—more than most other places. In fact it is built on the work that all of those not-for-profit groups and volunteers have done. We have built our economy on their backs. The people who have protected our environment are the people who underwrite and have formed the foundation for the New Zealand economy—the environment. This applies to every economy in the world because every economy of course is entirely dependent on the environment. But it applies to New Zealand in particular because we have decided to build our entire brand—as the Prime Minister calls it the “master brand” of New Zealand—on being 100 percent pure clean and green. 
Those people who protect the environment now have a much harder job doing what they do best which is looking after our country. This bill changes the balance against them. As the Minister quite rightly said it is restricting community participation. Yeah; that is exactly right. It will make it harder for the non-governmental organisation sector and harder for community groups to do their job. In the Green Party we think that is disgraceful. 
I think we need to appreciate as well that if we were working against a backdrop of dramatically improving environmental performance if we had biodiversity that was going through the roof and if we had a background of environmental performance whereby we were getting better and better year after year then we might have some argument. But the reality of Aotearoa New Zealand is that we are seeing a decline in biodiversity. We are seeing a decline in the quality of our rivers and lakes we are seeing a decline in the environment that underpins everything else and here we are weakening the law that is designed to protect the environment. We are seeing a decline in the environmental standards the biodiversity on which we all depend and that underpins the New Zealand economy. National ACT and the Maori Party so far and Labour are all voting for a law that weakens environmental protection. 
Why would we weaken environmental protection when the reality in our country is that we already have a declining and degrading environment? Why would we vote for a law that weakens the power of community groups to protect the environment? Why would we do that when we already have declining environmental standards? 
We need to address the broader picture which is the ideology that says New Zealand is bound up in red tape; that somehow our country is completely bound up in red tape. I have in front of me the World Bank Group’s report  
Doing Business 
. This report ranks economies all around the world on the ease of doing business. The most recent report  
Doing Business 2010: Reforming through Difficult Times 
 put out by the World Bank Group covers June 2008 through to May 2009. The easiest country in the world to do business in and the one that has the least red tape is Singapore which I am not sure we really want to model ourselves on in all respects. The second easiest country in the world to do business in is New Zealand. 
When we look at the international comparisons done by international bodies looking at the ease of doing business in the world New Zealand is the second easiest place to do business. So all this rhetoric about how it is really impossible for New Zealand business to get ahead because of all the red tape falls flat when we look at an independent report—rather than just an ideological position statement as comes out from the Government so often—done by the World Bank Group where New Zealand comes out as the second easiest place on the planet to do business. 
If we dig into the report a little bit deeper and look at some of the detail we see a section called “Dealing with Construction Permits” which looks in particular at obtaining a resource consent obtaining a water consent obtaining a building consent and getting an inspection from the district council. If we look at those categories they all go to inform the overall rating that New Zealand has as the second easiest place on the planet to do business. New Zealand ranks fifth on the planet for dealing with construction permits which includes all of the resource consent permits and the water consent permits. When the ideological position is put forward that New Zealand is bound up from top to tail in red tape I ask people to look at the evidence rather than listen to the ideological positions that are coming out of the Government. 
In fact when we look at New Zealand’s performance one of the reasons we perform so poorly in terms of protecting the environment is that we are not using regulations properly. Where are the national environmental standards? Where are the national policy statements that were always supposed to be part of the Resource Management Act and that were a key part of protecting the environment? If we put up those “terrible” national policy statements and national environmental standards we would be told that we are generating more red tape and more regulation. Those kinds of regulations provide consistency for business and protect the environment and they were always assumed to be an essential part of the Resource Management Act framework. 
If the Government wants to put energy into developing national policy statements and national environmental standards then the Green Party will stand alongside them as long as they improve environmental standards rather than set a maximum more of which we will talk about later. At this stage we have this so-called streamlining bill which seems only to be reducing environmental standards thereby making it harder for community groups to protect the environment. It will make it harder for community groups to do their job and to do what non-governmental organisations have done for years in our country which is protect the environment on which our economy and our quality of life depend. 
Why is it that we have this ideological position around red tape and all the evils of red tape? Where are the Bluegreens in all of this? The member for Auckland Central is voting for a bill that will result in the loss of tree cover in Auckland. Why are the Bluegreens standing behind a bill that will weaken the Resource Management Act? Fundamentally that is what this law does and what it is designed to do—weaken the Resource Management Act. 
I also ask the Bluegreens to look at the membership of the technical advisory group that formed this bill to start with. There was one—at least one—environmentalist on the technical advisory group; I give you that. But the technical advisory group membership was dominated by those who were not out to promote environmental protections; they were there to do the opposite. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I will make a quick point in response to Mr Norman regarding the fact that bureaucracy often holds up good environmental progress. A good example is Akaroa where it has taken 2 years to get a resource consent around water treatment. 
The other point I will make is around trees and clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. We have heard a little bit about that clause today. I acknowledge the stance the Greens have taken on this issue but I also acknowledge the temporary tree-huggers the Labour Party. Those members failed to put up a minority report on this issue. I have concerns about the legislation but I am pleased we are having this discussion. I believe that the current system of tree rules in Auckland is fraught that councils are spending excessive time on this issue and that many individuals are spending excessive money on resource consents for trees. The question that needs to be asked is not about politicking but about how we fix this. I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees so that is quite a positive change that will be made as a result of this bill. 
However I have a specific concern about tree scheduling. I want to ask the Minister in the chair Nick Smith and I would like him to take a call on this how the people of Auckland can have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and bush will be adequately protected via tree scheduling. I think there are some benefits in respect to the Auckland governance reforms in that there will be fewer systems in place. There may be one team if you like that will be responsible for tree scheduling; I think that is positive. It is also positive that the Auckland governance reforms are coming into place because I think it will be easier to do scheduling. I invite the Minister for the Environment to take a call on that matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The member for Auckland Central Nikki Kaye raised quite an important point. The Labour Party has not yet learnt the degree to which it alienated the voters of Auckland Central. You see Labour lost that seat for the first time ever—the first time ever—and I would be happy to bet the best bottle of Nelson wine that Nikki Kaye will be returned at the next election. Every member has been impressed with the way in which Nikki Kaye has represented that community. I am happy to bet with any member of this House that she will be returned at the next election because of that effective representation. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I cannot see how that in any way relates to the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I ask that the member be called to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for those comments. There was an interchange earlier on and the Minister is responding to those. However I will ask the member to come back to the essence of the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member had a very sensible question and that was how we can be sure that the councils of Auckland particularly given the scale of change that Auckland is involved in will get on and do the sensible thing and like every other council in New Zealand schedule both groups of trees and individual trees that warrant protection. It is a good question. 
Phil Twyford 
: They’ve already said they won’t. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They actually have not said that and I would be happy to take up Mr “Tryford” in a moment. The issue that I think in a sensible way forward— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know what the member will say. I say to the Minister—and it has been brought up before—that the member he is referring to is Mr Twyford. I ask that the Minister respects his name either calling him Mr Twyford or Phil Twyford but not any other name. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to get Mr “Tryford’s” name right. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has been here for a considerable number of years. He should be aware of Speakers’ rulings 27/6. In reality he did not say Mr Twyford’s name correctly. He mispronounced it again. I suggest he have another go. It is rude and unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand. I have asked the Minister to reflect on that and to use the member’s correct name. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The question that has been asked is what process we can put in place to ensure that the Auckland councils sensibly address this issue. I think there is quite a sensible process and I would be happy to take up the challenge from the member for Auckland Central. There are powers that I have as Minister for the Environment around the issuing of directions to councils. I am reluctant to use them unless councils will not do what I think is sensible and what this Parliament would expect. My intention would be to write to each Auckland council and ask them to set out their programme of work for identifying the trees of significance and that should be specifically by group or individually listed in their district plans and to require those councils every 6 months to report to me on the progress they make. 
I will make a couple of points about this issue. One of the really important things members opposite need to recognise is that from 1 October these councils will not have to spend millions of dollars and will not have all sorts of staff tied up with the 3000 consents a year required for tree trimming. As of 1 October that will no longer be required. The message I have for Auckland councils in response to the concerns that have been raised by Nikki Kaye is that the resource processing all those tree-trimming consents should be redirected so representatives of the councils can get out and talk with people in the neighbourhoods and communities about what sorts of trees should be protected. This could happen over lunch for example. I spoke with the Mayor of Timaru about what happened there. The first thing the council did was to invite the residents themselves. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: A member of the National Party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not think so. It is interesting that David Cunliffe always goes down that line. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I think so! Ask Jo Goodhew; they are good friends. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will simply address the issue. The Timaru council advertised and asked people to bring forward trees to be considered for protection. Within a period of 12 months it had brought together a sensible schedule of trees that should be protected. If the good city of Timaru can do it—in fact if 75 councils around New Zealand can do it—then why is it that Auckland cannot? I am interested in a contribution from a member. 
The last point I will make is a very simple question that I would like members on the Labour benches to address. The select committee received submissions on the tree protection rules. The Labour members have deeply held concerns that it is the end of the world for Auckland trees. Why then in this 250-page report from the select committee did Labour members vote for the changes in the tree protection rules and why is there no word in the report of any concern about those changes? 
Phil Twyford 
: It’s in there. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh it is in the report! Well I have actually checked the minutes. The minutes of the select committee show that the member who interjected Phil Twyford actually voted for these provisions. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister who has just resumed his seat the Hon Nick Smith said he had read the commentary on the bill and found no reference to Labour members’ concern about changes to the tree protection rules. The commentary on the bill makes the point that not all of the committee supported the prohibition on blanket tree protection. I will read from the commentary: “On balance most of us supported prohibiting blanket tree protection rules in planning documents. A number of us however regard clause 52 as amended as unsatisfactory and would have preferred a more comprehensive solution for protecting urban trees.” There it is; there is exactly what the Minister said was not there. The Minister has not even read the commentary from the select committee. He has made that same reference twice. 
I will return to some of the other serious issues in the bill—firstly the Environmental Protection Authority. I encourage the Minister to build up the capability of the Environmental Protection Authority with the Resource Management Act. In 2005 the Minister with me and Jeanette Fitzsimons was on the select committee that considered the previous major amendment to the Resource Management Act. We were somewhat dismayed at the quality of some of the drafting and some of the suggestions that came forward. With respect to the officials there have been similar concerns about some of the amendments that were put forward for the legislation that went to the select committee this time. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Resource Management Act is a complex document but there is a need for more capability within the Ministry for the Environment in respect of what is its core legislation. The fact that the ministry needs to do better in that regard is pretty clear from some inadequate drafting and advice in respect of both pieces of legislation. I am not making a political point here because the last time it happened was under a Labour Government; this time it is under a National Government. There is a need for better understanding within the ministry of the detail of its own legislation. If it does not have such understanding internally then it needs to contract it in. 
The second point I will make is in respect of notification. I agree with comments that have been made by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Charles Chauvel. The Supplementary Order Paper that has been brought forward today dramatically changes the notification rules from those that were reported back. Until now the version of the bill that came back from the select committee stated that if there may be an adverse effect that is more than minor then it had to be notified. Notification is the prerequisite to public involvement. If people do not know about something they cannot submit on it. 
According to the version that was reported back to the House people have to be notified if there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor. The wording now gets changed so that it has to be proven to the satisfaction of the consenting authority that there will be an adverse effect that is more than minor or there is likely to be such an adverse effect. Rather than it being a case of there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor there now has to be a probability that there will be an environmental effect. Councils will be advertising and notifying fewer applications as a consequence. Therefore people will not be informed of more applications that may have an adverse effect than was the case previously. That is a very significant change and I am surprised that it has been done late by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. Again that amplifies the point I made earlier in terms of capability within the Ministry for the Environment on Resource Management Act matters. It is a poor change and it is something that I would like to see overturned in the future. 
There are some good things in the bill which I acknowledge. There is always a need for housekeeping legislation. Again I repeat the point I made that this legislation is vastly improved compared with its first reading version because we have restored rights to appeal on the merits against plan changes which were absolutely essential changes. If it had not been for that change Labour certainly would not be supporting the bill with reservations. 
I will make two other references—firstly to the Minister of Conservation’s power. Under the existing law if an application is made that affects land above the high-water mark that land is generally owned by somebody and the owner of that land has the right to say that he or she does not want that happening on his or her land. The owner effectively exercises a right of veto. The owner or occupier of land has an effective right of control to say “No not here. It’s not right. It might be permitted under the plan but I don’t want it.” 
Under the prior legislation in respect of areas that are in the marine environment they are not owned by private landowners. That right of veto is effectively held on behalf of all New Zealanders by the Crown. That is how it should be. The Crown deals with that through the Minister of Conservation having a right of veto and being able to say on behalf of the Government the Crown and the people of New Zealand just as if he or she was a private landowner “No it’s not going to happen here; we don’t think it’s the right thing.” Of course the Crown should have the right to do that; it is one of the responsibilities of the Crown to look after the wider public interest in respect of areas that are being managed for public purposes by the Crown. 
The existing rights are constrained. That was shown clearly by the marina decision that the Minister relied upon in saying there was a need for change. In fact in relation to the marina decision it was found through a High Court review of the Minister’s discretion that in that case the Minister had incorrectly exercised his discretion. There is no shame in that; sometimes these mistakes are made. But it showed that the system works because there was not an inappropriate withholding of consent. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abuse of power. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member says it was an abuse of power. No it was a mistake according to the court. It was not some sort of machiavellian abuse of power. The Government’s response is to say that there should be no power of veto on the part of the Crown. I fundamentally disagree; the Crown is effectively the de facto owner—not an owner in the foreshore and seabed sense—controller or protector of those spaces on behalf of the public. The Crown should maintain that right. There are ways in which the mechanism could be improved. I agree that those decisions should be taken earlier in the process rather than waiting until the end of the process when someone has spent a lot of money on planning and probably spent money on engineers consultants and resource consent applications only to have the Minister say he or she cannot do it. I do not think that is good process. The Minister’s decision ought to be brought forward to earlier in the process. I would willingly agree to that. The Minister’s discretion ought to be retained so that the Minister on behalf of all New Zealanders can veto inappropriate developments in the coastal space just as I can veto inappropriate developments on land that is under my ownership or control. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect—to retain the veto—and I hope that members of the Committee support it. 
I will also make reference to the tree provisions. We heard Nikki Kaye wringing her hands and saying there is a terrible problem here. I am one of those people who think the existing law goes too far in the absolute prohibition on removing trees including pruning. The Greens have put forward an amendment which is supported by Labour that deals with that issue and allows pruning. The Minister represents the current situation as prohibiting the cutting or pruning of all trees. It does not do that even now. A minimum size applies before that rule applies. In any event the Greens’ amendment is sensible. 
There is a degree of overregulation now which could be remedied through the Greens’ amendment. It permits pruning but states that local authorities that want to control the cutting down of all trees over a certain size can do so. If councils want to do that why should they not be able to? If people disagree with those plan provisions they can appeal to the Environment Court. If the Environment Court disagrees with them they can strike it out as it often does with other inappropriate plan provisions. Why does the Minister feel the need to control that by way of central government limitation of the powers of councils under the regional district plans? It seems to me to run in the opposite direction of the one that the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that he is in favour of which is to delegate these proper powers to councils to exercise. The Labour Party will be supporting the Greens’ amendment— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: It’s just a nanny State. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a nanny State response; I thank Ms Fitzsimons. It is an overreaction. Having said that I agree that there is currently a degree of overregulation but the Greens’ provision fixes that. Nikki Kaye pretends that she is interested in the issue but she will not even vote in favour of the Greens’ amendment. They are crocodile tears. She turns up to public meetings says that she shares the public’s concerns and that she remains concerned and then she does nothing about it. She had a staged little comedy act with the Minister in the chair about how it will not be that bad but she will not vote in favour of the Greens’ amendment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will make two responses to the contribution from Mr Parker. The first interesting thing in his speech was that he said he accepts that the current tree rules are an overkill and should be changed. He also said in respect of the other area on which he focused his speech that he does not necessarily think that the law as it relates to the Minister of Conservation’s veto is right either. Well is it not interesting? Labour had 9 years in Government to try to fix these bureaucratic problems with the Resource Management Act— 
Hon Members 
: How long? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Labour Government had 9 long years and it did not do it. When National becomes the Government and gets on and fixes some of these problems Labour members get into the exercise of trying to niggle over an area where they say the reforms are inappropriate. 
I will deal firstly with the coastal permit veto that is available to the Minister of Conservation. Let us look firstly at the powers the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister of Conservation has the power to write the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement—the rules that relate to the coast for the whole country. The Minister of Conservation has the power to approve or not approve every regional coastal policy statement. That is the Minister’s second lever. The Minister’s third lever is being able to appoint the people who sit on the decision-making panel. That is the third power the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister’s fourth power is to submit to the hearings committee on any restricted coastal activity. Beyond that the Minister of Conservation also has the power to appeal. The Minister has five powers and members opposite say that the Minister needs the power to veto as well. 
Let me deal with the veto. I have checked the numbers. During my period as the Minister of Conservation there were about 280 applications in relation to restricted coastal activities. People lodge a consent application and a whole lot of evidence is heard at the committee. Often those hearings take weeks if not months. The decision goes off to the Environment Court which potentially hears a whole lot more evidence. When I was the Minister of Conservation in not one single case did I see merit in changing the decision on a consent application but going through the process added on average 6 months to it. 
In fact I say to Mr Parker that since 1991 when the veto was put into law there have been only two cases in which Ministers have used the veto—only two. 
Hon Members 
: So why is it a problem? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members ask a very good question and if they can wait I can give them the answer. Why is it a problem? I will tell members why. It adds approximately 6 months on to the process. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does that matter? It protects the environment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour members say it does not matter. Actually that is the problem. Members opposite do not seem to understand that time is money. An extra 6 months on the process does matter from our point of view. 
The other reason is an important constitutional point. Members on our side of the Chamber believe that it is proper that Ministers write laws and proper that they make rules and approve plans but it is not proper for Ministers to overrule decisions of the Environment Court. Let us be real here. How much time do members think Ministers spend considering resource consent applications in relation to the coastal environment? The reality is that the Minister will receive on average about two applications a week. On average each of those applications will have spent 5 or 6 weeks before a hearing. 
Hon David Parker 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is true. 
Hon David Parker 
: No it’s not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the truth is that if we take the Whangamata example I say to Mr Parker the reality is that it was a 9-week— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not a typical example at all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Mallard says it is not a good example. Do members know why? It is because the previous Labour Government got caught out. The High Court of New Zealand found that the previous Minister of Conservation Chris Carter broke the law. Chris Carter broke the law. One of the reasons for this provision is that a large number of New Zealanders said that it is not fair. It is not fair. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abuse. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague said it was an abuse but I would go even further than that. Let us read what the High Court said. The High Court said that the powers of the Minister are nothing like what Mr Parker said they are. Mr Parker said that the Minister of Conservation is exercising the powers of the landowner. He said that if the landowner wants the power then he or she can have it but the landowner does not have to have the power if he or she does not want to have it. The High Court decision makes very plain that the Minister’s powers are incredibly narrow. 
Hon David Parker 
: You’ve already said that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us go through it because Mr Parker and Mr Chauvel think they are the great judicial brains of the House and that we mere engineers cannot have a view on such things. I ask members to read the decision of the High Court because it shows that the powers of the Minister to overrule the consent process are so incredibly narrow that frankly they are worthless. If we are serious about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act then the power of the Minister of Conservation to overturn a decision of the Environment Court—which is not provided in any other part of the Resource Management Act nor should it be provided here—is not needed. 
The final point I will make is that removing the ministerial power to veto is what we promised to do. I know that Labour makes promises and does the opposite thing but National said we would remove the ministerial veto and we are delivering on that promise. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Jeanette Fitzsimons said this morning that the Government cannot disguise the fact that the true purpose of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is to remove the obstacle of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. That is absolutely clear. That is the underlying intention of the bill. The intention has been disguised by good words and so forth but the hundreds and hundreds of submitters on the bill are very well aware that that is the true purpose of the bill. 
One of the ways to remove the obstacle of public participation is through the notification provisions. The Government is tightening up the notification rules so that councils will have to notify affected parties about a development only if the effects “may be more than minor” whereas previously councils had to notify affected parties if the effects “will be more than minor”. That might seem to be just a minor quibbling over words and not of great significance but I assure people listening to this debate that the changes to those words are hugely significant. Some people have already predicted that they will effectively make non-notification the norm. Non-notification is virtually the norm already because 95 percent of resource consents are not notified. Only 5 percent were notified under the previous rules and now that they are being tightened up I predict that very few developments will need to be notified. 
It is a very subjective rule and councils interpret it differently but I can say that when I was a councillor on the Wellington City Council for 8 years lack of notification was the most common issue that I had to deal with in my constituency. People would wake up one morning to find a development going up next door. I well remember hearing from a guy in Hataitai who had woken up one sunny morning and looked out of the window to see his neighbour with a wheelbarrow. When he waved at him and started chatting to the neighbour he discovered that a huge building—a three-storey dwelling—was to go up outside his house without his being notified. A few months later all he could see out of his enormous windows was a great big concrete wall 1 metre away. That was a non-notified development. I could tell members numerous examples of what I had to deal with as a city councillor. 
An enormous building is going up in Oriental Bay that was non-notified. It has had a huge impact. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s where you live isn’t it Sue? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Yes it is. The building can be seen from this side of the harbour. It has had an enormous impact on the environment. It was not notified. Non-notification is going on and on. A 15-house subdivision was not notified in Waitakere although it directly borders 17 neighbouring properties. All of those examples happened under the existing rules but now that the rules are being tightened up I warn people that non-notification will effectively become the norm. 
I will use the example of cell towers in order to warn New Zealanders what will happen when this legislation goes through and non-notification effectively becomes the norm. When I was a city councillor I sat on many hearings about cell towers all of which had to be publicly notified. There was always a consent process. I remember the meetings in Ngaio and so forth and there were days of hearings. The telecommunications companies decided that it was very irritating and annoying to have to spend all those hours going through hearings so they lobbied the Government. First of all a provision was passed that stated that provided the land that is designated for telecommunications purposes was in a district plan then telecommunications companies could build cell towers on that telecommunications land as of right. Then the companies went round councils getting all sorts of areas notified as telecommunications land so they could build cell towers on it as of right. But then they wanted to make it even easier for themselves so they lobbied the previous Labour Government and got the so-called national environmental standard rammed through Parliament last year—an “environmental standard” what a misnomer! The standard allows cell towers to be erected effectively on every telephone pole in New Zealand as of right. 
The Green Party stood here in this Chamber and tried to oppose that Draconian provision. We tried to warn New Zealanders we did action alerts and we said “Wake up New Zealanders! You are going to wake up in a year’s time and you are going to look out of your window and find some cell tower being erected outside your house.” Nobody listened and the media ignored us. But what has happened? The provision went through last October and now I can tell members not a week goes by without my getting emails from distressed New Zealanders from all over New Zealand who have woken up to find cell towers being erected outside their homes. 
I was at a public meeting in Point Chevalier last week and there have been public meetings in Papakura. A woman spoke at the Papakura meeting and said she had woken up to find she had eight cell towers just across the road from her home. She is extremely distressed about it as are people all over New Zealand. People are asking me how this happened. They are asking how it can be that we need a resource consent to do minor alterations on our homes but telecommunications companies can erect some huge cell tower outside our homes without requiring any resource consent or notification of any kind. Of course the answer to the question is that the previous Labour Government with the support of National rammed through the standard that allows these cell towers to be erected as of right. We will have to revisit the issue in this Parliament because it is causing such distress around New Zealand. I hope the Local Government and Environment Committee will address the issue because we have several petitions on the issue before the committee. 
I use that example as an illustration; that is what will happen when this legislation goes through. People are going to wake up as so many of the people in Wellington and I am sure other places have already done to find that these huge developments are taking place and will have an enormous impact on neighbours and on neighbouring properties. Those people will find that they have never been notified of the developments. 
I assure National members that as more and more people find it happening and ask how it has happened the explanation will be that it is because National with the support of Labour has rammed through this resource management amendment bill and has tightened up the notification rules to the point where notification is no longer the norm. More and more people will then realise what has happened in the House—what is happening here today—and they will realise that Jeanette Fitzsimons was absolutely right: the purpose of the bill is to remove the annoying obstacle of public participation from the path of developers who want to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. 
The issue of notification is a huge issue and hundreds and hundreds of submitters were concerned about it. They recognised its implications and there will be great distress in the community when they realise what has been done by tightening up the notification provisions even further. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. One of the things that I think has been missing is the focus on the fact that it is a simplifying and streamlining bill. 
We have had a lot of debate about trees which might be of interest to some of the Aucklanders but other councils around New Zealand have adequate protection for trees—protection that works. Cambridge is a town of trees; it has fantastic trees. It does not have blanket tree protection but it has the most beautiful trees in the country. The Taupo District Council which is also part of my electorate for obvious reasons does not have blanket tree protection. 
I will turn this debate therefore towards the issues that actually matter to the majority of New Zealanders—the majority of New Zealanders who wanted a National Government because we promised them we would deliver changes to the Resource Management Act. And that is what we are doing: we are delivering a promise that we made to New Zealanders. 
I will address the comment the Green Party made that we have rammed through this legislation. I am quite frankly disappointed with that. The Local Government and Environment Committee worked together very very well. We had a great discussion and we made several changes. As a result of discussion on the first draft of the bill and the submissions we have had many many changes. We have had healthy discussion and healthy debate and there have been significant changes from the first draft of the bill. We have come to a good position and of course Labour thinks it is a great bill as well. Labour members voted for it. They did not bother to put into the report as a minority report any comments they have said in the House today because inherently they agree with the position. 
I will come back to what many New Zealanders are interested in with regard to the Resource Management Act which is its simplifying and streamlining. I will put in a plug for hard-working New Zealanders who want to build a garage on the back of their property who want to extend their existing house or who—though how dare they if they are in Auckland—might want to trim a tree. It is actually those guys who will have huge benefit from this legislation. 
I will give members the example of my brother. He wanted to build a fairly simple extension on to his house. We would have expected the resource consent to be back in 20 days. But because he had not done this before he went to the expense of getting a planning consultant to advise him on the process and to make sure that he came out with a successful resource consent at the end of it. 
Hon Member 
: How much did that cost? 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Oh no it was not really about the cost initially. It took 7½ months. 
Hon Members 
: How long? 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: It took 7½ months for a resource consent for a minor addition to his house. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. When New Zealanders are out there listening to this debate they want this bill passed because they do not think it is good enough to wait for 7½ months for a resource consent. They know unlike some of those members on the benches opposite that time is money. Let us say that my brother had a builder lined up to do those extensions and was ready to go. But all of a sudden that builder did not have work because the council had not been able to process that consent for 7½ months. So some of the measures that we have put into place in this bill that I will focus on are about improving the processing of those consents. 
There has been a lot of discussion about tree protection but what about some of the other measures? In terms of the notification of resource consent applications the Minister has explained it. There has not been a change in the policy in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper; there has been further clarification that the presumption has been neutralised. It has not been changed in favour of non-notification; it has been neutralised so that the presumption is not on notification. That alone will save council officers months of time on processing consents because they will not have to justify something that does not have to be notified. Currently they waste time having to write reports to justify 95 percent of the consent applications that will not be notified anyway. This Government is focusing on getting rid of that waste and this measure is the sort of thing New Zealanders are looking for. The guy who wants to build a garage on the back of his property or who wants to put on an extension to his house will not be sitting there waiting for months. 
We also know that important strategies have been put in place for improving housing in this country. They have been brought in by our good Minister of Housing. We want those houses built. We do not want people sitting around waiting for months and months for houses to be built. That is exactly the sort of progress that this Government is focusing on. 
We are not doing this at the expense of the environment. I am a particularly proud member of the Bluegreens organisation in the National Party and Taupo is hosting the Bluegreens forum next month. The Bluegreens are an important part of National so it is absolute rot that the Opposition would have people believe that National is not into environmental protection. This legislation gets the balance right so that we are able to best protect the environment and still manage— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What part of you is green? 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: I am from Taupo. Has the member considered the Taupo electorate and its extensive tourism appeal because of our clean green— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Labour policy. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Not at all. National has a very strong blue-green movement and that is why we are getting this balance right. We have sought advice from an experienced technical advisory group we have had great discussions in terms of the select committee process and we have got the balance right to make sure that the hard-working New Zealanders who want to make changes on their own property can do that without spending months and months bogged down in a council process. 
The other thing that we have not heard a lot about today is the number of submitters who came out in favour of the changes we are making because they know it will be a significant improvement on what we have now. We had close to 900 submissions. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They haven’t read one. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Does the member want a bet? We had close to 900 submissions in boxes this high. Our hard-working team on this side of the House reads the select committee papers. We read the submissions we took them on board and we were able to make changes from the first draft of the bill to make sure that we ended up with something that is great. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Interjections are permissible but we are getting to the point where there is too much discussion from the cross benches. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: One thing that we are doing to improve the resource consent process that will have a big impact on the little guy who wants a resource consent—and I am speaking for such people—is to limit the ability of councils to stop the clock. Basically it means that they will not have an endless stop-the-clock process where they can draw out the amount of time they take to process a resource consent. If the expectation is 20 days then councils on most occasions should be adhering to that expectation. 
We have also introduced in this bill a complaints process and a discount fee for consents that are processed late. We think that is fair. In business practice if one does not deliver something on time then the customer should not suffer. In this instance that is what we are talking about. If the council has not processed the consent in time then the customer who has applied for it should get a discount. We had a great discussion in the select committee and I do not think anyone disagreed with that point. In this Chamber we have spent too much time focusing on issues such as trees. 
Another point which the Green Party was particularly supportive of is that we are increasing the fines for those who break the law. For those who breach their resource consent we have increased the fine to $600000. That is far more in line with what those people should be paying and this measure is part of National’s commitment to the environment. So I will not sit here and listen to conversations where it is claimed that National is not for the environment because that is rot. Here we have a $600000 fine for a serious breach of a resource consent for companies and a $300000 fine for individuals who breach resource consents. That is really important in terms of getting the balance right in this legislation. 
We have streamlined decision making. We have improved the workability of the Resource Management Act and we have streamlined the consent process. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister in the chair Dr Nick Smith on taking so many calls on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to put his perspective to us and to help clarify some situations but I am concerned about the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consents for restricted coastal activities. I was Minister of Conservation for only a year but in that year I recognised that the public of New Zealand felt a sense of security because of that role of the Minister of Conservation. That role is repealed by clause 20. I think a feel-good factor was there about the Minister of Conservation being the activist and the protector on behalf of New Zealanders as a last resort. It gave New Zealanders a lot of confidence that the Minister would exercise that role; it was not used with gay abandon as the Minister for the Environment said it was. There were only two cases in which the role was exercised but I believe it is absolutely critical to have it there. 
I ask Dr Smith what we heard from Local Government and Environment Committee responses to the repeal made by clause 20. Eighty-three percent of submissions felt opposed to it. I think that says a lot about New Zealand. As well 76 percent opposed changes made by clause 83. I think this shows that New Zealanders do not feel comfortable with this change. Just having those powers there was a means of protection for all New Zealanders that they were comfortable with. 
I picked up another issue when I was the Minister of Conservation and that was the overlapping issues with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Many were still disaffected particularly in the Whangamata marina case about protection aspects of land that were subjected to a Treaty claim. I think we need to look at that issue very closely. One cannot look at the Resource Management Act just on its own take away the powers of the Minister of Conservation and think that solves the problem. It will leave a legacy for iwi with cases that they are really unsure about. Within some common-sense applications regional councils are over-exercising their powers without oversight of the Minister of Conservation but under the jurisdiction of another Minister—the Minister for the Environment. That really worries me. I think that power of veto was wonderful. It was not abused; it was exercised with due constraint. We may have got it wrong on the Whangamata decision but in the end the working through showed that the issue there was process. We always said that the process needed to be clarified. When this bill was first put before us in some rushed state we said we should look at the UK model where the Minister of Conservation is involved at the front end of the process for restricted coastal activities. That model works. But the Government is simply taking away the powers of the Minister of Conservation. I think it is a very sad day for us all in New Zealand. 
The Minister in the chair also mentioned national policy statements and the Coastal Policy Statement. One piece of work that I was particularly proud of was the work that Judge Shonagh Kenderdine got moving on the Coastal Policy Statement. I can remember when the Minister in the chair was the National spokesperson on the environment. He asked me several times in the House what had happened to the national policy statements. Well I ask Dr Smith what has happened to the Coastal Policy Statement. We quite rightly said that the report should come to an incoming Government but that was in November. What has happened to the report from Judge Shonagh Kenderdine which she prepared with very learned people who went around the country working on the Coastal Policy Statement? Where is that report? Why is that thinking not factored— 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s coming. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: It is coming? Here we are considering simplifying the Resource Management Act and we do not even have a major implicating instrument which is either a national policy statement or the Coastal Policy Statement. I think that is very dangerous. We obviously have to wait until phase two of the reforms and that is where the process itself really concerns me. 
We all said in our opening speeches that the Government wants to simplify and streamline the bill. We did not have problems with that. There are many aspects in the bill and the previous speaker was particularly bitter about the fact that we worked on so much of this and got it right. But we agree with the Greens and Jeanette Fitzsimons that we have unduly complicated and confused the processes. I think the powers of the Minister of Conservation are now absolutely complicated and confused. The Minister in the chair talked about five steps in which the Minister of Conservation has a role in terms of restricted coastal activity. What does that simplify? Is that what the Minister has done in terms of simplifying? I say to Dr Smith that other models could have made it so much simpler. I think he has made the role of the Minister of Conservation unduly complex and it will confuse applicants when it comes to activities that protect the coastal margin. We know that in New Zealand if we do not show due process and care for the coastal margin especially with the impact of climate change and also with development pressures moving along the coastal margin these restricted activities will become more and more fragile and will require greater protection. I believe that the role of the Minister of Conservation in relation to restricted coastal activity should have stayed in the Act. 
I remain very concerned about the overlapping implications on the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This bill gives us no assurance that the processes will be clarified streamlined or simplified. As a Minister I saw that that was particularly an issue for Hauraki. I think it is wrong to remove that power of veto of the Minister and say that five steps will assure the public of New Zealand that the coastal margin with restricted coastal activities will be protected environmentally. It makes it unduly complex. Overlapping regional councils all coming together to work on one plan is great but the Minister of Conservation is informed only at the end of the stage not right at the beginning. I think that is a big mistake. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand again to address members on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. My previous oration this morning on the issue of trees was cut off somewhat; one could say it was truncated. I would like to return to that subject. As the Minister observed we need to apply a good dose of common sense in the Resource Management Act and I think that with the broad cross-party support we have received on this issue we are getting it. 
Clause 52 of the bill which deals with the general protection of trees in the urban environment has occasioned much correspondence from the community mirrored by the debate in the House. The major urban area affected by clause 52 is Greater Auckland where a number of councils have general tree protection rules. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resources. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? As an MP who is resident in Auckland and fortunate to have his office in the green and leafy electorate of Epsom I feel I must stand and speak on behalf of those residents who wish to trim or remove a tree on their property without the time-consuming and expensive process of seeking a consent. This Government believes that citizens who own their properties should be able to do just that. 
Are those good residents as I asked this morning all vegetal Visigoths? Are they philistines of  
Philodendron 
; plunderers of pohutukawa; pillagers of puriri; or castrators of kauri? I suggest that they are not. Are those good people ravagers of  
Rhododendron 
; topplers of tawa— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I hope this is a serious point of order. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: As a descendant of the proud Ngapuhi tribe I cannot let that remark go unchallenged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member is interrupting the speech. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Castrating a kauri for goodness’ sake! What next? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Please sit down. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: We have heard from the Hon Shane Jones that we are not likely to see any castrators of kauri in the far north. I am relieved to hear that. I put it to the Committee that neither are we likely to find them in Auckland City. Will people take an axe to every akeake within sight? I respectfully submit that they are not likely to and they will not. 
What is it about the good citizens of Auckland City North Shore Waitakere and Manukau City that causes them all to be portrayed by those opposed to this amendment as rabid pillagers and plunderers who are straining at the legal leash of section 76 of the principal Act? I remind members that clause 52 is designed to amend that section which is apparently the only restraint on the lust and naked greed that would otherwise see people sacrifice huge numbers of prized significant specimen trees on the altar of Mammon. Are the good citizens of Auckland North Shore Waitakere and Manukau City any more likely to act in that manner than the worthy burghers of Christchurch Hamilton and Wellington? 
Jo Goodhew 
: And Timaru. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: And Timaru thank you. I respectfully suggest that they are not. 
Ninety percent of New Zealand cities do not have blanket tree protection laws yet all communities face developmental pressure to a greater or lesser extent. Four of New Zealand’s largest cities as we have heard—Wellington Hamilton Timaru and Christchurch—do not have such blanket tree protection. There is no endemic problem with regard to the loss of urban trees in any of these cities. Indeed it would not have escaped the attention of anyone in the Chamber that Christchurch enjoys the sobriquet “the garden city”. These reforms are about pulling back on expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy. We have had some concern raised about the Bluegreens. They reinforce National’s blue-green principles that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We find it unacceptable that concerns about minor projects such as trimming and removing a small tree can cost more than the projects themselves. 
As a case in point about 5000 of the 50000 resource consents that are applied for every year are for tree trimming or removal as we may have heard earlier—5000 which is almost 10 percent. Very few of these consents are declined. However this process is estimated to cost Auckland City almost $2 million. “How much?” we might ask. It is $2 million which could be used to treat stormwater or perchance could be used to purchase small parcels of urban land dotted throughout the community that could become treed or that are treed already. 
To reiterate I say the consent process for trimming or removing trees costs individuals and ratepayers considerable time and money although it shows few benefits. This Government believes these costs are unjustified. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak after that entertaining interlude. There is a saying in Maoridom: “When one totara falls another one stands.” But in the Opposition when one totara falls another building is built. After hearing Cam Calder I say that his speech was very entertaining. We know now why it took such a long time for him to have another speech. 
I want to go back to a speech made by a colleague of the member the member for Taupo Louise Upston. She talked about getting the balance right. If getting the balance right means we have a top-heavy model weighted in favour of developers at the expense of public participation in the Resource Management Act she can have it. I know that there are a great many more people in the Taupo community who have very real concerns about the way in which the changes to the Resource Management Act are weighted in favour more of developers and less of the community public participation and certainly iwi and hapu input into decision making. 
I listened to the Minister’s previous contribution and I say that one thing is for sure: under the previous Labour Government when it came to the Resource Management Act the ability of the public to have input into the consent and planning process was never under threat. It was never under threat and there was no misunderstanding about it. But what good ideas did we get from National members in their 9 long years in Opposition? Their ideas were to gut the Resource Management Act of any public participation in the resource management process limit notification and make it really hard for appeals to happen. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the track that this country which we are proud to call a clean green nation wants to go down. I suspect not because many submissions were heard during the first tranche of Resource Management Act amendments and many submitters supported the retention of a high level of public input into decisions made in their local community. 
We talk about limited public notification and minor adverse effects. Minor adverse effects are a matter of perspective and a lot of smaller communities said that a lot of things that were happening in their backyard were of real concern to them and the only way they could have a say was through greater input into the public process. When we talk about limited notification in fact a lot of submissions said that people were very concerned about that move. Indeed only 5 percent of consents are notified so why change something that is not broken and why limit the ability and the opportunity of communities—good thinking citizens who are concerned about preserving the quality of life in their communities—to have a say on what is happening in their backyard? 
A fine example was raised with regard to minor modifications and housing improvements. But let us go to the other end of the spectrum where earthworks are happening that are significant to many communities. There are major earthworks where trees were being cut down on the corner of Grey Street in Hamilton by a developer who had no regard whatsoever to the interests of the community and who would have rather stumped up with the $50000 fine than preserve the quality of life and the green space within that part of the Hamilton City community. There are real issues for Maori landowners who under a minor works umbrella have seen that in order for a lines company to clear space under say fallen lines they have actually had another major road ploughed through the middle of their land. That is not minor; those landowners consider it to be very major. When we talk about minor adverse effects and when we talk about raising the threshold of notification we have to look at a range of examples and not just at the one pointed to by members of the Government. We say that there are works happening under the label of minor adverse effects that need to be notified and that the public should have a say on because from the perspective of the local community people are concerned about the impact on their quality of life and about what is happening in their community. 
Again I say to the Minister that many many submissions on the issue of limited public notification said that there was really no need to change it—only 5 percent of consents are notified at present. What is the real intention here? It comes on the back of not listening to submissions on Auckland governance on the back of not listening to a public referendum where a lot of people have spoken and on the back of ramming through a number of amendments. Clearly the public sentiment has been to ask why we should change some of those things that do not need to be changed. The Minister really needs to provide greater clarity because on the surface of it the way in which these types of amendments are moving are weighted more in favour of developers’ interests rather than public input and public participation in the decision-making process. Again I say that the Minister has taken a number of calls on the bill and it is important to clarify those things just so that there is no misunderstanding about what the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments might foreshadow. 
On the issue of Whangamata one can hardly say that all the issues around it were an everyday type of scenario. But I want to provide my perspective because it was this issue that in many respects provided probably one of the most difficult ranges of interests and they were not all given equal weight in the consideration of that application. It was the interests that were promoted by Hauraki iwi Ngati Hako and Ngati Hei and endorsed by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board around really simple things such as that if there were to be a marina in that space it would significantly impact on our customary fishing interests specifically the gathering of pipi in our pipi beds. It was very simple. But the weight of those interests against big development interests with a lot of money behind them was lost in the white water so to speak. There was never really a sense from local hapu that the severity of their concerns about major impacts—protecting the pipi beds protecting the natural habitat and concerns for the moko skink in that area—was ever taken into account. 
On the question of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation those powers have rarely been used. Why get rid of them? They should be retained for the public interest and more important for the interests that exist amongst hapu with regard to some of the issues that are never really given much weight in the Environment Court because hapu do not have the resources to have the technical support to provide the level of intensity in their argument within the Environment Court context. I want to support and endorse the contribution made by my colleague Steve Chadwick on the issue of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation. She makes the good point that now since the Foreshore and Seabed Act in Whangamata the car park space in a strict sense would be considered as foreshore and seabed area. If we take out the role of the Minister of Conservation who protects the public interest there? If customary interests are yet to be determined who then fills that space? Where customary interests have not been determined I do not think it is the Minister for the Environment. In fact it should be the Attorney-General. In my mind there needs to be further thinking about how the gap that has been created should be rightly filled by the best person or position. I would say it should be the Attorney-General with regard to the foreshore and seabed space to ensure that the opportunity for the customary interests of hapu to be claimed can be held and the space can be preserved in the meantime for the rest of the public. That is the best way. We cannot assume I say to the Minister with respect that the Minister for the Environment is the best Minister to preside over decisions on questions of that nature. 
On that front again I would argue strongly that this role has not been used very often and there are obviously very specific limitations on the way in which the Minister of Conservation can make decisions. The court said that the process appears to have let the former Minister down on the Whangamata issue. However let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us have another look at the implications of the issues of the space that we are talking about especially when it comes to the foreshore and seabed. I think the Minister needs to revisit the question of who fills that gap. With respect I do not think it should be the Minister for the Environment in a carte blanche way. In fact I would petition the Minister strongly to do an assessment and scoping of the various lands that are captured in that domain and ask for advice to ensure that the Attorney-General be considered as the most relevant person to fill the space if it is not the Minister of Conservation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been raised by Nanaia Mahuta in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Firstly regarding the issue of the Minister of Conservation’s veto or capacity to overrule the decision of an Environment Court I put to the Chamber this scenario. Let us say that we had an application that was heard before the Environment Court. The local iwi come along and say that the application will have an adverse effect on their pipi beds the Environment Court says that they are right and it turns down the application. In this scenario let us say that the Minister of Conservation was my good colleague Chris Auchinvole and he said “No I’m a keen fisherman and I’m going to overrule the Environment Court. I’m going to let it go ahead.” He would be the very first member to scream foul. I say to the member opposite that that is what the law says. 
My challenge to the members on my left is this: why do they not trust the Environment Court? There is no other part of the Resource Management Act where Ministers make decisions on individual consents and members on this side of the House say that we trust the Environment Court. The sorts of issues that the member has raised should be properly dealt with in that court. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Will the Minister take a question? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. You cannot interject like that. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave for the Minister to take a question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No you cannot do that. It is a debating point. The member can interject but if the member who is speaking does not respond then that is the end of asking the member to take a question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have a very simple question for members of the Labour Party. Why do they not trust the Environment Court? It is a very simple question. We trust the Environment Court in respect of hydro developments major transmission projects and huge roading projects so why would Parliament take a different view and not trust our Environment Court judges to make proper decisions without political interference in the area of the coast? 
The second point the member raised was that this bill was all about developers. In fact Russel Norman went one step further. He said that this bill is an attack on the voluntary and community spirit of communities all over New Zealand. Let me give member a very practical example of why members on this side of the House support this bill. I have a letter here from Mr Peter Grant. He is the treasurer and a life member of the Mercury Bay Tennis Club—one of those rampant developers! Do members know what that awful tennis club wanted to do? It wanted to build a volley wall for its community. To apply for a 2-metre high volley wall at the Mercury Bay Tennis Club—and I have a photo of it that I would be happy to table—it lodged a consent with the Thames-Coromandel District Council and the council said the club had to have a resource consent. Do members know how long that took? This application was lodged in July last year. How long do members think it took for the Mercury Bay Tennis Club—one of those rampant developers out there—to get consent to build a volley wall for the children of Mercury Bay and Whitianga? The club lodged its application on 11 July and it finally got consent on 17 February. But there is a byline. Do members know how much it cost the Mercury Bay Tennis Club to get a resource consent for a volley wall in Whitianga? It cost $2200 to build but the cost of getting the resource consent was $2564. Is Mr Norman telling me that that is a voluntary and community group that is being attacked in this bill? I say to that member that that is the sort of bureaucracy that is driving ordinary New Zealanders mad. 
Communities and members want to do the right thing. They want to make a positive difference for their communities and members on this side of the House are saying that it is examples like that that show why we need this bill and why we need to take a practical view of how we deal with resource consents. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have put forward a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the notification provisions of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and I would like to run through them so that members will be able to support them. 
I ask members to turn their attention first to Supplementary Order Paper 43. It removes altogether clause 68 which makes the changes to notification. Basically these clauses have become a mess. It is confusing. It is not at all clear. We know that it somewhat raises the bar for notification but it is very unclear how it will be interpreted. It is creating a legal mess. We should go back to the position we had earlier. It was not ideal but at least we were getting some case law around it and it was better than what we have now. 
That brings me to some comments made by Louise Upston. She talked about people having difficulty getting resource consents to build a garage. Most garages and house extensions need a building consent but they do not need a resource consent. It would have to be an unusual kind of garage—one that shades people’s sunlight encroaches on the boundary or bulk and location requirements or whatever—to actually need a resource consent. People certainly would not be notified beyond the immediate neighbours. So it is a very bad example. I give members an example of something of much greater impact that does not get notified at all: an open-cast coal mine in the Waikato. An open-cast coal mine was regarded as having effects so minor that it did not need notification at all. I ask members to try that next door! 
If Supplementary Order Paper 43 fails which I am sure will not be the case we have Supplementary Order Paper 45. It clarifies that in a case of limited notification where the restrictions on who gets notified are quite narrow an organisation representing the public interest when there is an impact on that public interest by the development should be regarded as affected persons. Because the definition of “person” under the Resource Management Act makes it clear that organisations are persons under the Act we would think that an organisation representing the public interest would be a person affected anyway. But some have argued that only natural persons can be affected in the sense of the Act and that therefore organisations representing the public interest could be excluded from the limited notification provisions. That is why we have said for the avoidance of doubt that these organisations should be regarded as affected persons. If that organisation is the tennis club and water quality is being affected then it would not qualify. But if the local environment group has done work on water and water quality will be impacted then it ought to be notified. 
Supplementary Order Paper 45 also omits new section 95D(a)(ii) inserted by clause 68 which has the peculiar effect of saying a person “must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy—(ii) any land adjacent to that land;”. So people can cause effects on their immediate neighbours and they do not get notified but people cannot cause effects further abroad. That seems to be bizarre and we propose that that new section should be omitted altogether. 
Supplementary Order Paper 43 removes clause 131 which is the clause that repeals the right under section 274 of the Act to join an appeal brought by another party. I dealt with this issue somewhat in my second reading speech where I said that the ability to join an appeal brought by somebody else will never be needed by a large developer with full-time lawyers. They will be in there right at the beginning. The people who need section 274 are the people who are holding down jobs and looking after families. They are volunteers they are part-time and they just do not see the deadline coming up in time to get into the original case in front of the council. Therefore they lose their right to appeal. As the law stands section 274 allows them when someone else appeals to join that appeal and to bring their information and evidence for the benefit of the court in order to make a better decision. I quote the case of the Cypress mine appeal where the Buller Conservation Group under section 274 joined as an interested party the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society which had appealed. They were able to fund a lawyer an ecologist and a landscape architect and that helped the environment movement produce a well-rounded case in that appeal. 
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and groups like it sometimes use that ability to join a case. In this case a national environment group brought an appeal and then the local group was able to join that appeal and bring its local knowledge. Local knowledge is really important in a case like this. I have already mentioned in my second reading speech the case of the local people who knew that the land on which a mining tailings dam was built was unstable and would slip. Unfortunately they were not listened to even though they got as far as court and the land was unstable and slipped and it cost $20 million. The mining company might wish that it had listened at that stage to the local group. So we believe that section 274 adds a useful provision to the Act and should not be repealed. 
If all of this fails finally we have Supplementary Order Paper 44 which clarifies that even if section 274 is repealed a person representing some aspect of the public interest that is affected by this case can appeal against the case. I recommend those Supplementary Order Papers to the House. 
I will talk about trees. We do not have laws on murder because we think every good citizen of Auckland will go out and murder people. We do not have laws against theft because we think most people are thieves. We have those laws because there are a few who might be. Likewise we do not need tree protection laws because we cannot trust the householders of Auckland; we need tree protection laws because in Auckland above all other places a lot of infill development is going on whereby developers buy a section they have no real connection with do not intend to live on and have no attachment to in order to build as many apartments as they can fit on to it and the trees are in the way. This is a totally different situation from a person with a beautiful magnolia in his or her front garden who is unlikely to chop it down. That is not who this rule is for. We are talking here about the areas that have the most intense development pressures. Of course we are not losing trees in Christchurch! Developers are not trying to cram multiple apartments into every tiny corner of Christchurch. It is not growing at quite that rate. We have those pressures in a few parts of the country. Councils can use this tool in the public interest where it is necessary to have some control over trees in those areas that are being densified quite fast. 
The Minister for the Environment said there were 5000 applications per year to trim trees. If the Minister is right then what he is saying is that all of those 5000 cases would not have had to happen if he had accepted my amendment which excluded trimming trees and allowed a blanket protection only for felling removing or destroying trees. But the Minister would not accept that amendment at all despite the fact that it would have dealt with those 5000 applications which he said were about trimming trees. My suspicion is that roughly half of them were about trimming trees and roughly half of them were about felling trees but in either case it would have dramatically reduced those compliance costs. 
In addition councils could delegate the decision to an officer on site who goes out visits and makes an assessment. The officer says yes signs the piece of paper and says: “Off you go.” There is no need for the mass of paperwork that goes on at the moment. It could be done very quickly and simply. It is just a matter of having a check. The scheduling will create very much greater compliance costs because every single tree scheduled is open to appeal by people who do not want it scheduled. The council will be tied up in a nightmare of compliance red tape cost and paperwork trying to get its schedule and most councils simply will not try. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Self-sown or planted raised and nurtured by the landowner or growing up naturally through the canopy cover above. Growing over dozens of years sometimes hundreds of years sometimes thousands of years they emerge to provide shelter and shade. They provide stability for our soils they prevent erosion and slipping. They fertilise they attract rain they hold moisture they provide beauty wilderness amenity and view. They refresh our souls as well as our waters. Trees. They are slow to grow quick to go. 
At the heart of the debate lies this paradox. There are two competing views of the ownership of these things called trees. On the one side is a party that believes that ownership is entirely individual and entirely temporal and therefore every individual should have the ultimate right to cut them down. On this side we have a party that believes that trees are part of our birthright that we give to other generations and are also something that we own collectively as well as individually. In recognition of that broader view some communities around New Zealand have joined together to agree rules that everybody in that community should stand by in the way that they either protect or decide to chop down a tree. Clause 52 amends section 76 of the Resource Management Act to prohibit any rule in a district plan from providing for the protection of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment. It is an act of prohibition against any community deciding that there is a common interest in maintaining those trees. Clause 151 requires any council to remove rules from the district plan by 1 January 2012 conveniently after the next general election which probably explains why the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that at least scores the unrestricted trimming of a tree immediately on the passage of this bill before the next general election just in case National does not win it. 
Here we come to another fascinating political point. In the life of any Government there are some key moments moments when in its arrogance it puts its big boot right in the organic matter and this is one of those moments just as it was on adult and community education cuts and just as it was when the public decided that it was revolted by Rodney Hide’s minimalist vision of a local government agenda. On this issue inboxes are clogged with hundreds and hundreds of emails from Aucklanders who say that it is not the Government’s right to override their democratically elected councils that have put in place rules that the majority stand for. Here is the problem. This is an active override by central Government over local democracy from a party that campaigned against the nanny State! This is the chainsaw State the bulldozer State driving its way through local government rules. It is the party of liberty crushing bottom-up democracy—go figure! That is what these tree provisions are really about. 
This is a bill that was supposed to streamline and simplify but whose only solution to the trees issue is to create a mountain of bureaucratic red tape by requiring that every tree or—maybe just maybe especially if Lynne Pillay’s amendment goes through—group of trees has to be individually scheduled by the council creating a trail of paperwork and further consultation. They say the blanket rules are too bureaucratic so we are going to get 100000 little individual rules for each tree. One of the members opposite raised the subject of Timaru. I grew up not far from there. That is the kind of place where if people are driving along an empty country road and see another car they wave because they never know whether it is the last car they will see. It is not hard to protect an individual tree in Timaru; there are not too many of them. But it is a totally different scenario in Waitakere where I now have the privilege of living. In Waitakere there are hundreds of thousands of trees. It is completely impractical to do individual scheduling or even small group scheduling of trees and many properties and many dwellings exist in the bush. 
There is a ridiculously inequitable state of affairs in these clauses because they apply only to urban trees and urban councils. That says that rural people—is that because they vote National more often—must love their trees more or would be more sensible. Is that the hidden agenda here? Why should urban people not have the right to join together through a democratically elected council and protect their native flora? It does not make any sense it is inequitable and it is unnecessary because streamlining is an operational matter. It does not need to be a legislative matter. If it is the Greens have an amendment that quite rightly allows for improved trimming and provides for on-the-spot consenting processes and we believe that there is a lot of potential there to find a good middle ground. We are not opposed to streamlining but we believe that these provisions take the Act in the opposite direction. 
The legislation is unethical. It manifests an extreme individualism. It says “The tree on my property is mine alone. It doesn’t matter if it took 200 years to grow. It doesn’t matter if I am a blink in the eye of the life of the tree. It doesn’t matter if as well as being on my property it provides shade or stability for the properties beside me above me or below me on the hill and it doesn’t matter if removing it might cause erosion or a slip. That does not matter. It does not matter if it is part of a view. It doesn’t matter if it is part of a line of pohutukawa along the coast. That does not matter because it is mine alone.” That is the kind of individualism that ordinary New Zealanders do not buy into. 
Labour will be vigorously opposing these tree provisions and we will be moving three amendments to remove or reduce them. Phil Twyford will be moving amendments to strip those offending provisions from the bill because they are wrong and they should go. At the very least they should be deferred into the second tranche of the Resource Management Act reforms so that the Government has time to properly consult. If National is a party of consultation then let it be true to its word. I will be moving an amendment to exempt the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area established by this Parliament not a year ago after 30 years’ work and supported by 81 percent of Aucklanders according to Colmar Brunton. That should be akin to a reserve or a conservation management area and that should be exempted for very very sensible reasons from the operation of those clauses if they stand. If the Government rejects both of those two I call on the Minister to state whether he will support an amendment on behalf of Waitakere City by Lynne Pillay MP. They are technical amendments that hold the Minister to his word that it is not an individual tree but a group of trees that can be scheduled if scheduling must occur. 
I come to the fundamental point that the trees of west Auckland are a community resource as well as an individual resource. There are far too many homes on properties of less than 4000 square metres that are reticulated that are surrounded by trees. In fact the only area on some properties that is not treed is the physical area of the house. The rest of it is solid tree cover and scheduling every tree is a nonsense. At best it is a bureaucratic nightmare; at worst it is a deliberate con. That brings me to National’s Auckland MPs. Nikki Kaye goes around the tree groups and says that she will help. Either she knows she is powerless and she is not being frank or she has an overblown impression of the Minister’s willingness to listen. Either way it is vacuous; she has delivered nothing. Paula Bennett would not return the phone calls of the Waitakere City Council. She presents herself as a defender of west Auckland yet she is selling it down the river. Tim Groser could not be bothered because he is overseas. Pita Sharples could not pick up the phone. In his case I understand there may some family reasons so we will cut him some slack on that. But I call on Maori Party members to be the kaitiaki of the trees not just talk about it and vote with Labour if they can get over themselves and long-past history and support these amendments. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution from David Cunliffe. It was wrong in fact wrong in process and wrong in philosophy. Let me go through each of the issues. The member opposite said that there is no provision except for individual tree protection. That is wrong. There is absolute capacity for groups of trees to be identified for protection through the proper process. All this bill does is ban blanket protection rules across the district. 
The second error I want to mention which I find extraordinary concerns amendments. Where are all the amendments that Labour members moved at the select committee when they heard submissions on this bill? I do not think a single amendment was put forward at the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Twyford has said he has strong concerns. He was on the select committee. Was he asleep? Was he not there? Why did Labour members not move a single amendment at the select committee when these detailed provisions concerning trees were being dealt with? They have completely let the side down. 
Let us turn to the issue of philosophy. I will explain very simply the philosophy on this side of the Chamber. In an extraordinary backwards flip the member David Cunliffe is saying that somehow the changes we are making are an attack on liberty. Let me very simply explain for the member the principle that applies here. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to define something as simple as a person’s property right. Probably the most important asset that New Zealanders own is their little quarter acre and it is the proper business of this Parliament to define the limits and the extent of people’s rights around their little quarter acres. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: No limits under this Minister! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite keeps interjecting and saying that there are no limitations. That is simply untrue and it is below what I would expect of a front-bench member of the Labour Party. 
Members on this side of the Chamber say that is an absolute right—and David Cunliffe gave a speech about a huge tree that has been growing for 200 years—for a community to identify a tree or group of trees in its district plan and there is nothing in this bill to stop anybody from properly recognising those trees. 
I say to the member that if the council wants to adopt a rule of that sort then it should talk to the property owner. Is that not a novel concept? It seems to me that it is a novel concept for members on the Labour benches to say that if people have a tree on their property and the council wants to protect it the council should talk to them and consult them. Is that a radical notion? Is that something that this Parliament and its members cannot grapple with? 
Perhaps I should read for the benefit of Mr Cunliffe this contribution from Mr Bill Ralston. He says: “Before Christmas I decided to get rid of an ugly stunted exotic box elder tree at the bottom of my garden that was strangling a native nikau and a couple of other palm trees. The guy who does our garden brought around an arborist who told me he could not fell the damn thing without a resource consent. I wrote a cheque and several weeks later a man from the Auckland City Council with a clipboard came around and stared long and hard at the offending tree. Yes he would recommend we could cut it down. More weeks passed and eventually a long document arrived from the Regulatory Planning Department of Auckland City Environments saying we had been granted consent. The tree feller came cut it down and removed it in 30 minutes.” 
Bill Ralston said he was very pleased that the National Government is going to pass changes to end that sort of nonsense. He went on to say: “I will never again have to apply for a Resource Consent to trim my garden the council will not have to spend many hours pondering my botanical behaviour and the ratepayers of Auckland will not be wasting hundreds of dollars every time someone in this city wants to do some gardening”. 
I also draw Mr Cunliffe’s attention— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How many emails has the member received in favour of whacking down trees? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the member Mr Cunliffe asks about emails. That is an interesting question. I never— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He has to read his media trainer’s emails. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member should take a big deep breath for a moment. I draw his attention to the  
New Zealand Herald  
poll. What did the poll say about this issue this week? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How scientific was that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that member who has just been talking about the number of emails I have received is not prepared to accept a poll from the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 I have to tell the member that it is as simple as this: the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe they should have to get a resource consent to trim their trees. 
I look forward to campaigning in 2011 and saying that a vote for Labour is a vote for a nanny State and a vote to go back to the nonsense we have tolerated for 9 years as has been demonstrated by the poor old citizens like Bill Ralston who had to go through a 6-week performance to get resource consent to trim a tree. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I want to refer to Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Dr Russel Norman. Part of this Supplementary Order Paper deals with security for costs. Security for costs is something that concerned many of our submitters but we believe that a lack of knowledge about the process increased their concern unnecessarily. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill does reinstate security for costs. Many community groups were concerned that this provision may exclude them from participating in environmental decisions. But when the Local Government and Environment Committee reviewed court decisions from the past we felt that the judges had used their power with discretion and that genuine environmental groups with genuine concerns would not be disadvantaged. 
It is important to note that the Environment Court has always had the ability to award costs in appeal proceedings but the power of the court to require security for costs has varied. Security for costs is the deposit of money or security to meet the possibility that the party will be unable to pay costs that may be ordered by the court should the case be unsuccessful. In the period 1996-2003 although the Environment Court had this power it was rarely used. Database searches could find only eight times when security for costs was required whereas nearly 1500 cases went before the court each year. Contrary to common perception among many of the submitters the practice of requiring security for costs in the Environment Court does not kick in automatically upon the lodgement of an appeal. A party usually the party whose resource consent decision is being appealed against first has to apply to the court for an order for security for costs. 
When it had the power to require security for costs the Environment Court exercised its discretion according to a range of factors. The general principles are set out in rule 61 of the District Court Rules 1992 and the interests of both the appellant and the applicant are to be considered. Factors that are considered include the strength or merits of the plaintiff’s case the conduct of the parties involved public interest factors and an assessment of the financial resources that are available. Given that the court already has case law in place and it has been considered to work well we did not see a need to specify criteria for additional consideration in this legislation. I repeat: we do not think that environmental groups or individuals with a genuine issue need to fear this amendment. It is there to provide a balance at the court’s discretion and I believe it is needed. During the submission process we did see firsthand evidence of an environmental group that felt it was OK—in fact it felt it was its right—to dissolve the organisation and walk away from its responsibility when court costs were awarded against it. 
We believe that the new bill in allowing the ability to require security for costs at the court’s discretion provides a good balance. We hope that as groups get to understand the process and see it in action they will conclude that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain from participating in environmental decision-making. Therefore I suggest that we do not support Dr Russel Norman’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I will begin by saying that I think the Resource Management Act has been a very good Act. It is very easy to find examples of where things have not gone right. One can always dig those up. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has to make sure that red tape is cut. However will it work? I think we have to look at the situation as it is. People came to the select committee hearing and made their submissions with passion. I was disappointed that I was not able to sit on the committee very often because I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee that was sitting at the same time dealing with Auckland issues. 
I want to talk about what is going on in Manurewa in regard to this bill. If someone wants to build one of these things called a bloke’s shed and it happens to be going up against the boundary that person will run into real conflict. The resource consent cannot be gained very easily. I understand that and I want to see things change. The reality is that the people who administer the Act at the moment are the same ones who will be in charge of this new Act once it passes through the House. We have to change those people and I think that is the real problem. We have to change the way these people see things. When someone asks to have a bloke’s shed built on the back of his or her section up against the neighbour’s property these guys see that there is at least 3 months’ work in it for them. Of course it is not made easy. I hope that these things will change quite considerably. I think the Act itself has been fairly important in terms of making sure that developers do not run roughshod over the assets of a community. The environment is very very important. 
I want to tell members about a situation in Weymouth. Two macrocarpa trees are growing right on the boundary of someone’s place. They are not beautiful trees and the next-door neighbour wants to get rid of them because they are blocking the light and making the property damp. But the person who lives about eight houses down the road thinks they look pretty good and then the debate starts and the council ends up taking sides. I do not want this bill that is before us now to start a chainsaw massacre. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It won’t George; it won’t. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think it very well could and I think we have to be careful about that. When we see how some people in Auckland will do anything to clear a bit of land to build on we have to be very careful. Auckland is even better than Christchurch as far as a city with trees goes. There are some wonderful places in Auckland. But people get passionate. Remember One Tree Hill when it used to have a tree? People became very emotional when the tree was cut down. Aucklanders love their trees. Of course we would be remiss if we did not make sure that people cannot go out there and just chop down the tree. We cannot say to people: “Well that tree has been there for the last 100 years. It’s going to stay.” and have them reply: “No it’s not. I’m going to chop it down. It’s my tree.” We most certainly do not want that to happen. 
It is interesting that at the moment the chief executive of the local council has more say over the tree than the person who owns the land that the tree is on. However there are people in our community who are not responsible who do not care what their neighbours think and who do not care what the wider community thinks. We do not want to let them get their chainsaws out and hack down every tree because they do not like them. Councils are notorious for putting so much red tape in the way of people. I have a case in Manurewa at the moment. It took the council 26 years to notify a person that a fence was the wrong size. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will speak briefly about notification issues because those are some of the issues in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I will talk about a particular example of how the notification processes are already far too weak. The example I wish to address is around a piece of bush that used to exist in the South Taranaki ring plain. It was called the Parihaka bush. This is an example of why the current regime around notification is far too weak and why it is a mistake to weaken it further as the Government proposes to do with this bill. 
Parihaka bush was about 10 hectares of remnant forest and a remnant swamp or wetland and it sat in the South Taranaki ring plain. Members who know the South Taranaki ring plain will know that outside the Taranaki park very little native vegetation is left. According to the ecological assessment done on the area about 1 percent of the original native vegetation is left in the South Taranaki ring plain. Parihaka bush existed previously; it was about 10 hectares. Tawa rewarewa miro pukatea rimu mahoe pigeonwood tree ferns and about 20 30 or 40 different varieties of ferns trees and shrubs existed in this area. It was a very important local piece of vegetation. It also had the Waitotoroa Stream which had water of reasonable quality in it because of the bush that existed around it. 
Parihaka bush was in the middle of a dairy farm—and there is a family story about this. New farmers basically wanted to bowl the bush in order to do a dairy conversion. They wanted to take it out; they wanted to get rid of it. They went to the South Taranaki District Council which told them they would need a resource consent. The farmers being of the same mind as the National Party and the ACT Party thought that that was an outrage. They said something like: “How dare they! It is our land. How dare we have to have a resource consent in order to bowl the last 10 hectares of native bush left in an area where 1 percent of the native vegetation is left? It is our land. How outrageous it is that we should have to have a resource consent in order to bulldoze bush!”. So the farmers started bulldozing it anyway. They said: “Bugger that! We don’t believe in this Resource Management Act stuff. The National Party tells us all the time how bad it is and we subscribe to that so we will get the bulldozer out and start bulldozing the bush.” They started on the bulldozing before someone found out and the council sent someone around to assess what was going on. 
The council intervened and had an ecological assessment done on the bush. It found out that the bush was a 100-year-old piece of bush that was tremendously important in terms of the ecology of the region. One would think that the council at that point would have said the farmers could not bulldoze any more of the bush. In fact one would think that it would fine them for bulldozing the bush without obtaining a resource consent. One would think that would be the logical conclusion. Instead the council looked at the ecological assessment which showed the bush was tremendously important and it obtained a recommendation from council officers who said the council should not give the landowners a resource consent because that would only reward them for bad behaviour and it would be a bad thing to do anyway. The council then said no it would give the farmers a resource consent. Not only did the council say it would give them consent to bowl the rest of the bush but also it said they did not have to notify the proposal. The council decided not to tell anyone about it. The farmers had a non-notified consent for the bowling of the rest of the 10-hectare bush but they left some parts of it. 
This is the current situation. The Resource Management Act is already so weak and unable to protect the last remnants of natural vegetation from dairy conversions that this clearance of the bush went ahead. In the bill before us the Government proposes to weaken the notification provisions further. This is the reality on the ground in New Zealand today. This is what is going on outside this House. We hear the rhetoric from National and ACT about the evil Resource Management Act and how it does terrible things but the truth is that we are losing biodiversity rapidly because the Resource Management Act is too weak. We need provisions to protect biodiversity on private land. That is essential if we are to protect the remnants of biodiversity. There are farmers right across New Zealand who protect biodiversity. They have Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants put on their land they protect biodiversity and they would be appalled by the actions of these farmers in knocking over this important remnant bush. They do not support that. But in this case the farmers got away with it. They did it and it was not notified and that is why we have to strengthen the notification provisions not weaken them. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 In acknowledging the work that has been done at the select committee let me say to the presiding officer that I acknowledge and recognise the important part he too plays in the debate. 
This legislation will be dubbed the chainsaw massacre legislation because it opens the way for people to be able to remove trees that they do not like. Many of us know the importance of a tree. As an electorate member of Parliament I have served Papatoetoe for the previous 22 years Otara for 13 years and Otahuhu for just under 1 year. I can imagine some of the great trees that exist in Papatoetoe. I can envisage places like Kolmar Road and also Wallace Road where we have some wonderful oaks. Some of them overlap and I can see some overzealous people now using this legislation to be able to remove those trees if they do not like them. 
The Government is overreacting. Labour was accused of being a nanny State Government. We can now turn the tables and say this Government is a nanny State Government. This nanny State Government is putting forward this legislation and overreacting using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In Auckland where population pressures are increasing our small areas of vegetation are under great pressure. Six out of seven Auckland local councils have general tree protection. The Environment Court accepts the approach declaring in favour in 2002 of an argument that general tree protection rules were necessary to achieve the purposes of the Resource Management Act. Clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill will undo that tree protection. 
It is not just my Labour colleagues or my Green colleagues who oppose clause 52. If we look at the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the headline on 7 September reads: “Tree law change aids ‘sneaky’ choppers”. I will quote from the article: “Homeowners whose trees are illegally chopped down by neighbours will no longer be able to count on council help once a proposed law change likely to become final this week is passed [into law]. The owner of Auckland’s biggest tree consultancy predicts more neighbourhood spats if the law scraps protection for trees of a certain height or size—and councils will no longer be able to step in. Stacy Colyer whose Greenscene company is often called in to help with disputes said there would be an increase in court cases over who owns large trees on boundaries.” 
Although one can accept the need to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act I have found from experience that much of it comes down to the training of individuals in councils. It comes down to staff training and being able to handle applications for resource consents. 
Mr Colyer is concerned about clause 52. He says it means that in urban environments only trees or groups of trees that are specifically identified in a schedule of notable trees to a district plan in a reserve are protected by the Reserves Act. He says and he believes that some simple operational modifications could have been implemented to deal with the problem rather than act in a way with the legislation and with what it is intended to do. 
Mr Colyer has a lot to say. Some of what he says I agree with and I think the Minister should take some notice of what is being said. We know that trees are important for the environment. We know that there is urban sprawl in Auckland. We know that there will be a time when those people who are developers will want to remove the trees. They will use any opportunity they can to ensure that that happens. If we look around at some other countries that have environmental legislation we see the importance of trees and why they are there. In a lot of the countries vegetation wildlife and birds are affected by a lack of trees. As urban centres become more intensified the challenges facing the Government are greater. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 We have spent a lot of time in this Chamber over the last few months debating the Auckland super-city and an enormous effort is going into creating governance structures for Auckland. But what do we find? Before the ink is even dry on the second super-city bill this Government—this nanny State Government—is already intervening in a heavy-handed way to take away the powers that local government uses to govern its own communities. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that local decisions should be made locally. The Associate Minister of Local Government will be able to confirm that comment because I have heard him repeating the same idea over and over. But what is happening? The Government is coming over the top with its big boots on and overriding the powers of local government. 
I quote Mr Chris Dempsey who is one of several hundred Aucklanders who has emailed me in the last few days. He says: “Firstly if the National Party would really like to place such a prohibition on enacting policies within district plans then I invite the National Party to write the district plans for every TLA. As I pointed out in my submission to the select committee for central government to interfere nanny-like with how TLAs reach decisions and make policies about things that are important to them then the obligation is on the Government to do the work for the TLAs. The National Party cannot pick and choose. Either the party abides by its beliefs that the local communities know what is best for them or it doesn’t.” I think Mr Dempsey makes a very good point. 
It is worth asking why six out of seven Auckland councils use the general tree protection rules. Why do they? I have some answers. It is because those rules protect trees and because the alternative—listing and scheduling those trees—is impractical and expensive. It is also because democratically elected councillors going about their work and implementing district plans after considerable public input find that those rules are actually the most effective tool open to them for protecting trees. Does that mean anything to National? No it does not. There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about whether this is a strange Auckland phenomenon. Why should Auckland rely on these rules when the rest of the country does not? 
I invite members opposite and the Minister to reflect a moment on why it is the case that six out of seven Auckland councils use these rules. Could it be anything to do with the population density in Auckland where 1.4 million people are crammed into a little isthmus? Could it be anything to do with property prices? Could it be anything to do with the intense development pressures experienced in our country’s biggest city? I invite the Minister to take a drive along the motorway from Fanshawe Street towards the Harbour Bridge and to look up at the cliffs of St Marys Bay. And members should not worry because the Minister is not driving; he is sitting in the back of his limousine. He will see there that rogue developers in the past have taken a chainsaw and cleared the cliff-tops in order to be able to provide a clear view for their clients. That is the kind of development pressure we face in Auckland; Aucklanders know that. 
The existing general tree protection rules have not prevented every mishap of that kind but they have prevented many of them. Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central will have to explain to the good people of Herne Bay Freemans Bay and St Marys Bay why the cliff-tops will lose their pohutukawas after the bill is passed. I have news for the Minister. Once the clause is passed there is no safety net. It will all be over; there will be nothing left to protect the trees of Auckland. Councils have made it very clear that they will not be individually listing trees in anything like the volume that is needed and in a way that currently protects those trees. It is a crazy expensive impractical and bureaucratic approach to solving the problem. 
When the Minister spoke early in the day he was completely disingenuous in claiming that 5000 resource consents every year were needed to deal with the trimming of trees. This debate is not about the trimming of trees but that is what the Minister said. Already in the select committee Labour members and Green members have made it very clear that they are not opposed to lifting some of the restrictions around these provisions but the Minister has rejected a compromise proposal that would have made tree trimming a non-consented activity. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to challenge a number of the quite ridiculous notions that have been put forward again about the issue of tree trimming. Let me just flick through a few of them. Essentially Labour is arguing that unless councils love trees we will not have trees. It is a bit like arguing that people would not paint their houses unless there was a council law that required them to paint their houses. Actually people do paint their houses. They paint their houses to look very nice. It makes the community look good. But does that mean that our Parliament and our councils have to have a whole lot of rules regulations and Acts of Parliament to ensure that people paint their houses? No it does not. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You’re the one with the mandate override. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say exactly the same to the member who is continuously interjecting. Labour members essentially do not at heart trust New Zealanders. That is the heart of the issue. They say to them that we need a nanny State Government and nanny State councils to introduce blanket rules because nobody is capable of making decisions about their trees unless there is some bureaucrat who is able to give them consent or not. 
Then another extraordinary argument was put forward which was that on 1 October we will see a massacre of trees. I say to any member of the Labour Party that I will bet them the best bottle of Nelson wine that their tree massacre comments are utter rubbish. Will the member Phil Twyford take me on? He is silent. He is absolutely silent. He knows that his claims are ridiculous. Then the member said that this debate is not about having to get— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member knows that the implementation date of the bill is 2012. Would it be possible to re-offer the bet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows that it is not a point of order. The member has been here a while. The member is on the front bench. The member has raised a debating point as a point of order in order to interrupt someone’s speech. It is a free-flowing debate. I like it for that reason. People are having a robust debate. Let us continue please. That is a message to all members. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members opposite say that it is nothing to do with tree trimming. It has everything to do with tree trimming because for the 9 years that Mr Cunliffe was in the Cabinet room 5000 New Zealanders each year had to get a resource consent to trim their trees. 
Phil Twyford 
: We support tree trimming. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the question I ask members on that side of the Committee is what they did about it. What did they do about the frustrations of the New Zealanders who for 9 long years during the course of a Labour Government had to get a resource consent to trim their trees? 
The answer is that the nanny State Labour Government ignored the concerns of those New Zealanders and required that they get a resource consent for the purpose of being able to trim their tree. 
The other extraordinary point is that those members claim we are overriding the wishes of councils. The Auckland City Council which is the largest council to be affected by these provisions has made a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee and stated that the rules do not work and that it supports the bill and the changes. I ask how it is possible for Labour members to argue that we are overriding councils when the largest council to be affected by the changes supports the changes. 
Another point I would make is to do with the quite pathetic point put forward by Labour that this Parliament has no right to consider what powers councils should or should not have. That is nonsense. It goes to the core of the responsibilities of this Parliament to define which things it is proper for councils to be able to do and which things it is proper for councils not to be able to do. Government members say that if citizens want to trim their trees then they should not have to get resource consent and councils should not be able to require them to. We say further that if the Government wants to limit the powers of councils to be able to put rules in place without consulting with landowners then it can. I know that land ownership is not a concept that weighs heavily on members of the Labour Party. All we are saying is that if a council wants to protect a tree or a group of trees there is a very simple provision in this law. It simply says that if councils want to protect a tree or group of trees then they should talk with the landowner. Is that such a novel unusual concept? If councils want to pass a rule that directly impacts on a person’s property then they should talk to that person. They should consult people. 
Phil Twyford 
: The member knows it won’t happen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite says that cannot occur. Well I ask Mr Twyford how it is possible that every single council supports this including Christchurch. Let me go through the list: Palmerston North Napier New Plymouth— 
Phil Twyford 
: Christchurch hasn’t added one tree in 10 years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us take up that point. The member makes the claim that the Christchurch City Council has not protected a single tree in 10 years. 
Phil Twyford 
: Not one extra; not one extra in 10 years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well let me tell the member what happens. The Christchurch City Council—and I had lunch today with Mayor Bob Parker—points out that— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who paid? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is that not typical of the senior Labour whip? All he is concerned about is that pathetic point. Here we have Parliament debating an issue that is costing millions of dollars and the great intellectual contribution from Darren Hughes is to ask who paid for the lunch. Well if that is as good as Labour members’ debate gets on this bill then I can be assured that people will not be voting for a change of Government for a very long time. 
I want to deal with the issue of the trees in Christchurch because the truth is this. 
Phil Twyford 
: There are fewer of them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No hundreds of trees have been protected in Christchurch and I will tell members how. Again this is an area where Labour members are ignorant of the law. Every time a resource consent is applied for as a condition of that resource consent many councils properly require the protection of trees. That is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is this member the only one talking from the National side? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Are the members of the Labour Party not truly pathetic? When I do not take calls they complain when I do take calls they complain and they try to interject to the point that I cannot answer the questions from the member. I will come back to the issue. The Christchurch City Council has protected hundreds of trees in the last 10 years. The member is incorrect. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He hasn’t scheduled a single one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Cunliffe asks whether the council has put them on the schedule. I am not sure that the public actually cares whether they are protected as a consequence of a condition of a resource consent or whether they are scheduled. From the public’s point of view their concern is whether the tree has been protected. 
The last point I would make is that Labour members have claimed—and we have just heard this from one of them—that a neighbour would not be consulted about the removal of a tree. Well I will give those members some news: under the current provisions the neighbour is not consulted either. In all those 5000 resource consents per year in Auckland to either trim or remove a tree there is not a single case where the neighbour is required to be consulted. What is more in 97.6 percent of the cases the consent is granted. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith is clearly not listening to what this argument is all about. This clause is being held up by the Government as some sort of trophy for cutting red tape and bureaucracy and also as a promotion of individual and property rights. I see the Minister is looking attentive. I ask whether he can explain to the Committee how the requirement of councils to identify trees in groups or individually throughout the whole of the Greater Auckland region is not bureaucracy. The task would be hugely time-consuming expensive and complex and it would be impossible to carry out effectively and efficiently. 
Now the Minister is saying that he wants a progress report from councils every 6 months. Under the new one city we will have Len Brown as the mayor and after a few months he will ask what is going on as his budget will have been absolutely blown-out on identifying and protecting trees. The hard-working council workers—those who have kept their jobs—will say that they are going out to meet all the property owners and have a nice cup of tea with them and a jolly good chat but that there are thousands and thousands of them. The council workers will say that they have not got through them all or identified all the trees but that they are talking to them. That is where the expense is. When the Minister next takes a call I would like him to explain that point very clearly because I think that he talked about having a cup of tea with property owners— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I’ve never said that in my life. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or having a good chat with them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I never said it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: If the Minister goes to Waitakere I am sure that the property owners there will ask him whether he would like a cup of tea and they will ask the council workers that. But the reality is that the process will take huge huge amounts of time. 
So many Aucklanders from right across the region from every city in the Auckland region have sent piles and piles of emails. They have held meetings they have written to MPs and they have telephoned MPs. I am proud of my west Auckland colleagues and my Greater Auckland colleagues who have listened to the people and are running the argument here. I have to say that not one National MP from Waitakere has answered those people’s calls or listened to them. My colleagues are the people who are there to represent westies. The people who have contacted me and my colleagues have not just been critical. They have offered sensible solutions and proposals such as expanding the exemption list to include exotic trees increasing the list of notable trees and removing tree protection from areas that are low in character. All of those suggestions fell on absolutely deaf ears and were completely disregarded by this Government which is a Government that talks about central government not being nanny State. Yeah right! 
The irony of it is that the councils and community groups throughout Waitakere are working really hard at the moment and are putting considerable resources into identifying the cause of the disease that is killing many many kauri in the ranges. Why bother? I ask why they are bothering to go to all that trouble when any individual under his or her individual property rights can cut down the tree anyway. Why are they putting in that time and resources? When the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was in its early stages and it was supported by the vast majority of westies Nick Smith rode into town and did he ever whip up a storm! “Confiscation by stealth” is what he said. The minority of people who believed him were so inspired that they got signs made that said “confiscation by stealth”. Just like his leader— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Stop making it up. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister says that he did not say it. Is the Minister saying that he never said that? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s correct I’m saying you should stop making it up. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Minister said he never said it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You should stop making it up. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: OK—just as his leader said “socialism by stealth”. Did anyone in Waitakere have their land confiscated by the enactment of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act? Absolutely not. 
I hope that my amendment will not be necessary because of the Green Party’s amendment and the amendments of my colleagues—my very good colleagues who have put great amendments on the table. I hope the Government will support those amendments. In the event of that not happening my amendment—and this amendment was requested by the Waitakere City Council—seeks to enable councils to identify trees in a more achievable less bureaucratic and less red-tape sort of way. If that can happen by way of a map then it will not be easy but it will certainly make the provisions in section 52 more achievable. I hope that my amendment is not necessary because I hope the amendments that give more protection to trees will be carried through the Committee. 
It is ludicrous to hear not only the Minister but many MPs compare Timaru with the pressures of Auckland development. I have been to Timaru; it is a fabulous place but we can in no way compare the development and the population pressures in the Auckland region with that of Timaru. A third of the country’s population is in Auckland. The pressures of development are astronomical. One of this Government’s many slogans has been about allowing local people to make local decisions. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right we’re going to make a local decision. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If I want to chop my tree down I’ll chop my tree down. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I say to that member to speak out again. Yet central Government is taking that right away from— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If I want to prune my trees I’ll prune my trees. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I say to that member Tau Henare to speak out again. Central Government is taking that right away from locally elected councils and citizens who want to ensure that trees and our environment are protected. We all know that trees reduce urban pollution stabilise soil give shade and privacy and are integral to the well-being of our communities. The reintroduction of many species of native birds and the well-being of tui and wood pigeons happens because we protect trees in our environment. In Waitakere the trees on private land are vital— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What wood pigeons? You killed them all 100 years ago! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They may not have them in Te Atatu. The trees are on private land and they are vital to ensure a buffer between an urban area and the regional park. Any schoolkid in New Zealand can tell this Government why tree protection is so important in urban areas. Those same students had got their heads around climate change and were doing meaningful projects and tackling climate change when this Government was still a climate-change denier. My property in Titirangi—[ 
Interruption 
] It is the weaving of the tree roots that stabilises the soil on the bank that it stands on. If the council did not have the time and resources to get around to my place and put it on the list—because thousands of properties as we all know need to be done—and if I had decided that it was my individual right to cut those trees down what would be at risk? At risk would be beautiful trees that are hundreds of years old and the erosion of not only my property but also my neighbour’s property. There would be very serious problems including landslides and potential flooding to say nothing about the risk to birds or the ghastly blot on the landscape. 
Before the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act the Waitakere Ranges were being really cut away at. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment referred to the axing of those trees as “death by a thousand cuts”. The implications of clause 52 being enacted would lead to just that but it would be across the whole Auckland region—“death by a thousand cuts”. I urge the Government and the Minister to take heed of the speeches and to support the amendments that are before the Committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 That was such an extraordinary contribution from Lynne Pillay that I just have to respond. First up she claimed that kauri in the Waitakere Ranges are at risk. What total garbage! Not one tree in the public areas of the Waitakere Ranges is affected one iota by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which is before the Committee. 
The second point I make to the member is to ask why if Labour is so opposed to clause 52 every Labour member of the Local Government and Environment Committee voted for it. If the bill will bring about the end of the world as we know it— 
Hon Member 
: Death by a thousand cuts. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —and “death by a thousand cuts” as Lynne Pillay has said why did every member of the Labour team on the select committee vote for it? 
Thirdly Lynne Pillay wants me to respond quite specifically to her amendment. It is truly “Einsteinian” and truly intellectual. It will really stretch the limits. She wants to change the wording in the bill so that councils can schedule or provide for trees in plans and can use maps. That is a good one! I have to advise the member that I am legally advised that her amendment will have absolutely zip effect and that it is perfectly possible within district plans— 
Lynne Pillay 
: Then pass it—support it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says we should pass her amendment. She says we should pass an amendment that will do absolutely nothing. I do not know whether she has noticed but if we look at any one of our district plans what do we see? 
Hon Members 
: Maps. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Maps. So I am not sure whether the Government will be choosing to include an amendment that provides for maps although I reassure the member that councils will continue to be allowed to have maps in their district plans. 
A further point I will make which is about something that seems to have focused the mind of the member is about how councils will be able to make provision for the protection of trees in the process that is used by 90 percent of councils. Let me make it very plain for her. With great relief on 1 October Aucklanders will no longer have to apply for resource consents to trim their trees. As a consequence I am advised that the work of about a dozen staff and about $2 million of resource will no longer need to be applied to that meaningless function. The staff will no longer have to do that work. I think everybody—homeowners and others—will be relieved about that change. 
I simply ask that rather than those council staff members doing that meaningless task they do a worthwhile job—that is get round their suburbs their beautiful areas of Auckland and whip around with a very simple device a locator and find out from the council plans where those significant trees are that we really should be protecting. I have confidence that they will get on and do that. 
The last point I will make is that Lynne Pillay and others have quoted a number of arborist businesses that are desperately opposed to this provision. Well of course they are. When people are required to get an arborist’s report to be able to trim or remove a tree the average cost for them is over $1000. I am advised that those businesses at the moment are earning over $5 million a year from the current requirement of the law. Are we as a Parliament surprised that those businesses would like the law to remain the same? I am not. Of course they want that to be the case but the decision for this Parliament is not about the interests of those arborist businesses. They are not of concern to me; what concerns me is— 
Phil Twyford 
: What about all the citizens? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —exactly—the ordinary citizens we are empowering through this provision. But where I think Mr Twyford and I differ is that he says that citizens will protect their trees only if there is a busybody bureaucrat from a local council telling them that they have to look after their trees; members on this side of the Chamber say that the vast bulk of Aucklanders value and want to protect their trees and do not need a nanny State Labour Party or a busybody bureaucrat telling them to do so. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This is the first time that I have intervened in this debate. I will address some general issues in the first instance pertaining to environmental protection and sustainable management as they are involved with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I may address some specific issues later pertaining to ministerial powers of coastal protection. 
The stated purpose of this amendment bill is to simplify and streamline. “Simplify” means to make something less complicated and easier to understand reflecting a characteristic belief on the part of this Government that New Zealanders are inherently unable to comprehend anything that may approach a complicated level. “Streamline” means to shape something so that it can move as effectively as possible through liquid or gas. The purpose did not say anything about red tape. The Minister for the Environment in sponsoring the bill noted in his first reading speech: “Over the nearly 18 years since the Resource Management Act became law there has been growing criticism across all sectors about the slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.” He warned: “Decision-making processes … must become more efficient.” The bill he exalted would provide a timely support to measures to stimulate the economy. He concluded that “stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviours and new consent pathways” were required. 
My main contention is that the bill represents the Government’s rather distorted view of reality. The Government since its election in November has essentially conveyed two mantras into this House. One mantra is that we need to balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility. The second mantra is that we have to remove the nanny State. Those two mantras inform this Government’s approach to pretty much everything. It brings the mantras with the claim that it has an electoral mandate to articulate them. It sees the Resource Management Act as a central strut of this Government’s implementation of that philosophical orientation. 
That approach suffers from several mistakes both of logic and of political judgment. The logical mistake is the following: the economy and the environment are not separate and discrete entities that can be balanced. There is only one thing; there is only the environment. That is the reality. The economy is simply human activity within the environment. If humans display such hubris that they can pretend to live and grow outside the environment they will perish. If humans display even a lesser amount of hubris and think that they can engage in economic activity and then tend to the environment separately and subsequently they will suffer. To use the jargon that even the erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers can understand the economy is a subset—that is to say it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. 
The second mistake is a political mistake: the belief that the nanny State is the central threat to the New Zealand people. What arrant nonsense! It is true that Labour developed a reputation for being a nanny State and I think it indeed befitted the assertive leadership of 9 years of the previous Government. It got a belly laugh in the course of 2008 and a negative vote in the November election. What about the rest of us? How are we best described using similar imagery? The erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers is best described as the robber baron State: those who wish for unbridled freedom to make excessive personal wealth. National is best described as the cowboy State: those who wish for freedom to desecrate then modestly pretend to clean up the environment afterwards. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell which inserts new clauses 5A and 5B into the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. These amendments are critical to strengthening requirements for all persons to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi in the implementation and administration of the Resource Management Act. We will be putting forward these Supplementary Order Papers; I will speak to them now. 
The House will no doubt recall the advice of Sir Robin Cooke in 1990 on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He said of the Treaty: “no matter precisely how it should be categorised in law it has taken on in fact a vitality and a potency of its own … it has become part of the essence of national life … it is a foundation document. It is simply the most important document in New Zealand’s history.” The amendments we hope the Committee will support today are in essence the commitment to uphold the Treaty as simply the most important document in the land. The amendments address the concerns of whanau hapu and iwi that resource management appropriately reflects obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Currently section 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that the exercise of functions and powers under the Act take into account the Treaty principles. These three words—“take into account”—are part of a suite of concepts and phrases that constitute the menu of Treaty clauses in legislation. Other legislation includes phrases such as “to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as in section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987; “to give particular recognition to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as in section 10(o) of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002; “have regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” as in section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991; and “Ensure … full and balanced account is taken of—(iii) The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;” as in the preamble to the Environment Act 1986. 
The Government has a responsibility to uphold the Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights. Throughout the select committee process there was a very strong theme in the submissions from Maori that the Crown guaranteed to protect the special relationship between tangata whenua and their landscapes and natural environments through te Tiriti. The Government has agreed that the Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of resource management law and practice. The Maori Party was extremely pleased to be able to safeguard the Treaty provisions earlier on in the process of the bill. 
We propose these changes now in light of feedback from the select committee stage in order to strengthen the provisions. We propose a new clause 5A to the effect that this Act now binds the Crown in respect of “The Treaty of Waitangi relationship between hapu and iwi Maori and the Crown.” We also propose to add new clause 5B which repeals section 8 and substitutes the following: “In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers under it in relation to managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources shall give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).” We look forward to the debate as we introduce these provisions to strengthen and uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleagues in calling for the removal of clauses 52 and 151 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour has always opposed those clauses. It did not vote on the clauses; it voted on the bill as it went through part by part. I also rise in support of the hundreds if not thousands of people who have written in and have been in contact with us to oppose clauses 52 and 151. I spoke at a meeting last week in Grey Lynn in the heart of the Auckland Central electorate and my colleagues David Cunliffe Russel Norman and Phil Twyford were also present. People were opposed to angry at and very saddened by the fact that many of the trees in their area were going to be removed. 
Phil Twyford 
: Were there any National MPs there? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: My colleague asks interestingly whether any National MPs were there and the answer is no there were none unfortunately. People were disappointed that National MPs were not there because they wanted to tell them what they felt about clauses 52 and 151—that they did not want them. Essentially those clauses remove the council’s right to put on a blanket ban to protect trees. 
The question and it is a fundamental one is why central government is telling councils what they should and should not do. What is wrong with councils being able to respond to their own communities and put in tree protection legislation that fits their local communities? Six out of seven Auckland councils currently have blanket tree protection. Rodney District Council removed it in 2000 but put it back in 2007. Why? Because popular opinion said that it was the best way to protect trees. Now either the councils are stupid or they do not understand good tree protection—or are they doing what works best for them? We have to ask ourselves that question. 
Auckland is different from much of the rest of the country and my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned some of those differences. Auckland contains one-third of New Zealand’s population. It is a high-density population and the demand for development is more acute than in any other place in the country. There are development pressures. The extra value placed on a property that has a view after the removal of trees is way above what we would find in any other place in the country. Auckland has a high rainfall and young soils. It is hilly and those hills are very susceptible to erosion. That is why its councils prefer to have blanket protection for trees. Trees protect the environment that is so precious to Auckland. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does Auckland City Council oppose it? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Auckland City Council could change it if it wanted to. Manukau City Council is for it North Shore City Council is for it and in 2007 Rodney District Council voted it back in. Why is this Government talking about removing it? I do not understand it. 
Phil Twyford 
: Nanny State. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is not a nanny State; it is a “ninny State”. It does not make any sense. The alternative is to schedule individual trees. Members should think about the bureaucracy that is involved with individual trees or even groups of trees as suggested. Members should think of the bureaucracy it will take in order to be able to do that for each of those trees or groups of trees. It is time consuming it is bureaucratic and it is costly. Members should think of the litigation that will be involved when somebody arrives at somebody’s property and demands that their tree be scheduled. What will their reaction be? They may not want it to be scheduled; they will appeal it. There will be an enormous amount of litigation which councils will have to fund. As my colleagues have said it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I am not going to talk about trees although as members of this Committee know I am a passionate believer in trees—particularly endemic species of trees—being saved. 
I want to talk about the very serious matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consents for restricted coastal activities. I stand in support of the two Supplementary Order Papers that have been put up by my colleague David Parker and Rahui Katene from the Maori Party. They have both said and rightly so that it is very important that the Minister of Conservation in representing the public interest—the Crown ownership of our coastal space—has the ability to exercise that judgment on behalf of the people of New Zealand. 
I feel well qualified to speak on this matter. For 3 years from 2002 to 2005 I was privileged to be Minister of Local Government. Indeed the current Local Government Act stands in my name. I was also Minister of Conservation between 2002 and 2007. During that time as Minister of Conservation I signed off 
many significant coastal activities. Some of them I declined—for example at Whangamata. It is very important. I know that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith who is responsible for this legislation has also served as Minister of Conservation and will have exercised the responsibility of judging what impact a significant coastal development would have on the unique landscapes the biodiversity and the coastline itself. 
One of the things that defines us as New Zealanders is the coast. Ask any Kiwis what they love about our country and they will inevitably mention the landscape and almost always the seascapes. No part of our country is more than 90 kilometres from the ocean so the beach and the coastline are very important to New Zealanders. The coastline as many members know is under increasing developmental pressures. It is under pressure from residential and commercial development aquaculture and intensification of population. All of those are impacting on the decision making of local government. I think that retaining the ability of the Minister of Conservation to give guidance to local government in the consent process is absolutely critical. 
The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is the only planning document local government has to guide it in its decision-making process. When I became Minister I asked for that policy to be updated. We have gone through a long process. Dr Jo Rosier a planning lecturer at Massey University updated the Coastal Policy Statement. We then set up a team of four experts to look at her recommendations. Interestingly enough the current Minister of Conservation has postponed the report of that committee. The report of that group of experts guides the Minister of Conservation in giving guidance to local government. It is about protecting our unique coastline. It is about giving guidance to local authorities. That has all gone in this change in the legislation before us. 
I think it is amazing that Nick Smith is the Minister responsible for this legislation. He has spoken to me personally about his pride during the time he was Minister of Conservation and his love of the environment. He is weakening the protection of our coastal areas. For the New Zealanders of the future that could be an enormous liability. One of the things I regarded with great pride about being Minister of Conservation was the legacy that we leave for future generations whether it is in biodiversity protection; whether in my case it is the 360000 hectares we added to the conservation estate; or whether it is the 17 marine reserves I created as Minister with the support of my colleagues. That sort of stuff lives on for future generations. Protecting our seascapes from inappropriate development is an absolutely critical thing to do in Government. It is a responsibility for future generations. Nick Smith is weakening that ability by removing from the legislation— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Mining! Don’t forget the mining. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Green Party co-leader brings up mining. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am truly gobsmacked that Labour would put Chris Carter on his feet to defend the ministerial veto on coastal consents after the way in which he abused his powers in the previous Parliament as Minister of Conservation. In one foul act he destroyed confidence in the law and actually created the constituency in which this bill occurred. 
Let us just go through the history of what occurred with Whangamata. Environment Waikato dealt with the resource consent on that marina. It received hundreds of submissions and it heard submissions. The decision was appealed to the Environment Court the Environment Court heard evidence for 6 weeks and then the Environment Court judges made their decision. Then what happened was that a few of Chris Carter’s Labour mates particularly Bob Harvey— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is this relevant? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will tell him why this is relevant. It is because we are removing the ministerial veto on coastal consents over decisions of the Environment Court because of the way that Chris Carter abused the law. Is that what I said? No it was what the High Court of New Zealand said in overturning his abuse of the law. You see the High Court found out that a few of Bob Harvey’s mates went around the back door and sent him some quite appalling emails. They were people who had not bothered to submit before the council committee. They were people who could not be bothered with going to the Environment Court but thought they could get around it and with subterfuge affect the process by being able to overturn the decision. 
What was even more interesting was that the Environment Court considered the matter for 6 weeks. How long did Mr Carter take to overrule the decision of 6 weeks of consideration in the court? It took less than a few hours. I simply ask Mr Carter and other Labour members why they do not trust the Environment Court. Why does Mr Carter not trust the Environment Court? You see what members on my side of the Chamber are saying is that we have faith in the Environment Court and we do not think we should retain the power to overturn decisions of that court. Effectively Labour members are arguing that they do not trust the Environment Court and that they want politicians to be able to veto those decisions. I think that is appalling. I make a simple point to Mr Carter. I wonder what the attitude of Labour members would be if a coastal consent an application for a marina a marine farm or a big port went all the way through a resource consent hearing and went to an Environment Court hearing and a National Minister said that even though the Environment Court said no to the consent National says yes. I will tell members what would happen. Labour members would be crying foul from the rooftops. I bet every member of the House—and frankly every member of the House knows it in his or her heart—that that is exactly what would occur. 
That is why we ask from quite a principled point of view why Ministers should overturn decisions of the Environment Court. We say they should not. We say that when Chris Carter vetoed the decisions of the Environment Court he actually brought both politicians and the judicial process into disrepute. That is why that provision should come out of the law. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to the point the Hon Nick Smith made. We are not saying that Ministers should reverse the decision of the Environment Court— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes you are. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No we are not. The Minister’s decision to veto is a different decision. It is not the same decision as the Environment Court’s; it is a different decision. The Environment Court’s decision as the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith has already acknowledged is severely constrained as to its breadth. The Minister’s decision is not the same decision as the decision of the Environment Court. But there are some situations in which the Crown through the relevant Minister in this case the Minister of Conservation should have the right to veto developments in coastal space. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Veto the court? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No not veto the court; veto the right to develop coastal space. It is a different thing. Lots of things are permissible on my land under the Resource Management Act that I as an owner none the less say I do not want and will veto. That is the same position the Minister of Conservation is in within a limited jurisdiction— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That is not correct. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is. It is a limited but real power of the Minister of Conservation to sometimes say “No I don’t think this is in the public interest.” That is the responsibility of Government but this Government is saying “No that’s all too hard. We never wanted to be involved in those decisions. We don’t think there is ever a case for the Crown as the guardian of these areas to say no.” The Government is going to devolve that decision to someone else and not have to take responsibility for it. That is what the Minister is doing; he is abrogating his responsibilities. 
I will turn to another issue. We have a 45-page Supplementary Order Paper here for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and we are not really sure what some of it means. A 45-page Supplementary Order Paper was dumped on us with no tracked version to show the effect of it on either the Act or the bill. We have had substantial criticisms about the legislation—not from people whom the Minister might like to criticise as being lightweight but people like former judge Peter Skelton. I did a lot of work in the environmental field in the 1980s. I can say that Judge Skelton who is now retired was the best judge I ever appeared before. He is widely respected. He is now—or was until recently—an adjunct professor of planning law so he went on to a distinguished academic career. 
Peter Skelton turned up to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said that the bill was poorly drafted. I do not totally blame the Minister for its poor drafting because I think there are some institutional problems that lie behind it which also vexed the previous Government and are yet to be sorted. Peter Skelton criticised the drafting of the bill and said that it did not achieve its policy purpose because it was so complex so otiose and so poorly drafted that even things that it was supposed to achieve are sometimes not being achieved. 
He was not alone in that view; a few other people were of that view too. Through the intervention that was led in part by Shane Jones one of my colleagues the select committee with the approval of the Government—and I thank Government members for that—agreed that it should harness the efforts of a group of experts including retired judge Peter Skelton to try to sort out some of those problems. They did sort out some of those problems but they have not had a chance any more than we have to have a look at these 45 pages of new drafting. So how can we have any confidence as we deal with the bill under urgency that we are not actually making things more complex and creating more problems rather than fewer? 
I will give one particular example. We have had the very important change of wording in the notification provisions brought to the Chamber just today in a Supplementary Order Paper. There is a fundamental change of onus from consent authorities stating that there may be environmental effects as a result of an activity to environmental effects having to be proven to exist or to be likely. The effects have to be probable rather than possible. That is a big change in the legal test. We have not had any advice from the group of experts as to whether the Supplementary Order Paper is properly drafted even if that is the policy intent. 
I will mention another thing. New section 95D as inserted by clause 68 of the bill states that when assessing whether the adverse effects are minor one “must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy the land in on or over which the activity will occur; or any land adjacent to that land;”. I spoke to my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons who is very learned in these matters—and I do not think I am a complete prat on these matters. I cannot find in the legislation the other provision that is meant to go with that one and that deals separately with the effects on the land itself and the adjacent land. I am told by Jeanette Fitzsimons that she thinks that somewhere there is an alternative provision that deals exactly with that point and that deals with the effects on the land on which the activity will occur or the adjacent land. 
The difficulty we have in the Opposition is not just the difficulty of finding our way through this complex amendment bill; we now have 45 pages of amendments including amendments to this particular clause which is fundamental to notification and therefore fundamental to whether people learn through notification about an application that might affect them or the environment and we do not know whether they have a right to participate in the process. 
The test to be applied by the councils is being changed and there is a lack of clarity as to what happens if one is an owner of land adjacent to where there is activity. If a person is an owner of more distant land it is clear what the test is now. We might not agree with the test and we might think it has been forced upon us late in the process through a Supplementary Order Paper under urgency but in respect of adjacent land we are less clear. So I ask the Minister to clarify that situation. He may well be able to do so with advice from officials. The provision may be unaltered from the original Act. That may well be the answer but it is very difficult for us to know and I think it is unreasonable for us to have to deal with these matters on the floor of the Chamber when the 45-page list of amendments ought to be referred back to the select committee so that the select committee including members of the Opposition can get the benefit of hearing from advisory experts like retired judge Peter Skelton and so we can make sure we are getting the legislation right. 
The Resource Management Act is the cornerstone of environmental legislation in New Zealand and we ought not to be amending it on a wing and a prayer. We know from the Minister that he is driven by the promise he made to have this legislation in the House within 100 days and passed within 6 months. I say to the Minister that we will forgive his not meeting that deadline. It is more important to get the legislation right than it is to preserve the Minister’s dignity about the promise he made for it to be passed within 6 months. 
I remind the Minister of the comments he made in respect of the emissions trading legislation. He put exactly the same accusations to the previous Labour Government—and we were not proceeding under urgency the Supplementary Order Paper was smaller and we had provided tracked changes to the bill in order to show the effects on it of the amendments. None of those protections is available to this Parliament today and I think it is an abuse of our processes that the Minister is proceeding in this way. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 During the Committee stage there is often a point where it is useful to start to gather together some of the rebuttal that comes across the Chamber. The Minister said earlier that he was gobsmacked. I might observe that if he were my child I would be tempted to change my vote in the referendum. He was using several porkies that I think he knows were never true. He has accused the Labour Opposition of opposing tree trimming. That is just ridiculous. Labour supported it in the select committee and we support it now. We have said two things. We said firstly that it would be useful to have a definition of “trim” and a definition of “fell” because I would not trust that Minister not to cut something from 50 metres to down to 2 metres and call it a trim. So some guidelines would be helpful. He said that the Labour Party supported clause 52 in the votes at the select committee which was ridiculous because it was a part by part vote. We were never given the opportunity to vote for or against the clause. What we did do in the select committee’s report was clearly reserve on the point and clearly show that we disagreed with that matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is absolutely true. But the Minister’s furphies go on and on. He has used the argument that very few tree consents are declined and therefore substantial expense is incurred for little benefit. What he has failed to tell the Committee is that as an overall percentage a higher rate of general planning consents are passed than tree consents. So by the logic of his argument we would not have any planning processes at all because it is all a waste of time when most are granted. The second point is that the Minister has omitted to tell us that many of the ones that were passed were modified and passed in modified form and that therefore the process is not only real but valuable. He said that no tree rules exist in 90 percent of councils so there is no need to have them all. There are two problems with that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No—no blanket rules. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes—no blanket rules. The first problem with it is that all areas are not the same. The reason the district councils surrounding Waitakere wanted Parliament to pass the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was that the pressures of development on the boundary of the bush were uniquely strong and acute in that area and that is why this House only last year by majority voted that bill into law. Having put that bill into a correct format with the Resource Management Act it is an abomination that this House would now reverse its own decision of not even a year ago and gut the provisions that allow it to be implemented. 
I remind the Minister that in respect of the trees provisions 81 percent of Aucklanders and 77 percent of Waitakere residents in an independent Colmar Brunton poll said they supported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and they wanted greater protection for the trees in them thar hills. That is exactly why I am putting forward an amendment that treats the Waitakere Ranges in the same way that the Minister is proposing to treat conservation management areas and reserves which is simply to say that it is a special case and the general prohibition on blanket tree provisions should not apply because it is impracticable to schedule every tree. I welcome the Minister to come up to Titirangi and go around and schedule every tree—we can barely see the ground for the canopy cover. The only clearances are where there are actual dwellings amongst the forest and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a streamlining measure to schedule all of the trees there. It may be physically possible in the extreme but it will cost the Waitakere City Council an arm and a leg in time money and attention. It will cost the residents of my city a huge amount of bother at a time when Rodney Hide is running a minimalist agenda and saying that councils have no place in environmental protection at all. 
Does the Government not talk to itself? How can it be that Rodney Hide says in his Cabinet paper that councils have no role in environmental protection yet this Minister says councils have to schedule every individual tree? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No I don’t. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh well—or group of trees. But if he is going to use the group line why will he not accept Lynne Pillay’s amendment which removes the word “specific” and makes clear for the avoidance of doubt that groups of trees can be scheduled together? It does no more than that. The Minister tried to make a crude joke by saying “Ha ha ha! District plans already have maps in them so there’s no need to have an amendment that allows them to schedule using a map.” Well that is simply childish. Of course it is helpful to use a map. It is absolutely essential. If the Minister’s word is to be taken—and he is an honourable member—then it is essential to be able to use groups and maps are part of that. I ask the Minister to confirm for the Committee whether he will consider this again. 
The bottom line with this—and there are many many hundreds of emails that I dare say we will want to table before this is over; many hundreds of emails make the point—is that this Minister has got it wrong and this Government has got it wrong and they will pay the price. The last bastion of hope for Aucklanders is the fact that the felling provisions do not take effect until 2012 and there is a little event near the end of 2011 which will give Aucklanders the opportunity to make sure that clause 52 is never operative. When Labour wins the election in 2011 with our colleagues in the Green Party—and no doubt the Maori Party will change horses by then—we will suspend the implementation of that provision and have a new review so that Aucklanders can have a say in their own future. So I say to ladies and gentlemen out there in listener land that if they do not like clause 52 and if this jackbooted Minister tries to steamroll it through Parliament without further consultation and refuses to put it in the second tranche they have one chance to stop it in 2011. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is about the member’s language. He talks about jackbooting legislation. This legislation was introduced in February. Members opposite had an opportunity at the select committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I say to the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well I want to rule on it and I have 15 seconds so I will. There is quite a distinction between referring to legislation and referring to the Minister. In my interpretation of what the member did he did cross the line. So I rule that comment out of order. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the Maori Party’s amendments to clauses 20 83 83A and 133 which relate to the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of ministerial veto for coastal permits. I will firstly talk to the detail around the removal of security for costs. This amendment reinstates the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I recall that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs. It was their view that the repeal of the provisions may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those able to raise security. 
The provisions in the current Act reinstated the powers for the court to require security for costs from appellants. The idea was that this move would limit the number of vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. What it means in practice is that before a group can take a case against a company the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the court proceedings will cost it in lost time production etc. as security for costs. Claimants then have to sign that they are able to put up the money before the case can go to court. 
I recall that for my auntie Eva Rickard in the case she brought against Tainui in 1995 the security for costs that Tainui named was $1 million. That is a classic case of environmental injustice. We all know there are already significant costs for whanau hapu and communities in taking cases before the Environment Court. I recall a case brought against the Exide Technologies battery recycling factory in Petone by the local community which cost approximately $35000 before it even got to court. 
In many respects security for costs is a way of restricting and preventing people’s right to challenge development. It is yet another way of shutting up the public and marginalising the poor. Corporations that fund developments have the financial means to fight through the Environment Court for years whereas hapu and communities may not be able to afford even to get to court. The other key issue is that a judge can already throw out a case and order costs if the judge thinks the case is vexatious. So the Maori Party’s amendments will reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court will not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. 
The second issue dealt with under these amendments relates to the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in respect of coastal permits. The amendments reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The bill before the Committee amends the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of restricted coastal activities by repealing the section that allows the Minister of Conservation to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal permits after receiving a recommendation from the Environment Court. 
Clause 83A substitutes a new section 119A which stipulates that the court’s recommendation is the final decision and that the coastal permit commences on the date of the decision or on such later date as the court determines. Members will recall the fracas that erupted over this issue in respect of the Whangamata marina. Well if the bill goes through unamended it could all be on again. The amendment put forward in the bill will have a retrospective effect which means that the court’s recommendation made on 26 October 2005 in respect of the Whangamata marina operates as a legal coastal permit regardless of the actions of the Minister of Conservation in declining to grant the coastal permit for it. It is important to remind ourselves that the Government has a responsibility to uphold the Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights which were upheld in respect of the Whangamata marina. As we know Hauraki iwi were not listened to by the judicial process but were listened to by the Minister. 
The Maori Party believes that it is not appropriate for the Environment Court to make final decisions on resource management. It has no responsibility to uphold or recognise a Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights. Judges cannot be held accountable in the same way as a Minister. Again as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I can say that many submitters including Maori were opposed to this amendment. It was their view a view we share that a ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment. So our amendments to clauses 20 83 and 83A reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Before the dinner break I offered a broader philosophical view of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and I was disposed to describe the different philosophical orientations of our parties using the imagery offered to us by National over the last several years in criticising the Labour Government for developing the nanny State. I am wont to extend that imagery to characterise the rest of us and I do so with a view to throw light on where we differ at a basic philosophical level and where in practical terms it comes to mean different decisions at the margin of political judgment. I recalled that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers is best described as the robber baron State while National which makes up the Government is best described as the cowboy State as it wishes to assert ultimate freedom to desecrate if necessary in the name of economic growth with scarcely at most a modest concern to clean up the environment. I believe that mistake will be recognised within the first 3-year term of this Government. Cowboys riding high in the chaotic rodeo of New Zealand polls do get thrown sooner or later—and I think sooner rather than later. 
If we turn the same spotlight of imagery upon ourselves in the Green Party how are we best described? I can think of no better description than that we embrace the concept of a holistic State; we wish for a holistic inclusion of all human activity in harmony with the environment. That is the philosophical difference that motivates us as opposed to National and it prompts us to oppose this amendment bill in its current form. To us the environment is paramount and it must be protected. This central assertion does not in any way preclude the development of a healthy and vigorous economy a vigorous economy based on innovation productivity and yes efficiency. But it does preclude strip mining the proper protection of the environment which we believe this bill runs the danger of doing. 
All parties agree that there needs to be a Resource Management Act that reflects the recognition of the need to protect the environment. In practical politics we differ at the margin between economic growth and environmental protection. At the margin is where our fundamental differences in philosophy are displayed. If in doubt National and ACT would engage in economic growth even where the environment is in danger of damage. So I believe would Labour when tempted. If in doubt the Greens would desist from a proposed economic project on the basis of the precautionary principle strictly applied. That is why the Greens oppose this bill. These differences strike at the overarching issue of our times—that of sustainability. We believe that our approach results in a sustainable planet and a sustainable nation. We believe that the National and Labour approach—the Nat-Lab—results in a planet that is sliding dangerously to irrevocable depletion climate instability and potential political strain. 
I now ask where in all of this are the Bluegreens. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is a good question. Where are the Bluegreens? Let me offer a series of statements from National’s Bluegreens. The first statement states: “clean air clean water … ought to be achievable in New Zealand within one generation.” Who got us into this mess? National prides itself on having had the reins of power for the majority of the last 50 years. Who got us into this mess in the first place? The second statement states that New Zealand “rivers lakes and streams [should be] swimmable fishable and in good ecological health … groundwaters [should be] drinkable.” I ask members who got us here. Who got us into this mess? The third statement states: “Attractive liveable cities that are easy to get around are hugely important both for quality of life”—correct phraseology—“and [for] economic competitiveness.” Well that must explain the extraordinary roading expenditure that we are now facing. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee has probably gathered by now that Labour members are against clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Member 
: But it is worth repeating. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is worth repeating. So disgusted are we by this expedient tatty clause that this evening I will propose an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 40 which has been tabled. I shall mention briefly that there are two parts to the amendment. One is to omit clause 52 and the other is to omit clause 151. The effect of the amendment would be to delete the prohibition on the use of general tree protection rules. The intention is that this change would allow the Government time to meaningfully engage with Aucklanders and local communities on appropriate modification of the tree protection rules. 
I want to comment on the many interventions that we have had from the Minister for the Environment this evening. I think disingenuous is probably the best description I can find for the comments of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. That is his name is it not the Hon Dr Nick Smith? Is that the correctly pronounced name? [ 
Interruption 
] Yeah. He repeatedly and insistently characterised Labour’s position on this provision as being against the trimming of trees. We have made it clear throughout the select committee process and during today’s debate that we are not against the trimming of trees. We have made it very clear that we support the expected Green Party amendment that would make the trimming or pruning of trees a consent-free zone and that remains our position. 
The Minister in fact rejected out of hand the Green Party’s compromise proposal which would have seen trimming removed from the rules and would have introduced a quicker easier and simpler procedure for homeowners who wanted to obtain consent for the removal of trees. The Minister rejected it yet he came to the Chamber this afternoon all puffed up and repeatedly said that the intention of the Government against our opposition was to deal with tree trimming. 
There are a couple of points that the Minister has returned to over and over again through the afternoon and evening. The first one is property rights. He clearly is of the view that this issue is about an assertion of the property rights of landowners. I will read an email from Sue Roff who describes herself as a National Party supporter: “It has come to my attention that many believe in property rights. I know I do and I agree with the right of a person to do what they want with their land but large trees are a resource that affect everyone. Consider if I want to put in a septic tank. Why do I need a consent? Do I not have property rights then? Because the contents of the tank could leach into the groundwater and this would affect everybody. Well the value of large trees are the same. They affect everyone: our birdlife groundwater drainage physical well-being—the list goes on. I have trusted the National Party all my life and now trust they will do what is right.” Well I say good luck Sue. 
Another email will be of particular interest to the member for North Shore. It comes from Roger Donnell who is fearful that the Government will “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” He has an interest in this matter because he lives in Wilcox Bush on Beach Road. He tells the story about the intention of a developer to subdivide the next-door section. He writes: “We were originally approached for approval of the subdivision concept but did not approve it because of the possibility of damage or destruction of the trees on the property which include a 400-year-old puriri. Since then the Government has changed and all has gone quiet. We suspect it is simply to wait for this bill to be passed so that the bulldozers and chainsaws can move in and destroy the existing bush.” The member for North Shore might like to get back to Roger Donnell because I think he deserves an explanation if clause 52 is passed this evening—and I suspect it will be unfortunately. 
That last letter conveys the accurate sense that if this ban on general tree protection rules is implemented there is nothing standing between Aucklanders and the destruction of some of our most treasured trees around the city. If that happens the National MPs on the other side of the Chamber will have to do some explaining. They will have nowhere to hide including Ms Nikki Kaye. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I want to deal with the issue that has been raised by Mr Phil Twyford and with the misinformation he is spreading. He is spreading simple propaganda. I say that because he quoted an example—and I was listening carefully—of a 400-year-old puriri. The concern was that the tree would not be protected. Well I suggest to Mr Twyford that he read the bill carefully and think of the obligations that rest upon the various councils up until next year and upon the Auckland Council thereafter. 
It is inconceivable I suggest that a 400-year-old puriri would not be designated by a council because that will effectively be the obligation of councils from hereafter. Certainly there are blanket rules at the moment but there will be new rules following the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. We on this side of the Chamber have a reasonable expectation and I know that the Minister of Conservation will be writing to councils and setting out the expectations of the Government in terms of the responsibilities of councils to designate firstly individual trees of special importance—and a 400-year-old puriri clearly fits into that category—and secondly groups of trees. 
I will deal with the second issue as well because I think it gets to the heart of the concerns of the people who have written to me and indeed of other members of the Committee. As I understand it from both reading the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee and talking to the Minister councils will have the power to designate discrete areas particularly on the coastal fringes which are common throughout much of Auckland particularly around the North Shore where there are pohutukawa puriri karaka and other native trees. 
Without question the coastal fringe is hugely valuable to our community and much of it is in private hands. The groups of trees will be able to be designated by councils. That is actually what landowners in those areas will expect to be the case. They will of course also expect to be able to appropriately prune and trim those trees. So I suggest to the Opposition members that their scaremongering has been fundamentally misleading because there are ample powers on the part of the seven councils currently and the single council that will exist from September next year to designate the important trees and significantly the groups of trees that represent ecosystems. 
I have taken a particular interest in this issue because I am the member for North Shore and because I happen to live on the coastal fringe. I understand the significance of these issues and I know the feelings of the communities. I suggest to members of the Committee and indeed more broadly to the community that there are ample powers in legislation for councils to act responsibly and to ensure the protection of unique heritage trees which are usually native trees and more significantly ecosystem areas that are covered by the concept of “groups of trees”. 
It is also important to recollect that we are talking about privately owned land so reserves council-owned lands and land owned by the Department of Conservation are all fully protected. That is not the issue in question yet many people are of the contrary view. It is my view that councils acting constructively using the powers of this legislation and with the encouragement of the Minister of Conservation will over the next 2 years before the provision comes fully into effect—because that is the final point—ensure that they take up the responsibility to protect the heritage that we in Auckland expect to be protected. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise as an Auckland MP to speak against clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and to speak in support of my colleague Phil Twyford’s Supplementary Order Paper 40 on this matter. I think it is really important for particularly the Auckland MPs across the Chamber to think very very carefully about what they are doing here. An overwhelming number of the people in the city in which we live oppose clause 52 and they do so not because they are silly and are subject to scaremongering; they oppose it because they have very genuine concerns that the removal of the blanket protection will see the removal of large numbers of trees from Auckland. 
In the area in which I live if one climbs up Maungakiekie and looks out one sees a large number of trees. It is a very green and beautiful part of Auckland. That has not always been the case. Recently I was in the Onehunga Community House where there are some old photos of that suburb. There was a period of time in the 1930s 1940s 1950s and even the 1960s when it did not look like that. More recently we have added trees back into our urban environments and that makes a very real difference to all of us. It makes a difference in terms of what our environment looks like and it makes a difference in terms of the quality of our standard of living. There are native birds back in our cities. That may sound corny but I know that in the street I live in there are now many tuis that were not there 15 years ago or even 10 years ago. 
Large numbers of trees could be removed. That is the risk the Government is taking. The Government is trying to assure us that it will not happen but it is very interesting to note that the  
New Zealand Herald  
environment reporter yesterday talked about what might happen to protect trees. Her view is that Auckland City is clearly saying that it will not go through a complicated process of listing all of the large trees that are currently protected and that it will be up to individual landowners. The property on which I live has many large trees and as it happens I would want to protect them but not everybody will have that attitude. It could be that we sold our property and that the next people who came there felt that they should cut those trees down. Are we prepared to take those risks? I think the Auckland members of Parliament opposite need to think about this very very seriously because if that is the result they will be blamed. 
As I said before the people who are saying these things are not scaremongering. They are not fools. I will quote members another North Shore example. Adrienne Grace says that many trees will be cut down as soon as this bill becomes law. The reason she says that is she knows as do many Aucklanders that there is very real pressure from developers. Developers will be able to clear-fell a site and they will not have to replace any lost trees through replanting. If my own property were bought by developers they would want to knock down the trees so that they could put more buildings on it. Adrienne Grace says that the development pressure is so great in the Auckland region that there will be increasing numbers of sites with little or no tree cover for shade screening or visual amenity. Any trees planted will be of a size that it will take decades for them to provide the functions provided by the trees we have now. As a result New Zealand risks losing the international clean green image it has worked so hard to promote and tourism could be negatively affected. 
As Adrienne Grace said and as the  
New Zealand Herald  
environment reporter said yesterday listing or scheduling trees in the district plan which is the only permissible means of protecting trees is costly time consuming very limited and insufficient. Along with many Aucklanders she is very apprehensive about this. What that says is that the Government is pushing this measure through without listening to the people of Auckland. The current provision has worked well. The fact is that six out of the seven local authorities are quite happy with it. It is clear that some things could be fixed. A very real compromise has been put on the table by Jeanette Fitzsimons. That is what we should be looking at so that the people of Auckland have some assurance that we are not going to see the wholesale destruction of trees. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou. Much as I love urban trees people seem to have got quite obsessed about that issue. I think there is a big picture here which includes urban trees that we need to reassess. It is about the actual future of the sustainability of the entire nation. In 1991 my colleagues and I came down to Wellington from Hauraki-Coromandel to participate in a round-table discussion on the resource management law reform process. We did our best at that time to fight for the protection of our natural resources and heritage. We were very worried that section 5 in Part 2 was too weak in its so-called balancing of the environment versus the economy because the entire Western World—and more—was obsessed with protecting the economy from any real environmental accountability. So we lost the so-called balancing act on water soil and air and these fundamental sources of life are so much more polluted now than they were in 1991. 
The Resource Management Act far from being a major brake on pollution has been fairly weak and at times downright facilitative of inappropriate development but it is way better than nothing the way it is and it does not need some of these changes especially in terms of community participation and decision making around resources. This so-called streamlining of the Act has done nothing to rebalance the power inequities between paid lawyers and experts versus volunteers from hapu and community groups. As a former environmental mediator under the Resource Management Act I have every sympathy for people struggling to get consent to build a garage but that is not what this bill is about or even what the problems are. If we want to improve the Resource Management Act then we should train the councils and the consenting authorities to work with alacrity and respect for communities. We should not pretend that a large wordy and unwieldy proposed reform of the Resource Management Act is fixing that issue. The Resource Management Act as it stands barely holds the line on natural resources and I totally endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons that the degradation of the environment means the degradation of the economy. I also add that the issues of citizen participation are vital and that this bill seriously undermines those rights through increased costs even to participate in hearings. 
My own experience with the Resource Management Act includes 15 years as a lay advocate in the Environment Court and 5 years as a Resource Management Act mediator. I have also had some very interesting days on the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of this bill. At the select committee hearings there were so many submitters who reminded me of my own experience. They came to our committee very well prepared with heartfelt submissions about the need for expanded notification not a reduction in notification. As a new member of Parliament and a very inexperienced member of a select committee I was astonished by the fact that hardly anybody asked them any questions except me because I have literally been those people. I have spent my life trying to communicate about resource management matters with people with power who can hardly be bothered asking any questions. What is more no one else on the select committee when I was there seemed to have actually spent a lot of time being a submitter. These members had never experienced being intimidated by judges and hearings panels let alone having costs awarded against them or their group unlike many members of the Green Party who have lived the resource management issues. Members can call us masochists if they like or public-spirited citizens but we are better equipped to critique the Resource Management Act than many people who have limited experience of being on the submitters’ side of the table. It is a shame that so many submitters were not actually listened to even if they were heard. 
I also rise to express support for a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the Maori Party particularly those of Te Ururoa Flavell in which he talks about the need to change section 8 and strengthen the recognition of tangata whenua rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also want to support the Supplementary Order Papers that refer to the security of cost issue and the role of the Minister of Conservation and many other members have spoken eloquently in the Chamber today about the importance of those issues. Time after time I have been at hearings where people have been at a disadvantage and this law puts them at a greater disadvantage. I cannot understand how we will serve environmental decision-making and resource management decision-making if people are at a greater disadvantage because of the threat of costs. At the select committee a number of people said that very few judges will implement those provisions. That is not the point. The point is that small community groups considering whether to go to the Environment Court do not want to be intimidated by the fact that they could be awarded security for costs. As a member of an organisation that was awarded more than $22000 I know that threat is real. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This is one of those interesting occasions—in fact we had one in the last bill that was passed under urgency—when there is general support for a bill but the parties are divided on a number of issues. Being a Cantabrian I cannot speak on the issues that will affect Auckland by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill with the authority of Mr Twyford who is an Aucklander but some of those issues on which the parties are divided are heritage and the nature and environment we live in. 
I note with interest that the former Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence Wayne Mapp was good enough in the previous bill to also take the chair. It was a finance bill and National rolled up the Minister of Defence whose name is “Paris Hilton” I think. We call him that from time to time—affectionately I must say. For the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill we got the 25-pound howitzer out and the Minister of Defence again took the chair. He has now become what we call the Sonny Bolstad for those of us who are old enough to remember him of the New Zealand Parliament. Members may ask who Sonny Bolstad is. He was the New Zealand axe champion for many many years. He pre-dated me. I have not picked up an axe. Occasionally in politics one has to. 
Chopper Mapp came out. He is an Auckland member and his solution as a supporter of the big end of town is to just mow down the trees Operation Desert Storm style. He is the Minister of Defence after all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Give us a break. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Minister in the chair Dr Smith says “Give us a break.” Well if anybody needs a break and a wee lie-down it is him. We know that for a variety of reasons. We know that Dr Mapp has the developers’ interests at heart. If National gets its way through the force and tyranny of the majority it will be possible for developers to come in mow down all the trees build 20 or 30 boxes and vote for Dr Wayne Mapp the Sonny Bolstad of Parliament. 
We have proposed a compromise in Supplementary Order Paper 40 as I understand it to allow people to do some surgical tree doctoring and a bit of trimming of their trees. If they want to go further than that they can get an expedited consent from the council and away they go. National wants to push through its Draconian measures. National is the party that said it was against red tape and against bureaucracy and that it wanted to cut cost. We know that given that there will be massive opposition to the wholesale flattening of the natural environment within Auckland if Wayne Mapp has his way that opposition in itself will create further bureaucracy. 
I will quote from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which states: “Each tree must be assessed mapped and described a consultation process carried out and a possible court appeal defended at the end.” Those who are in favour of the other option—or in fairness perhaps even an extreme option the other way—should use their constitutional rights to try to hold back the tide. Dr Smith who has said he is the champion of mowing through the bureaucracy and cutting down the red tape ought to take a breath and have a wee think about this situation. I think there is a moment in Parliament when we can promote a compromise. A logical compromise has been put up. I think we all agree that the status quo was a wee bit over the top but Labour has put up a compromise that I think is relatively balanced. 
I say in this short call that we have again an illustration of the extremes in politics: those who are prepared to promote a compromise and find a balance between development interest in the big end of town and protecting the natural environment and those like Dr Mapp who would be out there with the axe and the grindstone sharpening it up and mowing down trees. He has the flat-earth philosophy— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Rhinestone cowboy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says Dr Mapp is a rhinestone cowboy. Rhinestone? I do not know. Cowboy? He may be. Being an Auckland member Dr Mapp has a simplistic view of the world if he thinks that that sort of flat-earth philosophy should run. It is not just about the big end of town and about those who provide big dollars doing big developments; it is all about those people who actually want to protect their environment and have a balance in life. 
I ask National in a bipartisan way whether perhaps now that Dr Smith is in the chair and Wayne Mapp is on the benches it might consider our proposition. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 It is extraordinary that we get this flamboyant rhetoric about the mowing down of trees and Draconian measures from Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I invite Mr Clayton Cosgrove an MP from Christchurch to reflect on whether he thinks Christchurch is a Draconian city. The truth is that Christchurch a city that prides itself on being called the Garden City does not have any of these rules. 
I want to point out to Mr Cosgrove an interesting thing around the issue of development. I suspect that he knows absolutely nothing about this area of law. A number of Labour members have made the extraordinary claim that if somebody applies for a resource consent this means that he or she will be able to bowl the trees away. Let me tell members exactly what happens in Christchurch. People apply for resource consents involving blocks of land with trees on them and every year the council provides protection under those resource consents for hundreds and hundreds of those trees—that is what it does. That works perfectly well and anybody who thinks there will be a chainsaw massacre— 
Brendon Burns 
: Different quality of people there. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask my colleague Brendon Burns from Christchurch whether there is a great chainsaw massacre as the evil people of Christchurch try to take advantage of a law that Labour does not want to be imposed on other parts of New Zealand. Of course there is not. The provisions of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are not Draconian. There will not be any wholesale flattening of trees; there will be a bit of common sense applied. 
The situation is as simple as this. From 1 October one will not need resource consent in Auckland to trim a tree. 
Grant Robertson 
: Nikki Kaye’s not cheering! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Absolutely National members are cheering. The second thing is that over the next 2 and a bit years the council will be able to put the bureaucratic effort that is going into processing a whole lot of resource consents for tree trimming into identifying the really significant trees in Auckland that deserve protection. Members on the Labour benches have said that this means the council will have to individually catalogue every tree and apply through the system for it to be scheduled. What total nonsense that is! Every council around New Zealand that has gone through this process—and I note the member for Palmerston North is having a chuckle—does it through its plan and it does a large number of trees in a group by neighbourhood. That is how councils should do it under this legislation. I really think this is a case—I ask members to excuse the pun—of Labour not seeing the wood for the trees. 
I have found it extraordinary in this debate that there are huge changes set out in this bill to the way in which we consent to major pieces of infrastructure so that we can get on and build the electricity water and transport infrastructure for New Zealand and we have not heard a squeak from Labour about that albeit those reforms are very significant. I simply say the Labour members should put their money where their mouths are and to make my day by promising that they will reverse these changes. I tell those members that that will guarantee this Government a further term. If there was a reason that Labour was rejected by voters it was that New Zealanders were sick of the nanny State laws whereby ordinary Kiwis had to spend hundreds of dollars on getting a resource consent to trim their trees. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Papers 48 and 50. Supplementary Order Paper 48 proposes to insert new clause 21A into the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. This amendment focuses on the transfer of powers from councils to hapu and iwi authorities. At present hapu and iwi authorities are not empowered to initiate the consideration of a transfer of powers. Our amendment will allow hapu and iwi authorities to request a transfer of powers for them to manage their lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga when they determine that they are better able to meet the purposes of the Resource Management Act. Local authorities are required to give full consideration to the matter including completing a comprehensive evaluation of the request for transfer. They are required to report on the evaluation and to make the report publicly available. We would hope that whanau hapu and iwi would include section 33 of the Resource Management Act the provision pertaining to the transfer of powers in their iwi management plans and promote it to their respective councils. 
The context of this amendment is simply that regional councils have shown an absolute inability to protect harbours from pollution foreshores from coastal erosion and seabeds from marina developments. I give the example of Waikawa Marina in the Marlborough Sounds which is powering ahead with its development proposal regardless of the adverse impacts on the local hapu the local community the biodiversity and the wishes of the many people affected. We absolutely believe that whanau hapu and iwi could do a much better job in respecting and protecting their lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga. 
I draw the attention of the House to the current  
Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region 
 as a good case study to substantiate our position on the transfer of powers. The policy statement explicitly facilitates a transfer of powers with the added commitment of providing assistance to the transition as long as there is a formal request to trigger it by the iwi. The provisions were written into the policy 3 years ago and provide us with a very strong basis for this amendment. Chapter 4 of the statement entitled “The Iwi Environmental Management System” states: “The Wellington Regional Council in consultation and partnership with tangata whenua will investigate opportunities for iwi management of resources and opportunities for joint management where appropriate.” It goes further in subsequent sections to state that it will “support tangata whenua to administer transferred powers functions or duties where appropriate.” It will also “support iwi to prepare iwi management plans where appropriate and where iwi wish to do so.” These are great initiatives that “focus on improving opportunities for iwi management of resources and on formal recognition of the role of kaitiaki. These methods are consistent with a partnership approach to resource management as required by the Treaty of Waitangi and the transfers of powers provisions of the Act.” These initiatives provide us with an excellent context within which we put forward these amendments which we are proud to present to the House today and which we hope will be supported including those to clause 91 relating to the projects of national significance boards of inquiry and appeals to the High Court. 
Our Supplementary Order Paper 50 introduces a number of amendments to new Part 6AA which deals with proposals of national significance. As a result of this amendment boards of inquiry will be required to include a representative appointed by mana whenua. They will also be required to seek the advice of mana whenua on any matter being considered and to reflect that advice in any decisions and recommendations they make. Any draft and final report produced by boards of inquiry will be required to be sent to mana whenua and any other relevant hapu and iwi authorities. Finally the Supplementary Order Paper removes the limitation applied to appeals so that appeals against decisions based on merit can be brought before the High Court. These amendments are necessary to ensure that local government acknowledges the authority of mana whenua. 
We believe that it is desirable that there be robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua. We are also committed to establishing effective strategies for engaging Maori communities and advancing Maori representation. These amendments fulfil these aspirations by ensuring that at least one member must be a representative appointed by mana whenua under new Subpart 3 of new Part 6AA. There is also provision to ensure the involvement of any other relevant hapu or iwi authorities. 
This amendment and indeed all the amendments we have put before the House today are one way that the Crown can demonstrate active protection of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi—the rangatiratanga rights of hapu and iwi Maori. That seems to me as good a reason as any to support them. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The debate has gone on for a long time concentrating largely on trees. I thought it might be useful for the Committee to look at some other aspects that will change with the passing of the excellent Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
Picture if you will Springfield in Canterbury—the original sleepy hollow. It is a lovely little town which I have the pleasure of driving through and stopping in a couple of times a week on the way home. Springfield has some cafes an excellent hotel a garden shop and a few things like that. It is a really nice place. But it has that distinctive name Springfield. A couple of years ago—it might have been 3 years ago—the producers of the television programme that I believe is called  
The Simpsons 
 which I do not watch myself decided to send a concrete doughnut to every town called Springfield. They sent one to this sleepy little town in Canterbury and gosh it was really popular. The town put it up on the side of the road. Tour buses stopped everyone was photographed beside it kids loved it and all the local businesses enjoyed it. It really went well. 
When the 3 months were over the town was told it had to get rid of it. But the people the community of the town—one of the small towns that we heard need representation—said that they would like to keep it. Transit said the town could not keep the concrete doughnut by the side of the road because it would immediately cause accidents. The town said that it had not caused any accidents for the last 3 months. Transit said that was because it had been given a permit but a permit could not be given for it now because it would cause accidents. So the town put it in the local park. The council said that the town must apply for a consent. The community asked why. The council’s response was “because”. The community said that it was a statue in a park and that it did not need a consent. So the council engaged a consultant. 
This is how the story has been related to me. I find it hard to believe. I hope I am not misleading the Committee but several people have told me this was exactly the case. The council got a consultant to look at the doughnut in order to give it a definition and the consultant said it was a building—it was a house and it must have a permit. The people said that they did not want to get a permit for it as a building. The council told them to remove it. But they could not remove it because they did not have a permit to remove it and they could not get a permit to remove it because they did not have a permit for it in the first place. The council now intends to apply for the consent itself. An objection has been lodged by someone who wants to take the council to the Environment Court. This goes on and on. I am told that so far the cost has been established at $20000. This is not what the Resource Management Act was ever intended to do but this is what it is doing. We need this bill to change it. Thank you Mr Chair. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek the call to cover just a couple of issues one of which is the trees. I think we need to address the trees rather clearly. The other issue is the role of the Minister of Conservation. 
One of the things I think is a paradox about the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and what it proposes to do is that it is once again the Beehive telling Aucklanders what they can and cannot do. Aucklanders through their councils voted to have blanket tree protection rules. That is called democracy; they voted in democratically elected councils and those councils decided to have blanket tree protection rules. It seems to me that the Beehive the National-ACT Government is saying to Aucklanders that it does not care what they think. It could not care less that democratically elected councils wanted blanket tree protection rules. The Government says: “We do not care. We say you are not allowed to do it.” In effect with this bill the Government is introducing a maximum environmental standard. It is saying to people that they cannot have an environmental protection standard above this level they cannot have blanket tree protection rules and they cannot have a standard to protect trees even though democratically elected councils want to implement a standard. Central government and this Parliament assuming this bill goes through are saying to people that they are not allowed to have those rules. 
The Green Party has put forward a proposal to try to find some way through this paradox but it has been rejected by the Government. We have a Supplementary Order Paper on it as well. There is a very sensible compromise. First we should allow the trimming of trees. We should not have a blanket rule against trimming. Secondly when councils give consent for the removal of a tree they should do it at the tree itself. People would not have to go to the council or have some kind of elaborate hearing; it would be done at the tree itself. Thirdly there should be national guidelines so that there is some consistency around these rules because one of the issues has been consistency around the rules. Fourthly the process should be free. Mostly it is free now but in some places it is not. I think that is a very sensible compromise which allows the democratically elected councils of Auckland to maintain their blanket tree protection rules but takes away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy. 
That very sensible compromise which was put forward by Jeanette Fitzsimons in the Local Government and Environment Committee and is partly in an amendment that the Green Party is putting forward tonight has been rejected by the Government. Instead National’s bill means that where councils wish to protect trees on urban land they will have to schedule individual trees or groups of trees for protection. That is massively bureaucratic. If we take this move seriously if we accept the Government’s argument that it actually has the objective of protecting trees then it is still massively bureaucratic. The Government is talking about schedules to district plans that will be hundreds of pages long as councils schedule and identify each individual tree and each group of trees. It is massively bureaucratic. In effect the bill takes the evil red tape from the hands of those people who are trying to cut down trees and puts it in the hands of the councils that are trying to protect trees. This move is so bureaucratic that it will be very difficult for councils to use those rules to protect trees. 
I also think it is worth noting the comments from various Auckland councils and elsewhere that they will not schedule trees against the wishes of landowners. That means that once these current rules come off councils that wish to schedule protection for any tree on private land that they view as very important will not be able to do so if the landowner says that he or she does not want that tree to be scheduled. That is what councils have told us. So it is a sham for the Government to say that councils can use this mechanism when the councils say they will not use this mechanism to schedule trees. If councils try seriously to do this even where they are willing to override individual landowners’ consent in order to try to do it they will end up with an immensely bureaucratic process. It will be immensely expensive and time consuming. It will result in district plans with hundreds of pages of schedules to protect trees. 
Finally there is another issue relating to trees that I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s views on. It is to do with the changes that we are making to when plans take effect. Plans will take effect only after the decision on submissions has been made. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A few points have been raised by Dr Russel Norman and I think it is important to put the record straight. The first point is that he questions the right of Parliament to decide what the Resource Management Act can be used for. I was here when the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 and I can tell members that the entire Parliament at that time would have been flummoxed if it had realised that in the future almost a million Aucklanders would be required to get a resource consent to trim a tree. It is absolutely proper for this Parliament to tell councils what the limits of their powers are under the Resource Management Act and that is exactly what we are doing this evening. 
The second thing that members are completely overlooking is the reverse effect of these laws. It is interesting that I have had letters—and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard this evidence—from nursery staff who said that people tell them that they want to buy only trees that will grow to less than 3 metres. Why do people do that? Well if their council has a law that says they will lose control of their property if the tree grows to more than 3 metres then it is not surprising I say to Russel Norman. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It’s 8 metres. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It varies from council to council. But what homeowners do is to say that they will not plant a tree and lose control over their property or else they will buy only a little tree. 
The underlying proof of that is that if these rules work what we will expect to see is Auckland having a whole lot more trees than cities that do not have these rules. In reality in Palmerston North in Napier in Nelson in Christchurch in Dunedin and in Wellington is there any evidence to support the contention from Russel Norman and the Labour Party that there are a whole lot more trees in places that have these blanket tree rules? The answer is no. The third point I would make— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Christchurch hasn’t scheduled one tree. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member should let me make the point. Let us see whether Mr Cunliffe is prepared to live up to his claim. I would have a bet with him for the best bottle of wine that either of us can find that Christchurch has protected hundreds of trees. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh now he is changing his tune. The truth is different and I will swear on the Bible with regard to that. I had lunch only today with the Mayor of Christchurch and he has pointed out that hundreds of trees have been protected so this is just another example of the deliberate misinformation that comes from members like Mr Cunliffe on this issue. 
The last point I will make— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a fine line for the Minister to argue the case and it is another thing to question the integrity of a member by saying that I had changed my story. I had not. The point I had always made is that there has been no new scheduling since the lifting of the blanket rules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a debating point and there is no confusion on this. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The last point I will make is to do with a contradictory comment from Russel Norman. He said that the same councils that want to pass blanket protection rules over everybody’s property without any consultation are not prepared to use the plans to identify and consult with landowners about scheduling individual trees or groups of trees. Well I have never heard such an illogical silly argument in my 20 years in this Parliament. If councils are prepared to ride roughshod over everybody’s trees then I ask Russel Norman why they would not be prepared to use the powers that we will provide for them to protect those individual and specific trees which occurs in every other part of New Zealand. I say to members that these sensible provisions will see those very valued trees protected but they will get rid of the bureaucracy of requiring thousands of resource consents for trimming a tree. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 In the brief time available to me I will respond to the complaint from the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith that we have not referred to call-in powers which he sees as being so significant. The reason is that it is all smoke and mirrors. There is no meaningful change to call-in powers in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
I will illustrate why this matter is being oversold by the National Government. National members complain that there is an infrastructure deficit in New Zealand. You know spending on motorways in New Zealand doubled under the previous Government. It went up hugely. All of those projects were consented under the Resource Management Act. Public transport funding increased tenfold including some enormous projects like the Northern Busway which was consented under the Resource Management Act. New hospitals from Bluff to Kaitaia were consented under the Resource Management Act. New schools from south to north were consented to under the Resource Management Act. A tenfold increase in transmission expenditure up from $50 million to $500 million was consented under the Resource Management Act. New power generation projects—many years ahead of the demand growth—were all consented under the Resource Management Act. Some of those projects were consented through the call-in processes that the Minister was involved in updating while on the Local Government and Environment Committee with me back in 2005. There was a doubling of telecommunications expenditure between 2004 and 2008 from $700 million per annum to $1.4 billion per annum. That was all consented under the Resource Management Act. Some of it was called in. 
The idea that economic growth will take off as a consequence of these small changes to the call-in process has always been a myth. That is why we have not focused on it in this debate. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email from Scott Langley to Nikki Kaye and others entitled “Save the Trees”: 
 “ 
Dear the people I stupidly voted for last year I am writing to express my concern about the impact of”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email from David Herkt to Nikki Kaye and others that says: “I also watched one of the National MPs hacking down mangroves at Whangamata …” etc. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave— 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are on a point of order at the moment. 
Chris Tremain 
: He was taking a new point of order Mr Chairperson; we have finished the last point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are currently on a point of order. I am hearing the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an email from Juliet Yates to Chris Carter: “I am writing to you on behalf of the Tamaki Drive Protection Society— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Hon David Cunliffe is seeking to table documents and is then reading parts of the emails. I do not think that that is appropriate; it is outside the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for that point. The member should just table the document and not explain in depth what is in it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an email from Owen Young an architect with 35 years’ experience. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table an email from Ben Zimmerman of Greenscene on clause 52 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Business Committee reached an agreement in good faith that the debate on the Committee stage of this bill would be limited to a period of 3 hours. 
Hon Members 
: 5 hours. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A period of 5 hours I am sorry. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No Mr Chairperson there is an important point of order here and I ask you to hear me out please. Mr Cunliffe who is a senior member of the House is choosing to seek leave for the tabling of a whole lot of very minor documents in order to effectively stop the progress of the Committee of the whole House. If you as Chairperson are going to allow that then any party of this Committee could resort to the same tactic and could have all its members take up the whole time of Parliament by simply seeking leave to table irrelevant documents. I think you need to give a ruling about this tactic which has been adopted by Mr Cunliffe and whether it is an appropriate use of the Standing Orders particularly given the agreement that was reached by the Business Committee for a time-limited debate on the Committee stage. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson in reaching your considered ruling on this matter I ask you to take into account two factors in particular. Firstly the procedure that I am using is entirely provided for by the Standing Orders where any member has the right to seek leave to table a document. It falls within the guidelines of the Business Committee. These are not press articles or media statements; they are private communications not otherwise available to the Committee. Secondly you will recall that I consulted the Chair about when it would be an appropriate time to table these documents and the advice I received was not to interrupt the debate because a pre-allotted time had been allocated. Therefore I am taking the only opportunity available to me to table these documents. In the interests of facilitating the progress of the Committee it may be that I can reach a compromise with the member opposite Dr Nick Smith to table these documents in groups of like submissions rather than as individual ones. I ask you to consider that offer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate was time-limited. The debate has concluded but that does not stop someone tabling documents after the debate has concluded. The debate concluded on time at 8 p.m. so points of order can be raised and documents tabled after that. I ask the member in good faith—as he has just indicated—to group the documents he wishes to seek leave for so that we can progress to the next stage. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I thought it would be inappropriate to unreasonably detain the Committee because there are a very very large number of like communications that the Committee ought to have available to it. In this particular sample in my hand I have over 250 documents. I therefore seek leave to table as a group two like submissions from the New Zealand Arboricultural Association opposing clause 52. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three like submissions from Lisa Sanderson Angela Little and David James opposing clause 52. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The documents will be tabled. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table four like submissions from Atkins and Otley Felicity Barnes Nigel Bartlett and Lisa Benson opposing clause 52. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Unfortunately it was the previous Chairperson who made the comment to the Committee that if the documents being tabled were already part of the business of the Committee then there would be no necessity to table them. Like other members of Parliament I have received a number of emails over recent days and I am of the opinion that in fact these documents have been sent to all members of Parliament and have therefore become part of the correspondence that has entered into their business as members of Parliament. I seek your guidance therefore on whether these emails are already parliamentary business and on whether it would be unnecessary and perhaps trifling with the business of the Committee to table them all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will answer the matter quite directly. The member has been seeking to table documents; people have the right to object to them. I am not sure exactly what the contents are. The member has said that he will facilitate this process occurring quickly. The member appears to be doing that. If the member is trying to trifle with the agreement he has made then we can intervene at that point. If the member is going to expedite the process I welcome that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to table nine similar emails from a range of members of the public who object to clause 52. They were not sent to all members of the Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The documents can be tabled. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a spreadsheet of the remainder of the 250 emails received by my office in respect of objections to clause 52. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table a spreadsheet. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the balance of the 252 emails that my office has received in the last 24 hours objecting to the passage of clause 52. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to table 250 emails. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They will be tabled. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now move to the substance of the matter. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Dr Russel Norman be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit clause 20 is ruled out of order as it is the same in substance as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of Rahui Katene be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 52 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think when you read out the details of my amendment you said that it had the effect of omitting clause 151. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I said “to omit clause 52”. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Did you? My amendment has the effect of deleting clauses 52 and 151. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I understand that the amendment to clause 151 is a separate amendment. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I did not realise that. Sorry I thought they were together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that because the amendment is in the member’s name if the member thinks there is an error in the way in which the amendment has been referred to in the Committee then the member should say so immediately. To raise a point of order after the vote creates some difficulty. Never mind we have moved on. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 52 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 52 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following: 
“76 
(4A)However a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling trimming damaging or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is— 
(a)identified (including a map) in the plan or proposed plan; or 
(b)located within an area in the district that— 
(i)is a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977); or 
(ii)is subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977 
(4B)In subsection (4A) urban environment means an allotment no greater than 4000 m2— 
(a)that is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and 
(b)on which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes or a dwellinghouse.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Will the member please turn off the cellphone and take it out of the Chamber. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 68 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95B in clause 68 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95D in clause 68 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 68 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 82 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to omit clauses 83 and 83A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments are in the name of the Hon David Parker. They are typescript amendments to omit clauses 83 and 83A. They are ruled out of order as they are the same in substance as the previous amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 84 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 85 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 50 in the name of Rahui Katene to new sections 149J 149P 149Q and 149R in clause 91 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 50 in the name of Rahui Katene to new section 149W in clause 91 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 131 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I conduct the next vote I say to members that I keep hearing sounds of a computer being switched on and ticking over. Would whoever has the offending device please shut it up and remove it. It is irritating. This is a debating chamber not a working office. The next amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 131 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 44 in the name of Dr Russel Norman be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 133 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to omit clause 133 is out of order as it is the same in substance as the previous amendment which the Committee has made a decision on. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 151 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The next amendments are to clause 151. They are Phil Twyford’s amendment to omit clause 151—the amendment that the member thought had been lost has been found—set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40; Dr Russel Norman’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42; the Hon David Cunliffe’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41; and Lynne Pillay’s typescript amendment. All of these amendments are out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise a serious point of order and ask for your indulgence. It is a leave motion but I need to provide some context for it. During the debate in the Committee stage the Minister alleged that Labour had voted for clauses 52 and 151 in the select committee. We explained that we were opposed to both of those clauses but that in the select committee of course the voting had been on a part by part basis. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the member to pause here. Is this a point of order about some offence to the Standing Orders or is this simply an explanation to right the record and therefore a debatable matter? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I hope the member is going to come to some offence that has been created and caused to the Standing Orders. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding the decision of the Business Committee to take the substantive motion on both parts as one motion I seek leave in light of the earlier discussion for the votes on clauses 52 and 151 to be held as a separate vote so that Labour’s opposition to those clauses can be recorded. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is clauses 52 and 151. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is the Committee clear on that? Is there any objection? There is objection. Therefore the question is that Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part. All those of that opinion say Aye of the contrary opinion say No. The Ayes have it. Is a party vote called for? No party vote is called for. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I asked whether a party vote was called for. I got silence and I then moved on. I just say to the member that once the Chair has declared a vote and it is disputed the member who wishes for a party vote should call for the party vote immediately. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I did Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did not hear it. I am sorry. 
A party vote was called for on the question that Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I declare the result I just say to Dr Norman that I am sorry I did not hear the call for it. That is one of the reasons why it is important that there is quiet in the Chamber when a vote is being conducted because very often voices do not carry. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Parts 1 and 2 schedule 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The passing of this bill delivers on an important commitment made by John Key and National to the public of New Zealand. It reflects on the blue-green view that inefficient bureaucracy does nothing for the environment and in fact often harms it. This bill makes no changes to the purposes of the Resource Management Act but is instead very focused on far better processes to get good-quality decisions in a more timely way. I want to acknowledge all members of the House who contributed to the pretty robust debate during the Committee stage. 
It is important at the third reading to know what the bill is attempting to achieve. I note in the first instance that there has been an ever-increasing trend of resource consents not being processed in a timely way. Every one of the Ministry for the Environment surveys over the last decade has shown an increase in the number of resource consents—up last year to 14000—not being processed on time. This bill puts in place a number of measures to address that issue and a key test that it is meeting its objectives is to see a significant improvement in those statistics. 
The second area that this bill attempts to address is the frustration of so many New Zealanders who are attempting to do small projects and get caught up in the labyrinth of the Resource Management Act. That is why we are making changes around the issues of notification that is why we are making changes in areas like security of costs and that is why we making changes in process. We are trying to reduce the frustration that genuine New Zealanders have in applying for relatively small consents. 
This bill also seeks to tackle abuse of the Resource Management Act by commercial competitors. We have all witnessed the supermarket circuses where the Resource Management Act has been used in some communities like the North Shore to delay a new supermarket for as long as 8 or 10 years for which the community has paid a price by not actually getting a choice as to where they might purchase the most basic of items. This legislation is intended to constrain those abuses. 
The bill is also about providing for a better process for processing major consents. It is a matter of national embarrassment that it takes longer to get a resource consent for significant pieces of infrastructure projects than it actually takes to build them. That is a nonsense and a further motivation for the Government to advance these changes. 
There has been significant debate around the issues of public participation. I want to make it plain that National remains of the view as we did when we supported the initial Resource Management Act that New Zealanders have a right to participate in the resource consent process and decision making around the environment. But that is not an unconstrained right and we as a Parliament need to carefully balance that right of participation in the decision-making process with the need for us to get timely decisions and to do so in an efficient way. 
There are a number of changes in the bill that address that very point. The changes in respect of giving the Environment Court the power to award security for costs are to address the very real problem when groups that organise themselves as an incorporated society and who become passionately opposed to a particular project or development are able to behave irresponsibly in the resource consent process and impose very significant costs on ratepayers but have no responsibility themselves. That is not a fair use of the law. I have every confidence that the Environment Court will use that security for costs provision appropriately and not as a mechanism for shutting down community input into the resource consent process. 
It is true that this bill is aimed at facilitating the process for building major pieces of infrastructure. So often the practice has been that everybody knows that a consent dealt with by the local and regional authorities inevitably will be appealed to the Environment Court and that long drawn-out process is not doing favours for anybody either those who are supportive or those who are opposed to those particular projects. New Zealand will benefit from the changes made in this bill that provide for a single-step process for those major consents with a board of inquiry chaired by an Environment Court judge making those key decisions. Most important we have set out in the bill an ambitious programme of such consents being processed within a 9-month time frame. This is quite deliberate in order to send a clear signal that it is important for both the environment and the economy that we are able to get decisions in a more timely way. In this regard for those proposals not meeting the criteria of being nationally significant the bill also provides for direct referral to the Environment Court to provide for a single-step process rather than the dual process that frustrates so many applicants and communities. 
One aspect the bill addresses is unnecessary resource consents. Today we have heard quite a lot of bellyaching about the changes around the protection of trees. National was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and specifically streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act. The changes to rules around urban trees are delivering on that promise. This issue is about whether homeowners should have to get a resource consent to trim or remove a tree on their property. The Government takes the view that as a general rule they should not. The specific law change that National is making is to prohibit blanket tree protection rules. These are generic rules in a few councils’ plans where every tree over a particular height say 3 metres requires consents to trim or remove them. National’s change means that if a council wants to put restrictions on landowners trimming or removing a tree on their property the council needs to consult the property owners and specifically identify the tree or groups of trees in its district plan. The Government recognises that there are significant trees on private land that have wider community benefits. That is why we are providing for councils to specifically list those trees or groups of trees for protection albeit councils will have to consult the property owner. 
In essence this law change is around changing the relationship between councils and landowners over trees. At the moment councils are in the box seat and property owners must seek permission to trim or remove any tree on their property. The Government’s amendment bill will ensure that councils consult landowners before putting restrictions on their trees and it reflects a greater respect by the new Government for property rights. The process for councils to list specific trees for protection over the next 2 years is not onerous and will require a fraction of the bureaucracy needed to process all those tree-trimming consents. I will be monitoring though the performance of councils as they go about the exercise of identifying those trees and if councils fail to progress this work I will use my powers under the Resource Management Act to ensure that it will be done. It will be a relief for Auckland homeowners that from 1 October this year they will not need a resource consent to trim their own trees; this will save the whole resource management system 3000 resource consents per year. 
I acknowledge that this is a large bill that makes many significant changes—the most significant changes since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991. The Government has a second phase of reforms but this bill is an important first step. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Before touching on the broader themes and broader principles underlying this endeavour to reform the Resource Management Act I will reiterate three important things in those areas where our reservations remain and that we have endeavoured to amplify this evening. Firstly notification is about participation and participation is the cornerstone of social democracy. We in this country have a system of devolution whereby resource management decisions take place and are countenanced by democratically elected representatives at local and regional levels of government. That is why Labour was particularly insistent in endeavouring to secure support from the Minister and his team in order to change that particular provision. 
Secondly we feel very strongly that the Crown’s role in the coastal environment for stewardship purposes Treaty of Waitangi purposes and public weal purposes ought not to be undermined. We fear that that has been the case in that particular area. We think it is crucial because of the issues we are still dealing with in relation to takutai moana. We also think that it is important that New Zealanders know that the coastal environment is in the custody of the Crown so that a proxy is present for the owners—that is the public—and that it is admitted that there is a process to establish what proportion of the original customary title pertaining to the seabed and foreshore might still exist. It is important that in the third reading we record our thoughts in that regard. 
The next important area is the trees. Hone Harawira and I went to the same boarding school. I think it was when I was doing School C we were taught—or made to learn—a poem by Hone Tuwhare from Ngapuhi an acclaimed resident of the South Island. His poem was called “The Tree”. I remember a little bit of it: 
Tree let your arms fall: 
raise them not sharply in supplication  
to the bright enhaloed cloud.  
Let your arms lack toughness and 
resilience for this is no mere axe  
to blunt nor fire to smother.  
What we have to say about the trees is contained in our matua Tuwhare’s poem. His ending line was: “… your end at last is written.” The effect of this action may represent a small saving but it will empower in an unfettered way people who will do damage to the tree landscape of Tamaki-makau-rau. But it is up to the Auckland MPs on both sides of the House to win that debate in relation to the feelings of the good citizens of Tamaki-makau-rau. 
We support the enactment of this bill. This bill endeavours to although not as handsomely as the Minister would have us believe reduce the number of resource management statutory consents that are needed by New Zealanders—either individuals families or firms—when they go about their lawful business. We should be identifying those areas of activity that ought not require bureaucracy or intervention by statutory decision makers. That is the sensible approach to take. The political debate has always been about the balance and one of the other reasons why we support this bill is that we see that there is a strong place for an Environmental Protection Agency. 
We remain however unconvinced as to how effective the Environmental Protection Agency will be in the absence of knowing what it is actually going to do in terms of its full functions. There are critical infrastructure projects in our country that cannot be left to languish at subnational levels of Government. We should harness the full power and authority of central government well armed and informed by an Environmental Protection Agency to make the hard large decisions that will have significant impacts of a productivity nature on the pace at which we develop or maintain the country’s capital assets—its infrastructure. So there is a great deal of work to take place. From the Minister’s comments I construed that he would give us further briefings in his phase two area. 
The other area that gave us confidence to support the passage of the bill was that the Local Government and Environment Committee gave effect to a number of important changes and I have to give credit to Dr Nick Smith. Obviously those changes would not have taken place had he been stubborn or indifferent to the wisdom behind them. However he ought to talk to Rodney Hide about the usefulness of being flexible. 
An area where we were pleased to see the change lay in appeal rights. Environmental policy environmental law and environmental disputes cause divisiveness: passions rise and run. People must have the ability to have their day in court and their day on an environmental matter is not just what they think; it is what they feel. So much about the environment cannot be captured monetised or quantified. That is why the change that the committee recommended which has been included in the bill enables the Environment Court to receive applications to debate the utility of resource allocation decisions not just on black-letter law but on the actual merit of the decision. I would not underestimate the importance of that change of thinking. I doubt whether my colleagues would have agreed to my supporting this bill in the select committee if that change had not been made. 
The other thing that needs to be pointed out is that this bill does not substantially unravel the principal purpose of the Resource Management Act. It actually is an attempt to reduce administrative dead weight. It is an attempt to cause decisions to be carried out more efficiently and that is part of the balance that we felt on this side of the House. It is cumbersome legislation if the decisions that are made cause people to become so disenfranchised or alienated that they use every technique in the book to circumvent the provisions in the legislation. 
Our friends in the Green Party made some important points and they are entitled to make them; I am sure there is a constituency for their perspective—that is that this legislation does weaken the Resource Management Act’s central tenets. That is not our view. What we think it does is improve the pace and the quality of decision making and make bureaucrats responsible for the performance of their organisations when they are taking the public’s money and using the public’s time to allocate resources or to make those statutory resource management decisions. That level of accountability is absolutely essential. In fact I think it is one of the more sensible innovations and hopefully it will see a reversal in those rather woeful statistics that Dr Nick Smith referred to earlier this evening. 
One final reason why I think this bill is deserving of our support overall lies in the fact that people will be able to take their issues directly to the Environment Court. They can make an application acknowledging that the Environment Court is where things will end up anyway. That is a sensible contribution on how we can get 4.5 million people to use limited resources efficiently and get decisions that people will be proud to have participated in and that will not represent a squandering of precious resources at a time when we want to both protect the environment and grow the economy. For those reasons we support the passage of the bill. Kia ora. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am thrilled to speak in support of the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill in its third reading debate. This has been my first experience of taking a bill from its introduction through to the third reading and it has reinforced my faith in democracy and the working of Parliament. 
We have had a large number of submissions—close to 900—the involvement of a technical advisory group an expert panel and a robust select committee process all of which has ended up with all parties except the Green Party supporting this bill. In saying that I know that the Green Party has agreed with some of the parts and with some of the changes that this bill makes. The National Government is delivering on its promises. This Government introduced this bill into the House in its first 100 days and 6 months later is taking it for its final reading. 
I will focus on the intent of the bill which is to streamline and simplify. The Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith has said that reform of the Resource Management Act is an important part of the Government’s work programme and is critical to our country’s future prosperity. It is about the costs the uncertainty and the delays that the current Resource Management Act creates. The Act has an adverse impact on New Zealanders on New Zealand jobs on what we can do in terms of infrastructure and on productivity. It also causes economic frustrations for ordinary homeowners small businesses and farmers. I have faced many constituents in the Taupo electorate who have come to my office with frustrations about these sorts of delays and costs in the treatment of what appear to be quite simple resource consent applications. 
The purpose of the bill is to redress the balance of the ever-important environmental protection versus economic growth. We all recognise the importance of both and that the balance between them is paramount. At the moment approval for projects of national or local significance have a timeline of years as opposed to months and many projects of significant benefit are held up through the process of getting that ever-important resource consent. The new Government is committed to creating a robust and sustainable framework for development and growth for New Zealand but it is not just about the big projects. I want to reinforce that. It is not just the large projects that are delayed. It is often the small and simple projects as well such as the garage the home renovation or dare I say it as has been the case the trimming or removal of a tree. 
I spoke earlier about the example of my own brother in Auckland who had a simple renovation that required a resource consent. He expected that he would be waiting 20 days until he got his resource consent from the Auckland City Council but how many months did it take? It took 7 months to get a resource consent for an extension on a home. So it is not just the large projects we are talking about. It is the simple ones as well. 
Hon John Carter 
: He was lucky it only took 7 months. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: That is right. There are many cases we have all heard of that are far in excess of 7 months. He was indeed a lucky man to get it through in only 7 months. But when it is meant to take 20 days we say that is not good enough. That is what this bill changes. 
The important thing is that the bill is the first phase of a two-stage process. We are not solving all of the problems with the Resource Management Act in this first bill. We have focused on simplifying and streamlining. There is a large amount of work yet to come in the second stage of the reforms. But I reiterate that this is not just tinkering at the edges. It will address some of the problems that have been there for years. It was unfortunate that the previous Labour Government did not take the time to address those problems but I am thrilled that the Opposition is now on board with us in making these changes. The provisions will provide stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviour new consent pathways and a rationalisation of decision making in existing consent categories. These amendments will have a significant impact on the processes under the Act that have led to delay uncertainty frustration and of course additional and unnecessary costs. There are a few changes to the level of public involvement but the balance has been worked through carefully. I believe this bill strikes a better balance between the public’s right to be involved and the need for both sensible and timely decisions. 
I make the point again though that these changes and this rebalancing does not mean a reduction in environmental quality. In the Taupo electorate it is critical in terms of our local economy that the environmental quality is not reduced. I believe that we have got this balance right. We have had repetitive and costly consultation processes broad appeal rights and time-consuming reporting requirements which are adding tens of thousands of dollars and years to plan preparation and change processes. I re-emphasise that slow and overly bureaucratic processes do not do anything to protect the environment. 
As I said at the start of my speech I have had my faith in the parliamentary process very much reinforced. The select committee worked well. There have been some significant changes as a result of the submissions from the public. We heard many of those submitters in person and it was great that the Minister was very committed to making sure that we had a law that worked. We listened to the submitters and the Local Government and Environment Committee worked tirelessly for hours on end to nut through the issues and make some of the changes. 
I will focus on a couple of those changes. One of the issues is of course the delays in processing of resource consents and this was reinforced by the biennial survey of councils which demonstrated that only 69 percent of applications are processed within the statutory time frames. I am sure no one here would dispute the fact that that is simply not good enough. Other changes as a result of the submissions have meant that we have limited rather than removed further rounds of submissions on plan changes. We have strengthened the process for national consenting and national environmental standards we will not proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class and we have made changes in terms of limiting the rights of appeal on plans because that was an item we had a lot of feedback on. Another change made as a result of the select committee process is the deferral of changes around requiring authorities and that will be looked at in the second phase of reforms. 
Overall a sensible balance has been struck between reducing the bureaucracy and ensuring good processes as well as the ever-important environmental protection. The National-led Government—and I am a proud member of the Bluegreens in the National Party—is committed to looking after our environment. It is so critical that we balance that accurately with encouraging economic growth particularly in the times we are in now. We are putting in place policies to help our local economies and to ensure that we and generations to come can enjoy our unique environment in the future. 
I will take a moment to look at some of the comments that others have made about what we are proposing. Federated Farmers have welcomed the Government’s announcements and support many of the changes to speed up the Resource Management Act process. That comment came from the president of Federated Farmers. Looking at it from the perspective of a regional chamber of commerce Charles Finney has said that streamlining the processes around obtaining resource consents will prove to be a real tonic for economic growth. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has said it is good to have central government taking regulatory leadership that the proposed Resource Management Act process changes will be widely welcomed and that they deserve business and community support. Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society has said that the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers. 
So we can see that this bill is about simplifying and streamlining. I am proud to support this bill. It gets the balance right and the support across the House shows that. It is about protecting the environment while enabling economic growth. I am pleased that this bill delivers both of those aims. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 There is much in the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill that members on this side of the House agree with and we know that from the debates in the last few hours but in this final debate I will to focus my comments on clauses 52 and 151 which were points of contentious disagreement between us and members on the other side of the House. 
After listening to the last few hours of debate I am left with a couple of questions. Could the rules have been improved; if so why did the Government not want to improve the rules and why does it insist on doing away with them altogether and leaving our trees in Auckland without any protection? The day before yesterday there was an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about a phoenix palm on a reserve on the North Shore. To be sure this was an example of planning and consent regulations gone mad. It required a half-day sitting by a panel of three commissioners and a written report by council officials. I think there were 15 submissions from neighbours who live near the park about the fate of this phoenix palm. I ask whether that is a strong case for the rules being done away with. When I made some inquiries I found out that the North Shore City Council has antiquated and inappropriate delegations that require that any tree even one listed on the noxious plants list of the Auckland Regional Council has to be dealt with by a commission and the question of whether it is notified has to go to that panel. Then amazingly the panel decided that actually it should be notified which seems utterly bizarre to me. 
Throughout the afternoon the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith has kept on insisting that there is no alternative and that the rules have to be prohibited and done away with. That seems to be a wilful denial of the fact that sensible compromise proposals were put up during the Local Government and Environment Committee process that would have allowed homeowners to trim their trees without needing a consent and would have allowed certified arborists or council staff to visit a property and issue a consent for tree removal. I would have thought that that would pretty much solve the problem but no the compromise mechanism put up by the Greens was rejected out of hand by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and he went on his merry way with clauses 52 and 151. 
Much of the argument the Minister put forward rested on the idea that this was about property rights and that getting local councils off the back of property owners was about protecting the private property rights of tree owners and homeowners. I think that idea is easily dispelled and we have dispelled it a number of times in the course of the afternoon but it needs to be said again what a trivial and absurd argument this is. Our system of Government and of politics long ago did away with the idea that private property rights exist in isolation in this way. We do not allow swimming pool owners to not fence their swimming pool because the pool is on their private property. We do not allow people to concrete their entire section because it is their private property because that would have a very damaging effect on their neighbours. We do not allow people to build up to the boundary because that would be damaging for the community. In that way trees are in many ways a public good. They are a community asset. They provide beauty and character for our streets they guard against erosion they provide shade and they are often just as valuable or more valuable to neighbours and people living in the community as they are to the people who own them. 
The Minister talked a lot about trusting homeowners and how Labour did not trust Auckland homeowners to look after their trees. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. We have so many laws on our books that are about guarding the interests of the majority against the small minority of people who are irresponsible and that is what this is about—general tree protection rules. So it is nonsense to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. In fact most Aucklanders no doubt believe that our trees should be protected and want an urban environment that is rich in trees. It is the small minority of rogue developers and homeowners who would bowl all the trees off their section for short-term gain. That is what we are trying to guard against. 
Will trees be protected once this law goes through? Are alternatives in place that will mean that the trees will be protected? We believe that the answer is no and councils have made that very clear. It was reported in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that the staff of Auckland City Council said that they will not be seeking to list and schedule all the trees that are currently protected around the city because it is not practical or feasible. The irony is that these clauses are purportedly about cutting red tape. Yet in order to protect the same volume of trees currently protected under these rules it would require an army of tree inspectors to travel around the suburbs of Auckland individually assessing documenting and listing the trees to be scheduled. It will not happen it is not practical it is too expensive and it is not feasible. That is why we put up amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to change those provisions. 
The question I am left with is why the National Government wants to ride roughshod over local government in Auckland. It is a Government that professes that decisions on local matters should be made by local people. It has professed this principle throughout the entire debate over the Auckland super-city. We have spent many many hours discussing the powers of local boards and the importance of allowing local people to make local decisions so why does the Government want to put at risk the trees that Aucklanders treasure so much? The point has been made that Auckland councils have said that they simply will not attempt to individually list those trees so the trees will be at risk. I will tell the House why I think they are prepared to do that. It is because the provisions in this bill are a little trophy. They are something to show for the Government’s crusade against red tape but at what cost? Nick Smith is certain that no trees will be knocked over. I have lost count of the number of times he said this afternoon that no trees will be knocked over but Aucklanders have seen it happen on numerous occasions. If we look around the cliff-tops of the coastal suburbs of Auckland we see examples of sections where developers have knocked over pohutukawa and cleared sections in order to put in a tennis court or some new building. 
If these provisions are passed then that will undoubtedly happen again and when it does the National MPs of Auckland will have to answer to their constituents. The slightly green-tinged environmentalist of Auckland Central Ms Nikki Kaye—sometimes she is slightly pink-tinged—will have to answer to the people of Grey Lynn Herne Bay Freeman’s Bay and Ponsonby and she will have to explain why she did no more than hand-wringing and expressing her concern and feelings for the trees of Auckland Central. A lot of allegedly good Nelson wine was offered on wager this afternoon by the Minister and I feel that I have missed my chance by not placing a bet to get that wine. But never mind I say to the National MPs in Auckland particularly to these ones with small majorities: Nikki Kaye Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Paula Bennett. They are the ones who will have to answer on this issue to the voters of Auckland in 2 years’ time. That will be on their conscience and they will have to explain to the voters of Auckland when the trees start to fall. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is National’s down payment on its opening attack on the environment movement. There were 850 submissions made by the environment movement all around our country against this bill. Hundreds and hundreds of the small community groups that do the real work to protect our environment submitted against this bill and came out against it. It is one of the great aspects of my job that I get to go around New Zealand and meet the real guardians the kaitiaki of our country—iwi hapu and environment non-governmental organisations. They are the people who end up in the courts and in front of consent panels all the time actually protecting our environment. They have come out against this bill because they know what it is trying to do. What National is doing with this bill with the support of Labour is voting for a bill that tilts the balance against the environment movement. For example by supporting this bill National intends to restrict notification. Environment groups and locals will not know what is going on in their neighbourhood—it is very hard for them to know. That is combined with the changes to section 274 that restrict the ability of groups to join other people’s cases. 
In the first instance National with Labour’s and ACT’s support is voting for a bill that says that people will not be told what is going on in their neighbourhood so they will not have the opportunity to object. Then when they find out later what has happened and it ends up in the Environment Court this bill will make it harder for groups to join Environment Court cases. On the one hand people will not be told about it. There will be special laws—the changes to the notification provisions—that prevent people knowing what is going on. Later when people do find out about it and want to get involved in the Environment Court case people will not be able to because of the restrictions involvement in Environment Court cases. So National and Labour are voting for a bill that completely restricts community participation in decision making under the Resource Management Act. 
Community and public participation is one of the founding principles of the Resource Management Act. The Act exists to protect the environment and facilitate community participation in the decisions that are made in communities. National is completely overt about the bill restricting community participation. Those Labour members say they support community participation but even after an enormously long time complaining about the bill they are voting for a bill that restricts community participation. National and Labour say they want to restrict community participation in the decisions around environmental management. 
National is doing that because this is part of its anti-environmental agenda. National knows that the people who actually protect our environment are those terrible and troublesome groups those iwi hapu and environmental non-governmental organisations that end up in the Environment Court all the time clogging up the system and causing terrible problems to National Party’s mates the developers. Those groups end up in the Environment Court because they are trying to protect the New Zealand environment. It is those groups that do the hard work; little Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society branches small environmental groups up and down our country do the hard work to protect our environment. This bill is designed to get them out of the process. That is why this bill exists and that is why National is restricting notification. It is why the bill includes security for costs. 
Let us remember that the Environment Court already has the ability to strike out frivolous and vexatious cases. But no that is not enough! We will have security for costs put in as well just to make sure that people are discouraged from getting into the Environment Court. Combine this with the dramatic increase in filing fees that the National Government has introduced. That is another barrier to people using the Resource Management Act process to protect the environment and that is exactly why this bill exists. When we put it all together we see that it now costs $500 to get through the front door of the Environment Court. People may be faced with security for costs so that will put them off. People may not even have known about the proposal to start with because National and Labour are restricting notification. If people have missed out on filing a case in the beginning it is much harder to join the case later because the changes to section 274 make it much harder for groups to join cases later. All the way through step after step National Labour and ACT are joining together to make it harder for ordinary community groups to protect the environment that underpins our entire economy. 
Another way they are doing this and it has not been talked about much is when plans have legal effect. One of the things that councils do is change plans in order to protect the environment. Under this bill the time at which the plan has legal effect is delayed to further back in the process. It is not when the plan is notified; it is after submissions have been resolved. That means that it creates a loophole between when the plan is notified and when it has legal effect during which one can drive a bulldozer through the hole so that one can see what it is they are trying to protect and so one can destroy it. This is the classic case of what will happen with the trees. Councils will notify that they plan to schedule individual trees but that notification of scheduling individual trees will have no legal effect under this new bill. So the landowners will know that their trees are being scheduled and those trees will have no legal protection until after submissions are resolved so during that window they will be able to chop down all those trees that are scheduled. That is why they have set this thing up. 
The other part of this bill is the direct referral. The direct referral has some benefits but the system that has been set up is so incredibly complicated that it is hard to see that it will reduce red tape. Numerous routes have been set up to get direct referral. Whether this reduces red tape is very very unclear. I think that is one of the most amazing things about the so-called tree protection rules: it is very unclear whether they will reduce red tape at all. In fact they might multiply red tape. If councils do as the Minister says they should go around and try to schedule thousands and thousands of trees then it will add red tape it will add cost and it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. If councils do not do that then the trees can be chopped down and of course that is what will happen. 
The other part of this bill that I think is incredibly significant is the role of the Minister of Conservation. Normally when there is a resource consent process in order for a development to happen people need two types of consent: the consent of the landowner—the person who owns the land—and the consent of the consenting authority whether it is the local council or whatever. These two types of consent are needed. So if I want to do a development on my property I need the consent of the landowner and I also need the consent of the council. What about when that land is the coast of New Zealand which is supposedly controlled by the public of New Zealand? It supposedly belongs to the people of New Zealand. We had a very long debate in our country about this. Should the people of New Zealand have the right to say no? If a developer wants to come along and do a development on coastal land should the public of New Zealand have the right to say no? Under this bill that the Government is pushing through under urgency the right of the public to say no has been taken away. The public no longer have the right to veto it and to say no. 
We still have the resource consent process and so we should. But the other consent that is normally necessary which is the consent of the landowner has been taken away. In the coastal environment the landowner is the public of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand have had their right to say no to development in the coastal environment removed. They have effectively had their right to say whether something should go ahead on their land—it is their land it is owned by the public of New Zealand—taken away. They no longer have the right say no. I think that that is ridiculous. 
People often forget why the Resource Management Act is there. An enormous amount of rubbish is spoken about the Resource Management Act but it is there to protect the environment and to enable community participation. This bill will reduce protection of the environment. This bill will reduce community participation in decision making. I am not surprised that National is pushing this view because it is so anti-environment. I am surprised that Labour is voting for this bill because Labour members reckon they are pro-environment. Labour says a lot about sustainability but here it is voting for this bill. Once again it is left to the Greens and as I understand it the Maori Party to stand up for community participation and democracy and protecting the environment. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 It has been a most interesting debate today. It has been particularly interesting considering the breadth and complexity of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill that only a very small number of issues have been contentious. The debating points have focused mostly on trees. The vast majority of the issues in the bill have been non-contentious and are supported by the majority of the House. 
All parties even the Green Party have indicated that they support the streamlining and simplification of the Resource Management Act. Everyone is aware of the dangers to the environment of lengthy and expensive planning and consenting processes. If we are to protect our environment and manage our natural resources well we need processes that are flexible and responsive in order to manage environmental issues as they arise. 
I reiterate that although the bill is phase one of a wider Resource Management Act reform the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act and there are no reductions in environmental protection in the bill. But it does provide for significant improvements in the implementation of the principles behind the legislation. The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make planning more effective more efficient quicker and less costly. 
The bill has been through a very robust select committee process. Significant amendments have been made to the original bill and it is better for those changes. We have listened to submitters and we have dropped several of the original provisions. We will not be removing non-complying activities we will not be limiting appeals to plans to points of law and we have deferred changes to decision making for designations. 
We have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve outcomes. We have amended and improved the discount policy for late processing of resource consents and we have modified the “stop the clock” provision for requests for further information in the consenting process. The bill has also made changes to further submissions on council planning documents that will speed up the process and reduce the workload of councils but still ensure that those who may be affected by matters raised in a submission will retain their right to a fair hearing. The original bill proposed to scrap the review of district plans every 10 years but after debate this bill now proposes rolling reviews. A significant number of technical amendments and improvements have also been made to the bill during the select committee process. I thank the expert advisory group for its help and advice in this area. 
The major debating point today has been about trees. I will add just one final comment from the perspective of a resident of Christchurch which is a very pleasant and leafy city without blanket tree protection regulations. I like other MPs have received numerous emails about trees. There seems to be real confusion in Auckland. Many people there seem to be confused about which trees will be affected by clause 52 of the bill. Clause 52 affects only trees on private property. The trees on public roads reserves and parks are all controlled by councils not by private individuals. Therefore those trees are unaffected by clause 52. I also note that in terms of scheduling trees for protection there is an ability to schedule groups of trees as well as individual trees. 
I received a particularly interesting email from an Aucklander who acknowledged that Christchurch had plenty of trees but believed that Christchurch was not protecting them properly because there were not enough native trees in the city. I had to gently remind her that the city of Christchurch was established on a grassy swampy plain with only the odd clump of cabbage trees. Almost every tree in Christchurch has been planted by its citizens which illustrates that most New Zealanders plant many more trees than they ever cut down and that Parliament should trust New Zealanders to protect and manage the trees on their properties. 
I am delighted to support the bill. I am delighted to see it pass into law. It will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act and that will benefit both the environment and all New Zealanders. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It will surprise no one in the House who heard my earlier speech during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill when I say ACT is pleased to support the bill. It will also not surprise those who hear me speak regularly when I say I am always delighted to find something to agree on with members on the other sides of the House. On this occasion I am very pleased to be able to agree wholeheartedly with Dr Russel Norman who said quite correctly that the Resource Management Act is the Act that protects the environment. That is absolutely what the Act is intended to do but that is all it is intended to do. What has happened is that the legislation has evolved into a circus in which frivolous delays tie up too much development in red tape. Those delays ultimately cost us all money and do nothing to improve productivity and living standards. Reducing those silly obstacles is something I am pleased to support as everyone in this House should do. 
I had hoped that my story about listening to the extensive submissions on this bill would be amusing and instructive but I am afraid that the story from the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee far outstrips mine for ridiculousness. 
Hone Harawira 
: Yours is the most ridiculous! You win! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Ha ha! Those members who were at the select committee that day will recall that all of us I believe on both sides of the table shook our heads in disbelief when Brother Pat Lynch chief executive of the Catholic Education Office came along and told us in a very serious way that a school in Manukau had decided to build a bike rack. One would not think that building a concrete pad with some holders on it would require any kind of resource consent at all. But apparently it was decided that it did. The school applied for a resource consent for the bike rack and it was rejected on the grounds that it did not have a roof and therefore the bikes would rust. It escaped the comprehension of everybody on the committee as to how on earth it was the business of the Manukau City Council to dictate that a bike rack should have a roof because otherwise bikes would rust. 
One of the most positive things about the bill—and the Minister spoke on this briefly—is the crackdown on businesses that use or rather misuse the Resource Management Act to eliminate potential competition. Everyone in the House and indeed most people in the country are well aware of the Foodstuffs circus on the North Shore of Auckland. With respect to the Minister I think he understated the debacle. In fact it took 20 years not 10 years for Foodstuffs to finally open its Wairau Park Pak ’N Save thanks to continuous spurious objections by Progressive Enterprises. In other words for the entire life of the Resource Management Act that company has used spurious objections which allowed it to stifle its rivals and therefore prevent the people of the North Shore from getting their groceries at a cheaper price. 
Undeterred by its eventual defeat on the North Shore Progressive Enterprises continued its attempts to block a mall that would include a rival Pak ’N Save from being built in Te Awamutu—many miles away for cripes’ sake! That development was approved in 2006. Since then Progressive Enterprises has tried to delay the progress of the Te Awamutu development on four separate occasions. Ultimately sanity prevailed but no doubt not before millions of dollars were spent on lawyers’ fees by both sides. That business should never have been allowed the chance to succeed in the first place. This type of behaviour will be severely curtailed under the changes made by this bill. The threat of damages will make people think twice before so abusing the legal process. 
I began my speech by saying how happy I was to find something that I could agree with in Dr Norman’s speech but sadly I must take issue with him on his paranoia about the security for costs issue. Dr Norman said the provision in existing legislation that allows the striking out of frivolous claims was a sufficient protection and that security for costs is a Draconian democracy-smothering device. Well I say to Dr Norman that the strike-out provision is almost never applied by the courts on the basis of something being frivolous. There is a very very high test to meet and the courts are very very loath to strike out cases on that ground. Conversely although requiring security for costs is allowed by the bill it does not mean that the courts will give that remedy lightly either. It could be said in summary that courts rarely require security for costs and if they do then they make it as manageable a figure as possible. But they strike out frivolous claims even more rarely. So this bogey about security for costs is nothing of the kind; it is merely a mild disincentive for silly behaviour. 
The bill makes it illegal for businesses to object to trade competitors moving in on their turf as it should do. It also limits their ability to slow down the process through appeals but it preserves the right to object if businesses genuinely believe that there will be an adverse impact on the environment. That is exactly as it should be. Businesses have as much right to put forward environmental protection arguments as anybody else. At the risk of tedium I say the Resource Management Act is meant to protect the environment as Dr Norman said. It is not meant to protect trade monopolies. There are some members who will vote against this bill. I think that its opposition is limited to the Green Party and perhaps Mr Twyford who will claim that communities will suffer when the legislation is passed. I look forward to hearing him explain why having 300 more jobs and lower grocery prices will hurt the people of Te Awamutu so badly. 
I will finish with a few words on the bill as a whole. Reforming the Resource Management Act is a process that is long overdue. Such a complex law—especially one drafted by Sir Geoffrey Palmer—for all its good intentions was never going to get everything right the first second or even third time. That is why the ACT Party in its confidence and supply agreement with National insisted on the establishment of an advisory committee to review the Act. Specifically in the agreement both parties agreed to “promote investment jobs wages employment and prosperity as well as environmental improvement through amendments to the RMA.” Environmental improvement was not added as an afterthought in that agreement but ACT recognises what many in this House sadly do not recognise which is that environmental progress and economic growth can and must coexist. This bill acknowledges that important reality. Therefore I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the ACT Party that we will be supporting the bill. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill tonight with an air of disappointment. The Maori Party stands for a deep commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for future generations and our environment spokesperson and member of the Local Government and Environment Committee Rahui Katene put that simply in a press release she issued a fortnight ago. This is all it was: “We are committed to protecting the rights of Papatuanuku and Ranginui. We are obligated to keep them from being polluted.” 
That commitment to keep Papatuanuku at the core motivates us to do all that we can to protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction. It instructs us to place our focus on the need to stimulate the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna. It prompts us to support sustainable development rather than growth and to reduce our dependence on oil. It encourages us to promote whanau hapu and iwi as kaitiaki and to support moves to restore this role to them. This bill does little to move us along on any of these areas. 
This bill continues to provide for security for costs despite our Supplementary Order Paper to overturn this and despite the call from Maori submitters to do so. The bill continues to put up an appeals process that is too restrictive. How can we be convinced that there is a commitment to simplify and streamline when there are still fixed thresholds to meet and when appeals based on merit remain disallowed for large projects? 
The bill continues to be too restrictive on terms of who can be involved in the decision making around the development of district plans. It limits the ability of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision making and to challenge and appeal consents once they are approved. The bill does not sufficiently protect urban trees from development plans the process of public notification of consents by councils is still too restrictive and the bill continues to disallow the Minister of Conservation to determine coastal permits despite our amendment to the contrary. 
The Maori Party had every intention of trying to enhance the provisions of the bill during the Committee stage to bring about the sense of balance we so vitally need between matters of environmental integrity and the rush for development. We put forward amendments to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi clause to remove security for costs to reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits to initiate the transfer of powers from councils to hapu and iwi authorities and to amend the process around which projects of national significance are considered including the membership and functioning of boards of inquiry and the ability to raise appeals against decisions with the High Court. Never let it be said that the Maori Party has not tried to make the best of a difficult situation. 
One by one the amendments were voted down and as that happened we lost our sense of optimism about the potential of this bill to make a difference. Without those changes incorporated in it the bill veers dangerously towards gaining the edge of economic progress at all costs. In the quest to streamline and simplify decision making are we taking proper cognisance of the investment we must make in the world our grandchildren’s grandchildren will inherit? In the quest for development will we end up with a poorer natural world a more depleted environment and a less secure world? 
The Maori Party has talked often in this House about the concept of a genuine progress index which is a way to understand the arithmetic and the consequences of growth especially regarding Earth’s finite resources. We believe that we must learn the first law of sustainability: that growth in the rate of resource consumption cannot be sustained. It is to do with the fundamental questions of globalisation without regard for the health of humans or the prosperity of the planet. We ask again whether in the race to streamline and simplify we have actually created additional pathways that have the effect of being able to avoid community participation. 
Let me remind the House of some of the statements of our people as part of the 840 submissions that were received on this bill. The Ngati Kuta resource management unit from Te Rawhiti in the Bay of Islands challenged Parliament to ensure section 8 of the Act which contains the Treaty provision must be strengthened. Indeed they suggested that some form of compulsion is required. Their reason for such a strong point of view is simply that the Treaty is always relevant and significant. 
Ngati Pahauwera both Raupunga and Mohaka pointed out that clause 68 limits the ability of iwi and hapu to participate in the decision making. This will mean a reduction in public scrutiny and negative environmental outcomes. Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti Ati Awa Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Toa recommended that the Government should commit greater resourcing of iwi to help effective engagement in resource consent and plan change processes. 
I need only think of the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to consider how iwi and hapu rights are able to be utilised to protect the seabed and foreshore. Many of the submitters to the select committee spoke of their experience that regional councils fail to protect their interests and that councils do not share the Crown’s obligation to acknowledge or accommodate present and future Treaty claims. 
Our capacity to exercise kaitiakitanga will be greatly impeded if we are not able to participate in decisions around resource management at all levels of development: local and national small and large. The resource management unit of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa recommended including provisions in the Act to enable councils to commission cultural impact assessments from tangata whenua where an applicant fails to provide evidence of those assessments with the application for resource consent. 
I could go on but I think the point is clear. Aldous Huxley once said: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” We believe that the legitimate arguments put forward by tangata whenua have been ignored. We are concerned that the Treaty provisions in the Resource Management Act are not being sufficiently regarded to the extent to make a difference. We were keen to give the Treaty greater status in the Act so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hapu as the Treaty envisaged. We are moved by the view of Ngati Pahauwera that reintroduction of security of costs places iwi and hapu who have a genuine issue of appeal but who do not have a secure financial base in a position of ngoikore or disempowerment. 
We could have been world leaders; we could have taken up the opportunity to protect our environment to care for our future and to invite and sustain community participation. The health of our environment must remain at the very top of our priorities in moving our nation forward. This bill does not give us the confidence that the difference will be made. Our final vote is to be a vote against this bill; we are voting for the aspirations of our people. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a call on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour supported the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee at the first reading on the basis that the public submission process would provide ample practical and considered feedback from people who use the Resource Management Act. The aim of the Resource Management Act has always been to ensure the protection of the natural and physical environment to encourage sustainable development and to enable local participation in decision making to be achieved. The challenge has always been to ensure that the balance of interests is given weight in the practical application of what the law intended. On that challenge alone diverse views have been reflected in this House about where the tipping point has occurred. 
I for one recognise that in many communities amongst tangata whenua far too much weight has indeed been weighted in favour of those who can afford to protect their interests by using the process. National has touted its objectives as a means to streamline and simplify legislation. Interestingly the bill as introduced received significant criticism at the select committee for poor drafting and introducing unnecessary confusion and complexity. I recognise that several changes to the original bill have been made by the select committee and I commend its efforts. 
Labour will support clauses that improve the performance and operation of the Resource Management Act and that reduce costs and unnecessary delay without significantly undermining environmental protection and public participation. But we do not support those changes that will rebalance the Act in favour of development per se. On that front there were several aspects in the Committee stage which Labour brought to the attention of the Committee that do not meet those tests—firstly the way in which resource consents are notified as well as the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making power in relation to restricted coastal activities and secondly the prohibition of district rules that allow authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. 
I spoke to the first two points in the Committee stage and for the purposes of this contribution I will further highlight the fact that submitters recognised that removing the presumption in favour of notification and truncating the time limit for public or limited notification will mean that public participation will be undermined. This in turn will limit local community hapu and iwi involvement in decision making. Several councils noted that the current practice was that roughly 5 percent of consents were currently notified. This in part was due to either a heavy emphasis on involvement in the pre-consent process working with tangata whenua at the front-end of processing consent applications as an early-alerts mechanism or better processes for collating and aligning information to the consent process. 
The bill proposes to raise the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. This may invariably impact on the broader interests of tangata whenua who are often reliant on their marae hapu or iwi organisations to protect their interests. By the time their interests are recognised they may have a very short time in which to state the nature of their interests and more than likely will not have time to go back to the marae hapu or iwi collective to confirm a position. A consequence sadly is that an individual will take action on behalf of the broader collective in the meantime. I am still unsure whether clause 131 will enable marae hapu or iwi to act in the broader interests of the collective and support an individual who has expressed concerns with regard to a particular consent. 
On the matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s powers I was particularly cognisant of submission 729 from Te Kupenga o Ngati Hako who were concerned that this provision was being promoted due to issues arising from the Whangamata marina. By way of explanation of the work they do I tell the House that this organisation deals with approximately 10 to 15 applications a month and it has been a section 274 party to about eight applications affecting their rohe. As the Whangamata marina issues commenced in 1996 it is somewhat ironic for them that this issue commenced under a National Government. To date the costs for this hapu in promoting and protecting the interests they believe they have have been in excess of $300000. To this day Ngati Hako’s existing resource consent that was granted for the Whangamata marina is inadequately monitored—by their standards—by the regional council and remains a source of great frustration for Ngati Hako who merely wanted to protect and preserve access to their customary fishing grounds and their pipi beds. 
At some point the Minister of Conservation should have a role to protect the public interest in coastal space that may end up compromised by the Minister for the Environment in applying the Resource Management Act without any regard whatsoever to some broader issues. I made the point earlier in the day that there are far-reaching implications of removing the Minister of Conservation’s role in the coastal space where the Foreshore and Seabed Act could apply. In short one cannot assume that the Minister for the Environment should fill that space and I maintain that if it is not the Minister of Conservation then it should be the Attorney-General in consultation with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Ngati Hako made the point in their oral submission that the Minister of Local Government cannot deal with Treaty issues. Certainly issues around the foreshore and seabed will be partly considered in that context as well. On the basis of decisions affecting tangata whenua in Auckland in the recent governance restructuring I strongly agree with Ngati Hako and I urge the Government to reconsider this issue or we will be back to revisit this role at some point in the future. The select committee has been able to defer several issues to the phase two tranche of amendments: matters relating to the requirements of authorities the role and function of the Environmental Protection Authority and water reform which will be eagerly monitored on this side of the House. 
Finally in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments tabled by the Maori Party which Labour endorsed we certainly support the intention of these proposals. Given the nature of the coalition arrangement between the Maori Party and National there would have been clear direction in leadership from the outset if those Government parties showed that they were of one mind on these types of issues—and clearly they are not—rather than the Maori Party relying on Opposition parties and cobbling together support to be able to endorse what they see as fundamental points of policy that need to be agreed on. 
The Government has continued to demonstrate its lack of support for the views espoused by the Maori Party. That is a very sad situation especially given the immense anticipation of iwi and Maori throughout the country on the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments. Labour generally agrees that where good practice exists then it should inform policy to provide durable and workable solutions. For example the Government through its Treaty settlement process tends to favour large natural groupings and the way in which hapu interests are taken into account exists within this general approach. Regional councils already have a recognised process of working with hapu and iwi through the establishment of for example Te Manawhenua Forum under the Auckland Regional Council structure and Nga Iwi Toopu o Waipa under the Waipa District Council structure. There are many more and I am sure Maori members could point to them. 
There may be broader and wider implications on a range of policy fronts that would need to support the intent of what is being proposed by the Maori Party and I would certainly encourage them to resume discussions quickly with their coalition Government partner National on the second tranche of the amendments. To simply stand in this House and say that this is what they think should be done when they have the influence on this Government to be able to lead change at a policy level is fundamental to achieving durable change for the interests of Maori. 
I commend the select committee members. Certainly the chairperson Chris Auchinvole has stewarded this bill through in a responsible way. His leadership has been cordial and should be recognised in this House. The clerks and all the officials should be commended for the hard work that they have put into the number of submissions that have been heard. We certainly support the sensible amendments that have been contained in the bill as reported back from the select committee even though we highlighted at the outset that the initial drafting was pretty scanty. We hope that the Maori Party will be able to significantly influence the second tranche of amendments that will have a huge impact on tangata whenua. No reira kia ora tatou katoa. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Tonight we are debating legislation that is focused on protecting the beautiful country that is New Zealand. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard from 339 oral submitters which took up 69 hours of our time in these hearings. The select committee process was very robust. During those hearings we heard the sometimes horrific stories of average Kiwis just trying to get basic consents. This legislation is dedicated to those Kiwis. 
Officials have spent hours of hard work assisting our committee to improve this legislation. I want to thank the efforts of public servants and all of the submitters for their efforts to do that. I acknowledge my National colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee—the effervescent chair Chris Auchinvole Louise Upston Cam Calder Nicky Wagner—and of course I acknowledge the Minister for the Environment for bringing this legislation to the House. I acknowledge the individuals businesses and community groups that are listening tonight. There are community groups that have spent time and money on resource consents that could have spent that money on educating kids or spent their time on community projects like the farmers market in Grey Lynn. 
The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection and economic growth. It is a delicate balance and at times it can be tough but for too long this legislation has imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and communities. I am confident that these Resource Management Act reforms will reduce the time for processing consents and will reduce paperwork. The costs uncertainties and delays of the current Resource Management Act are costing New Zealanders jobs at a time when people most need them. 
The current Resource Management Act has been holding up valuable infrastructure in areas like Auckland. This bill will go some way to fix that. It will ensure that projects of national significance will be processed in a timely manner so that New Zealanders and the country can benefit from them. Other than in relation to processing applications proposals of national significance the role and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill but they will be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act reforms. 
There have been some very important changes to this bill as part of the select committee process and I think it is time that we acknowledge them. There has been a strengthening of the provisions to ensure the timing and efficient processing of resource consents. The bill now limits rather than removes further rounds of submissions on plan changes to ensure property rights are recognised and it strengthens the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. The select committee also chose not to proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class as we believe that the transitional costs exceeded the benefits. 
I think it is important to take a moment to acknowledge the Environmental Protection Authority. The establishment of this entity will be very important for New Zealand. I look forward to phase two of the reform when the full powers and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority will be considered. Many speakers this evening have acknowledged the delicate balance between public involvement and ensuring that progress can be made in terms of consents. I think this bill strikes a good balance in that respect. 
There has been robust debate this evening about trees. I believe it is reasonable for individuals to prune and trim their trees without a resource consent. As of 1 October Aucklanders and New Zealanders will be able to do that. It is good that that provision is supported by most of this Parliament. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment is writing to all local councils and asking them to report back to him to ensure they protect high-value trees for our scheduling. The Minister has also confirmed that he will assess whether they are undertaking adequate scheduling. He has said that he will make a direction under section 25A of the Resource Management Act if they are not doing that. This is a positive step to give Aucklanders confidence in scheduling. I believe that this will help ensure historic trees and others with special value are protected. 
Some of my constituents have raised concerns and I have had the opportunity to raise them through this legislation but I am very glad that the Minister has shown an ability and a desire to want to protect trees in Auckland as well. There has been a lot of scaremongering this evening regarding trees but these provisions regarding the removal of trees do not come into force until January 2012. That gives Auckland local authorities adequate time to ensure that they have good scheduling in place. The changes in Auckland local governance also have the potential in the long term to make scheduling easier as there could be one system of scheduling across Auckland. I have worked constructively on this issue with the Minister and the local community to allay those concerns and I thank the Minister for taking that step. I look forward to working with him on this issue and on other issues in the future. 
Phase one was about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act. However as the Minister has outlined further reforms are needed to improve the economic and environmental outcomes of the Resource Management Act. The Minister has identified 10 related work streams. The first four work streams involve greater central government direction to improve the management of aquaculture infrastructure urban design and water. I look forward to being involved with the Minister in those reforms. Our natural environment is a core part of who we are as Kiwis. It is a privilege to be in this House to support this legislation this evening. We are gifted as a country but we must continue to be active to protect our natural heritage—our parks our beaches our rivers our lakes our mountains and even our trees. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 From the outset of this debate Labour supported having this bill referred to the select committee. It was important from our point of view that the general public be given the opportunity to participate and give their evidence in such an important change to the Resource Management Act. We raised our concerns about the rushed and hasty manner in which the Government wanted to proceed with this bill. As a responsible Opposition party Labour also expressed its willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and that they did not undermine public participation. We believed from the beginning that if the Government were not so intent on showing off and flexing its ministerial muscles and its new powers as Government and that if the Government were genuine in actually listening we would have arrived at a bill that allowed for more efficient processes but still maintained environmental protection and meaningful public participation. 
Earlier in the debate a National MP from Auckland commented that she was concerned about her Government’s amendments. But when asked whether she would do something about her concern there was silence. Her behaviour however highlights a pattern that this Government seems to have well rehearsed in its 9 months in power. The pattern is one whereby it attempts to show empathy. Government members say they are concerned and attempt to portray that they are listening. They use the word “listening” repeatedly. This gives the impression that they are consulting people but the reality is that they will go ahead and do what they want to do anyway irrespective of whether the weight of evidence is against them as is the case in three specific areas of this bill. 
Protecting the environment and public participation in the decision making in managing and developing our natural resources are the two pillars that underpin the Resource Management Act. Although Labour supports the bill generally there are three specific areas where we are still in disagreement with the Government. We disagree with the changes to the notification of resource consents. We do not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making ability in respect of restricted coastal activities. We oppose the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. 
I want to focus on two of these areas and firstly say that Labour opposes the changes to the notification of resource consents. The current Act contains the presumption that consent authorities will notify a resource consent application unless they are satisfied that the effects will be no more than minor and that the approval of the affected parties is obtained. Unless the application pertains to a controlled activity public notification is not required unless a rule in the plan or proposed plan requires it and notice must be served on any affected persons unless the relevant plans specifically state that notification is not required. The Government is now intent on changing all this by introducing clause 68 which will alter the process for the notification of resource consents. The Government’s amendments were bulldozed through in the Committee stage earlier tonight even though 75 percent of submitters on this particular area opposed that clause. 
What does this amendment mean? It means the National Government’s amendment is designed to neutralise the Act and remove the presumption towards notification of resource consents. It means the threshold for the required public notification is raised and the threshold for affected parties is also raised. With this amendment the Government lays out a foundation where the potential for reckless and irresponsible development could take place by some unscrupulous corporation without that corporation then taking responsibility for any damage to our natural environment and with little concern for the impact on the lives of local residents and their communities. It would seem from this specific amendment that the Government is giving big corporations the key to unfettered and uncontrolled development driven by profit and taking no responsibility for any damage and destruction such corporations may cause to the environment and local communities. 
The public shares Labour’s concern in this area. Let me give the House an example of how this Government’s amendment is going against the grain of public opinion. The public is asking for more input and more notification of corporate activities but this Government is instead removing these protections. This week Sue Kedgley of the Green Party tabled the petition of Sharon Stewart David Collings and 1451 others. By the way Sharon Stewart is a National Party supporter from Howick. They requested that the House take urgent steps to prevent the construction of cellphone sites cabinets and electromagnetic radiation equipment immediately adjacent to residential homes preschools and retirement villages; to prohibit cellphone towers and similar transmission devices from being erected near educational facilities; and to legislate to require community consultation and notified consent prior to the erection of cellphone towers and similar transmission devices in residential areas so that telecommunications companies are required to consult local communities on the location of cell towers cellphone sites cabinets and other electromagnetic radiation equipment in the area and to seek to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearby residential dwellings and schools. The community is concerned about phone towers because of the potential health risks they pose. 
If Sharon Stewart David Collings and the 1451 others who signed that petition are listening to this debate they will hear clearly that the Government’s clause 68 goes against the thrust of what they are seeking in their petition. The people of Howick who voted National will be very worried by this clause and what it may mean for development in the Howick village. Without the general presumption either for or against notifications I believe that the public can expect more and more activities to be advanced by big corporations through this amendment without public input and without corporations taking any responsibility for their activities on the lives of people and their communities. Notification is important and as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said tonight notification is about participation and participation is the cornerstone of our democracy in New Zealand. 
I have also said that Labour opposes the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Clause 52 prohibits councils from using blanket tree protection rules in an urban environment. Clause 52 says that a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling trimming damaging or removal of any tree or group of trees unless the trees are specifically identified in the plan located in a reserve or subject to a conservation management plan. Clause 151 requires councils using blanket tree protection rules to get rid of them by 1 January 2012. Labour believes that prohibiting the use of general tree protection rules undermines the ability of local authorities to decide how their local communities develop. The community’s response to the Government’s clause 52 is simple loud and clear: “Stop the chop Dr Smith—stop the chop!”. 
I will share with the House some recent emails sent from concerned citizens which highlight why this message is important for the Government to hear. I quote Thea Govorko of Westmere Auckland who wrote and shared a very simple but very powerful message: “Trees are living creatures and we need them. Kids play in trees birds live in trees trees protect us from the sun and they give us clean air to breathe. Trees block noise and shelter us from the winds.” Finally I quote Tamsin McDonald: “I find it particularly abhorrent that clause 52 is supported by our leader John Key our Minister of Tourism. What a farce to even consider trying to promote a clean green image of New Zealand all the while sanctioning the wanton destruction of our urban forest. It is not only ludicrous but insulting to take the decision-making authority away from local government as clause 52 does. To say that clause 52 is a cost-saving measure is ridiculous. The cost and time involved in listing on council district plans the individual trees to be protected will cost so much more be so much more time consuming and is an insane alternative to our current tree protection laws. Hundreds and thousands of trees will be lost needlessly and with no requirement for replanting.” 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am pleased and honoured to be the final speaker on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee which was responsible for the bill’s processing I found to my surprise that I developed an interesting relationship with the bill—not necessarily proprietorial but certainly one of wanting to nurture it care for it and be concerned about it. 
Hon Member 
: Is it growing? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it has grown. Indeed it has grown in some ways and reduced in others. It is a bill that I have been very pleased and honoured to be associated with. It was a policy plank for National in 2005 and I campaigned on it. It was a policy plank for National in 2008 and I campaigned on it. The Government is delivering on its promises and in the process I am able to keep faith with my undertakings to those who voted me in to the West Coast - Tasman electorate seat. 
The Resource Management Act has been around for a while—for 18 years. We learnt lots from the select committee process. We learnt that in the last decade the costs of consenting have increased considerably and that the times for gaining consent have increased appallingly. Naturally there was a reaction to that situation. Increasingly councils have become defensive and their processing has become increasingly litigious as have the activities of those who were objecting. The net and gross results of the situation are that times for consents have increased councils have become liability shy and the system is not working as it was intended to work—hence the streamlining and simplification aspects of the bill. What will the bill achieve? Heaps! 
The debate from the other side of the House has concentrated on very few points of difference— 
Shane Ardern 
: Heaps! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Would the member like me to say it again? Heaps! There are very few points of difference between the major parties or indeed between many of the parties. When one considers that there are 167 proposed changes in the bill to have so few points of difference albeit they are firmly held to my mind is an indicator of a very sound law. I guess having been so close to the workings of the bill’s progress I would have enjoyed a wider-ranging debate perhaps on the way the bill deals with the way the Act has been used for commercial competition purposes. That merited more attention than it got in the debate. 
National is determined to get the country working effectively and productively. Spending endless time in needless litigation is not productive and is extraordinarily expensive. The bill will address those needs. Looking after the environment does not of itself mean lots of red tape. The amount of red tape is not a good measure of how much protection is being offered. The bill is phase one of the Resource Management Act reforms that will reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required. Phase two will address specific areas of concern covering aquaculture and the structure of the Environmental Protection Authority. It has been very pleasing to hear its structure being applauded from all sides of the House. Phase two will cover freshwater management urban design and infrastructure issues. 
Let us scan for the listening public a few of the other points that have been covered. The bill removes frivolous vexatious and anti-competitive objections. It also restores security for costs. We all know of cases where costs have been lost through people operating as an incorporated society and folding their organisation in order to avoid meeting their cost obligations. The costs do not disappear. We had submitters who told us with some glee that they had avoided meeting costs and they were quite proud of that fact. Costs do not disappear; they are simply passed on to other parts of the community that actually pay their bills. 
Streamlining projects of national significance was also applauded by both sides of the House and will be something of really great importance for improving plan development and processes; limiting the appeals on councils’ planning role to points of law except when leave is sought through the Environment Court; constraining cross-submission processes on plans; simplifying decisions by not requiring reference to or a decision on every submission based on the issues raised; and clarifying the provision for councils and territorial authorities to prepare a single plan not one each. 
During the select committee process I was invited to address a group of about a hundred planners down on the West Coast. They came from all over. What interested me was the thirst they had for the changes that are being brought in. I would not be at all surprised if I heard that people involved at the coalface—at the front of the industry—feel we have not gone quite far enough. But the committee listened carefully to the submitters and in conjunction with advice from the officials we have not sought to move too far too fast in phase one. 
We hope the bill will break the impasse that has occurred in processing times and from a legislation point of view I think it has done what was needed to be done. National gave an undertaking to introduce the bill within 100 days of becoming the Government and then to process it within 6 months. As the chair of the select committee that processed the bill I have a debt of appreciation to the Minister for the Environment and to the original technical advisory board. I have a debt of gratitude to all members of the committee for the manner in which they chose to conduct themselves in working through the whole process. It has been an invigorating stimulating and enjoyable process to work with each other. To the group of specialists who assisted us in the latter stages of the bill we are also grateful. The work of the officials Parliamentary Counsel Office and committee clerk and staff has been most appreciated. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the  
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a third time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108 Noes 13. 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee that the committee present its final report on or before 12 October 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
In late August the Prime Minister announced an agreement with the Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd to a joint action plan for streamlining trans-Tasman travel. The new approach will allow low-risk visitors who are travelling across the Tasman to New Zealand to move through processing more quickly but those who do not abide by the rules and who breach biosecurity requirements will face stiffer penalties. These proposals are consistent with the changes that the National Party signalled in its pre-election biosecurity policy. They included improving cooperation at the border between staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the New Zealand Customs Service ensuring passenger processing times are acceptable and increasing the instant fine for incorrect biosecurity declarations at the border. 
Many people will be aware that they risk an instant fine at the border if they break the law by failing to declare or dispose of goods such as fruit or meat products before entering the country. This bill raises the instant fine from $200 to $400. My fellow Ministers with responsibilities at the border will be making progress on other issues. Many of those will be behind the scenes and not visible to international travellers. These improvements are a key part of the joint agreement between the Governments of New Zealand and Australia to make it easier for citizens of both countries to cross the Tasman. We will be making these changes as visible as possible to everyone with conspicuous warnings at international airports. 
New Zealand is free of many of the serious pests and diseases that affect livestock and crops around the world. This is due to our relative isolation from the rest of the world and our strict biosecurity measures but now we are more connected to the rest of the world than ever before. Travel has never been quicker or easier. Each year we can expect the arrival of about 4 million passengers and over 20000 international flights. Every arrival brings with it the risk of an exotic disease. High-risk items brought into the country have the potential to severely harm our economy environment and social well-being. 
I want to say very clearly that we must do everything we can to keep that risk as low as we can. Despite our very best efforts some international travellers still do not declare that they are carrying risky items such as fruit or meat products when they enter the country. Over the last few years Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry border staff have found that roughly three out of every 1000 passengers have carried products such as those and have had to hand them in. The instant fine system was put in place to change people’s behaviour and encourage them to respect the very serious consequences that can follow if contaminated products are brought into New Zealand. By raising the fine to $400 we want to create a wider understanding of New Zealand’s need for strict biosecurity measures and we want to see a drop in the amount of risky goods that are brought in and have to be seized to prevent possible harm. 
This is a very short bill but I want to outline some further measures it contains. The instant fine will be raised but an alternative to the instant fine is processing through the court system. The bill also raises the maximum penalty for conviction in the courts for the same offence from $400 to $800. We think this more accurately underlines the importance of biosecurity. The bill also introduces some minor changes to make the instant fine system easier to administer and to allow more flexibility for the future. Besides the instant fine for failing to declare risky goods there is also an instant fine for not truthfully answering an inspector’s questions while in a biosecurity-control area such as an international airport. At the moment each instant fine has its own separate system and penalty. The bill sets out a standard format for instant fines and moves them out of the Act and into regulations. Should another instant fine be considered in the future it will be much easier to include it in the regulations rather than again change the Biosecurity Act. 
The bill covers offences that are suitable for an instant fine as a deterrent. It makes a distinction between offences committed at the border and those that happen elsewhere. The reason for that is to cater for international travellers who may be here for only a short stay. People issued with an instant fine have the option of paying it on the spot. Most instant fines give people 28 days to pay before a reminder notice is issued. If the fine remains unpaid after another 28 days court action can begin in order to recover the fine. But unlike the average parking fine the Biosecurity Act allows the fine to be entered into the court system for recovery after only 14 days in the case of an incorrect biosecurity declaration. The bill ensures that the special arrangement for a quick follow-up continues to apply only to border offences. In all other processing for instant fines the standard 28-day notice will apply. Because penalties are being moved out of the Act and into regulations it is vital for the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and its regulations to come into force together. So the bill provides for an Order in Council to make sure that the changes can take place at the same time. 
This bill marks an important step in improving biosecurity processing for international travellers into New Zealand. Trans-Tasman travel will be made faster and easier while improving our already world-leading biosecurity system. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in speaking on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour. Labour will be supporting the bill because it is sensible that we do what we can to increase the protection of our borders from biosecurity incursions but we do have some issues with the bill as members can imagine. One is the basic concern of where the Government might be heading with biosecurity. 
As the Government introduces this bill with we believe the intention of enhancing biosecurity protection at the border it is at the same time cutting 54 front-line jobs from Biosecurity New Zealand. I cannot understand a Government that preaches about the value of extra police so that people will commit less crime but says we can have fewer biosecurity people and we will still have fewer biosecurity incursions. It is illogical that both apply. If we are to believe that additional police lead to lower rates of crime how can we believe that reducing the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff will lead to reducing numbers of biosecurity incursions? The Minister of Biosecurity pointed out that last year 17000 people were identified as bringing dangerous and unwanted organisms into the country. That is a very dangerous situation and one that we have to address. So the move to increase the instant fine from $200 to $400 is logical. If we go through and analyse it we will see the decreasing value of the fine since its introduction in 1999 yet 20 percent fewer people have been identified as bringing in or trying to bring in dangerous goods food or whatever we do not want in this country. So there is an illogical argument there that says it is automatically true that by increasing the penalty more people will comply. 
I go back to one of the major concerns we have and that is of course that this bill brings in regulation-making powers and allows the Government to change regulations without putting forward legislation for the scrutiny of the House. If we had a sensible Government that ran logical consistent policy we might trust the Government but as I say the complete hypocrisy of what it says regarding crime and what it says regarding biosecurity really does leave me alarmed at what might happen at some later stage— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member opposite but I take exception to his accusation that members on this side of the House are guilty of hypocrisy. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That word should not be used and I ask the member to withdraw it. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I withdraw and I have to say I was not referring to any particular member; it was just— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member does not need to comment on my ruling. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is the double standards applied by the Government across the board that concern us when a bill that allows for open regulation-making powers is brought into this House. 
The second concern we have is also about double standards. On the one hand the Government is increasing penalties and saying it will be tougher and will make it harder for people to bring things into the country or for things to come into the country inadvertently but on the other hand the Government is reducing the effort at the border. That is the reality. 
The third concern we have is that in tough economic times people will take short cuts with biosecurity. We are told by the Government that this recession is the most serious since the 1930s Depression. I would have to say that is an insult to all those elderly people who went through the Depression but we are told that by the Government constantly in order to justify the cuts it is making. The reality is that many people will take short cuts with biosecurity. They may do that for a whole lot of reasons. It may be for commercial reasons or just because they feel desperate either to bring into the country food for their families because they want to support them or for some other strange reason. But the reality is that in tough times people take short cuts and there is a risk that without enhanced levels of biosecurity scrutiny we may increase the risk at the border. The cuts that this Government made in biosecurity which were confirmed today resulted in 54 jobs being lost from front-line biosecurity services in this country on the very same day that we are debating the first reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. That is a double standard normally called something beginning with “h”. 
When this country was facing droughts we allowed the importation of palm kernel stock food. At the time that was seen as a necessary move. Assurances that were given on the biosecurity protections have proven to be wrong. I put it to this Government that at the same time it has the Biosecurity Amendment Bill before the House it should take up the issue of palm kernel biosecurity and the importation of high-risk products that put our primary industries at risk. That issue could be included in this bill if the Government was genuine in wanting to increase the level of biosecurity protection for New Zealand. This bill does not guarantee those protections. It is simply a stick that raises the amount of instant fines and penalties for those people who make an erroneous declaration. 
One of the problems which is pointed out in the explanatory note of the bill is that some people will inadvertently or erroneously make statements—one might say if one were being kind. For whatever reason they might say they do not have unwanted goods or high-risk goods and they subsequently are proven to have them. We fine them and that is fine. But every time I come in and out of this country I am aware that there is confusion about the forms we give people to fill out. If we are to develop the tourism industry in New Zealand—and if the Government were to put more money in it might do that—then more and more people will come into this country. English may not be their first language and they will have a form placed in front of them that is supposed to explain— 
Sandra Goudie 
: And a video. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —and a video no doubt but again maybe English is not their first language. The form is supposed to explain to them very clearly that we do not want food or unwanted products brought into the country because that is a risk to our country. I put to the Minister that the forms the explanations and the videos that we put before many of those people are not very helpful. Although the explanatory note mentions that the bill is part of a number of initiatives in this area I say that the Minister should have included in this bill a guarantee that we would have better information for people coming in so they do not erroneously make statements that they do not have goods that we might consider a biosecurity risk. There is an issue of communication that must be addressed particularly for those people who do not have English as their first language. 
In conclusion Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I am sure that the committee under the stewardship of Shane Ardern who shows more intelligence on these issues than many of his colleagues do will guide this bill through and ask the right questions. I remind the Minister of a statement made not by me or anyone on this side of the House but by someone who traditionally probably aligns with the National Party and that is the chairman of Federated Farmers. He said: “The threat”—the biosecurity threat—“won’t necessarily come in the few thousand containers inspected but in the hundreds of thousands of containers not inspected.” John Key announced that he was opening up our borders to visitors from Australia. We still have 600000 sea containers not inspected and today we have had confirmed that 54 front-line jobs have been cut from biosecurity. That is on the same day that the Government brings this Biosecurity Amendment Bill into the House for its first reading and tries to claim that the bill will enhance biosecurity in this country. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the Hon Damien O’Connor—the former member for West Coast - Tasman—particularly on an issue that he clearly knows very little about. He will learn more during the select committee process and at the end of that process—which will of course be thorough and relevant to the bill before the committee—he will know a lot more about biosecurity. That will be useful. 
During the last 5 years of the previous Labour Government New Zealand had 333 new incursions that are now permanent residents in New Zealand. That issue is what this Government is trying to address. Most of that material came through in people’s baggage and on their person after they had falsely declared they were not carrying some kind of foreign body or good that was likely to be harmful to the New Zealand environment. We need to spend a couple of moments thinking about that situation. 
The New Zealand environment is unique. No other environment in the world is the same and there is a very good reason for that. We are and always have been an island nation isolated from the original Western World and from many old Eastern societies as well—the Old World I guess we could say. We are a relatively young country with regard to things travelling to and from the rest of the world. We have a unique environment that encourages certain types of plants insects and animal species to flourish—species that did not flourish to the same extent in their own nation. We are vulnerable. Therefore our biosecurity has to be more vigilant better and world-leading which is what the bill is trying to address. 
When I had the privilege of having the biosecurity portfolio I received reports that as many as 8 tonnes of meat were entering our borders in a year on people’s person. Members should think about that for a moment. Eight tonnes of meat on people’s person is a big truckload. We might ask why anyone would want to bring in unprocessed uncooked or unpackaged meat but people do. The meat was intercepted at our borders. We know that because we intercepted it. One could argue: “Well what’s the risk?”. The risk is in the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s own audit at the time suggested that as much as 10 percent gets through. So we can see that the signal sent by the $200 instant fine was not being taken seriously. 
Let us compare that fine of $200 with the fines for dropping litter in the jurisdiction of a district council. I understand that South Auckland has instant fines for those types of activities and for graffiti. If we look at a schedule of what those instant fines are not only here in New Zealand but also around the world we see that they can be as high as $500 and we then realise that the $200 instant fine is clearly not sufficient for the potential seriousness of the crime that is being committed. 
I commend and thank the Minister for Biosecurity for the work that is being done. It is great to see. It is good policy and a good step forward. Many people will be pleased that the bill is being promulgated through Parliament and the Primary Production Committee at the moment. I know that in a survey I carried out during the last Parliament the highest area of concern for rural New Zealand was biosecurity. So I say “Well done!” to the Minister. This bill is a great step forward. I look forward to the select committee process. I can assure the House that the select committee process will be thorough and relevant to the bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great honour to speak after the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern who really should be the Minister for Biosecurity because he knows something about agriculture. I can tell members that I have had the opportunity to work with David Carter the Minister for Biosecurity over the last 6 years in that committee and I thought quite highly of him at the time but since he has become the Minister I have been really disappointed for two reasons. The more recent reason is to do with the cutting of 54 jobs in biosecurity. That is totally outrageous. This Biosecurity Amendment Bill is basically a technical bill and not a very big thing; it raises infringement fees. But the issue really is about cutting the people at the border as 54 jobs are to go. Those people are the guardians of our borders and our ports. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: The front line. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: They are the front line. This Government is always talking about having people on the front line but here we are cutting 54 jobs. I do not think that the Minister understands. 
I am particularly disappointed that the Minister has cut the Fast Forward fund. That Minister has been talking about agriculture and about protecting it in New Zealand for the last 6 years in our committee but when he got the job as Minister he cut the Fast Forward fund which was designed to protect New Zealand through research and development. A lot of that fund was supposed to go to research and development and its funds were partly going to be used by research in the biosecurity area. In my view as a scientist in agriculture I can say that biosecurity is the greatest potential threat to New Zealand. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Why are you voting for it? 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I am voting for the bill because its intent is good but I am trying to say to the Minister that his actions in other areas are not very good. Cutting the funds for research and development and for biosecurity is totally illogical as my colleague Damien O’Connor has already said. It does not concur with what the Minister has been saying over the last 6 years as far as I know. 
Our agriculture and horticulture are worth billions of dollars. We are very proud that when we go overseas we always talk about the “clean green” image of New Zealand; it has been built up over many years. I think we want to keep it that way and in particular to protect our environment and our animals in this country. As I said there is no more serious threat to this country than in the biosecurity area; our livelihood and our countryside depend on agriculture. Over the years I have personally done a lot of research in this area and I think it is important for all of us that we protect our borders—not only our borders but also our marine environment. We had an opportunity recently to go to Australia and look at its aquaculture. That is an area that is potentially becoming a big industry in New Zealand for the future and we need to make sure that our marine areas are protected by biosecurity. But I am really disappointed that the cutting of those 54 jobs is designed to balance the budget. That is really ridiculous. 
Hon Member 
: $2 billion cut. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: A $2 billion cut and 54 people will lose their jobs. That is not easy. Those job losses will not be concentrated only in the three main areas of Auckland Christchurch and Wellington. I am really fearful that other small ports and airports might be at risk because people will be brought into the small centres to do that job at airports. 
Overall we support this bill and I am looking forward to discussions in the select committee. I hope that we will have good submissions from all sectors of society and that we will have an opportunity with Shane Ardern to look at the bill and have a detailed discussion. With those few words I support this bill to go to the select committee. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The Biosecurity Amendment Bill has presented the Green Party caucus with quite a problem. How should we vote on a bill that has an intent we support but where the process applied has been poor? This bill has been introduced under urgency when no good reason for urgency exists. Neither the Leader of the House in introducing his urgency motion nor the Minister for Biosecurity in introducing this second reading debate has given a good reason for urgency. 
What is more the wording of the “Alternative options” section of the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this legislation was prepared in June at the very latest. In other words this bill has been written for months at least and there is no conceivable reason why it is now necessary to deal with it as urgent. One is reminded of the management or parenting rule that says “Lack of organisation on your part does not constitute a reason for urgency on mine.” None the less the Green Party will support the bill at least being referred to the Primary Production Committee because we cannot bring ourselves to vote against legislation that has an intention we support. 
What makes urgency for this bill all the more extraordinary is that although its content essentially reflects relatively minor administrative and technical changes the catalogue of missteps and disasters that the Government has been visiting on the crucial area of biosecurity has been largely shielded from scrutiny by this House. 
I expect that all members of this House would subscribe to the view that biosecurity is important and indeed every speaker so far has subscribed to that view. Typically we hear about the threats of incursions to our primary industries of agriculture horticulture forestry and aquaculture. I will speak tonight about some of those risks but I will also draw the attention of the House to the threats posed to our natural environment and to biodiversity. It is worth pointing out too that there is also an indirect effect of incursions on our food export industries and on tourism because of our trading on that clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” image. For example we are about to start international flights into Rotorua. The cost of a fruit fly outbreak from just a single piece of undeclared fruit in a passenger’s hand luggage has been estimated at $800 million in the first year and 5000 jobs in the Bay of Plenty alone. The current size of the horticulture industry is $5 billion and it is rapidly increasing. A foot-and-mouth incursion could cost 20000 jobs and reduce GDP by $10 billion over 2 years. The stakes are high. 
The Greens think the system of airport-based instant fines for passengers coming through with undeclared biosecurity risks has generally been working well. In general we believe that the penalties in the Biosecurity Act have been set too low and that is why we welcome the increase proposed in this bill. 
It is a pity that the bill did not extend this to other penalties. The recent case of a man who deliberately imported tarantula spiders from the Philippines and was caught and fined a pathetic $5000 illustrates the fact that the penalties are clearly insufficient to deter behaviour that creates risks and are inadequate to communicate the seriousness of those risks. A better bill would also tackle the time limits on prosecutions that for example have seen a company recently escape scot-free after introducing South African mussels into Tasman Bay from its oil rig because of a 6-month limitation on prosecutions. 
New Zealanders need to know that this increase in fines comes at the same time that this Government is taking the axe to biosecurity services which sustained an 11 percent reduction in funding in this year’s Budget. Then the Prime Minister announced last month that trans-Tasman travel was to be 8 minutes faster on average for most travellers because the border control processes were being streamlined. In biosecurity terms the cost of those 8 minutes is that only incoming passengers who meet a particular risk profile will now go through biosecurity screening. That will inevitably increase risk because some people posing risk will not fit the profile. Fewer staff to perform the screening fewer people screened and just one fruit fly in a forgotten piece of fruit is all it could take to decimate a multibillion-dollar industry. The increase in fines is the Government’s half-pie approach to creating something to part-balance this increased risk and it is totally inadequate. 
But this focus on individuals is also misplaced. The biggest risks are posed by the biggest importers and 90 percent of incoming freight arrives in shipping containers. Our processes for assessing and dealing with the risks from these sources are plainly failing. How about the importation of poorly sterilised coconut kernel compost from Sri Lanka a couple of years ago for use in garden centre potting mix that introduced more than 30 new species of weeds? How about the 17 out of 200 shipments of palm kernel imported in the 2008-09 year for New Zealand dairy farms that also failed biosecurity standards? Federated Farmers knows about many other hazards. How about the 77 percent of imported shoes containing fungi bacteria and plant material? How about the imported cars infested with tropical spiders and disease-bearing mosquitoes? How about the shipments of imported roses from India only 10 percent of which are inspected and virtually all of which prove able to be propagated despite supposedly having been treated to absolutely prevent that from happening? Currently about 104 incoming loaded containers are checked for biosecurity risks each day. That is about 9 percent of the incoming loaded containers and leaves approximately 386850 loaded containers unchecked each year. The high rates of biosecurity hazards detected in the sample of incoming containers that are inspected make it certain that significant biosecurity risks are undetected. 
These risks are compounded further as a result of the free-trade agreements to which New Zealand has committed itself over the past several years bringing about a flood of imported goods that New Zealand might very well otherwise grow or make itself with no risk to biosecurity. Examples include the shoes I have already mentioned or Chinese garlic infested with fungi. Our biosecurity measures need to be tougher. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand need more power and more resource. 
The most recent outrage in biosecurity is the Government’s intention—having hacked into its own biosecurity budget—of now sharing the cost of inspection and managing incursions with the industries being protected from threats. The Government intends that the costs will now be shared with those industries according to who principally benefits. This barmy proposal was apparently developed in consultation with an industry working group but I note that it has been roundly and rightly condemned at least by Federated Farmers and Horticulture New Zealand. 
What is more this attempt to cost-shift to industry is certain to bias biosecurity vigilance still further away from protecting conservation and biodiversity values. We have already seen a glacial response to the fire ants incursion in Nelson with nobody taking responsibility for managing a relatively small incursion and the complete failure to deal with  
Undaria 
 when it first arrived in New Zealand. Those are just two examples. This will become worse. Will there be any hope at all of rescuing our rivers from didymo or our kauri heritage from  
Phytophora taxon Agathis 
 or kauri dieback disease? 
To recap the Government has cut its investment in biosecurity is not adequately inspecting imported goods and is proposing to screen even fewer incoming travellers. It now intends to shift the cost on to the very industries we are trying to protect in our national interest. Would it not be interesting if countries adopted the same approach to defence? Frankly the minor adjustments we are considering in this bill under urgency seem pathetic in the face of the disaster unfolding before us in this portfolio area. 
Somehow it seems appropriate to debate this bill today—a day that has been dominated not by simplification and streamlining but by the evisceration of New Zealand’s environmental protection laws. I am surprised that we are not also seeing today the bill to enable low-value coal mining in national parks; that would somehow have been appropriate. This bill does not make matters worse but the Minister can rightly be charged with fiddling while Rome burns. Our economy our environment and future generations deserve better and the Green Party would be relieved to help achieve this. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. As I do so it is significant and appropriate to mention that the National Party is anchored in the principles and importance of sound biosecurity. It is also appropriate to make the comment that the Primary Production Committee will tomorrow visit the Wairakei land of Landcorp. We will be quite grounded in the importance of sound biosecurity. In saying that we must contrast that grounding with the realities of how we live today. This evening we had an enjoyable event that celebrated 2 years to the day until the Rugby World Cup 2011 begins. That is quite relevant because we will have an enormous number of tourists coming here. It illustrates the tension that exists between our very important tourist industry which sees somewhere in the region of 3 million passengers coming to New Zealand and the importance of our primary production industry. 
It is quite important to inform the House that in implementing the Biosecurity Amendment Bill there will be a considerable need for education. It is relevant that when people come into New Zealand they all receive an arrival card. It is important that the educational process about our biosecurity is clear and understandable because when people come here—those 3 million people—they need to be well informed. It is appropriate without a doubt that the education process will be undertaken first and foremost by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Its campaign will run under the title “Declare or Dispose. It is New Zealand law.” It is also important to realise that as we get the balance right with our tourist industry the experience in the primary production industry is that there needs to be training of staff. Ninety-two percent of people pay fines within 14 days. However with the raising of those fines to $400 and $800 there will be the need for District Court administration and fine recovery. There have to be inspectors who need to be trained. Those things are all being taken into consideration. 
As this bill is receiving wide support in the House I think the Minister has clearly articulated his vision going forward with regard to biosecurity and the benefit for New Zealand. We realise under the Labour administration that we had 330 biosecurity incursions. We had the painted apple moth we had didymo we had varroa and we had didendum. It is very much in the vision of this National Government that we effectively do 10 times better. It is a pleasure to speak on the bill at 10 past 11 tonight and I commend the bill to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 So many of our industries are dependent on New Zealand having rigorous biosecurity systems. Members can take the tourism industry as an example. Tourism thrives under our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. The “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is successful because we have such fantastic landscapes culture and people. The New Zealand reality at present matches the traveller’s expectation. Tourists come to New Zealand to visit and enjoy our lakes rivers mountains and bush. There are no other countries that boast rainforests that tourists can tramp through with absolutely no risk to them from wild animals such as bears snakes or poisonous insects. The only threat to tourists in our native bush is from the elements. 
However although humans are not at risk from our bush our native bush is at risk because of biosecurity incursions introduced by humans. These incursions are from possums rats stoats ferrets and other species introduced by humans for whatever misguided reasons. Possums alone consume over 21000 tonnes of native foliage in a single night. In the bush where I come from one can see whole stands of giant native trees denuded of foliage and dying because of those types of biosecurity risks. Possums rats stoats and ferrets eat the eggs and chicks of native birds—in particular our native kukupa or kereru as it is known in other areas. It is a bird vital in the distribution of native seeds and therefore the rejuvenation of our bush. These birds have been decimated by those pests. 
Our native bush is at risk and when our native bush is at risk so too is a major part of our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. If our brand is at risk so too is our tourism industry. If our tourism industry is at risk so too is our economy because tourism provides one in 10 New Zealanders with a job makes up 20 percent of our foreign exchange and is our biggest export earner. We cannot afford any further biosecurity incursions that jeopardise a single element of our tourism industry. 
However tourism is more than just sightseeing and tramping in the bush. Another key element of tourism is the dining experience. New Zealand seafood is renowned the world over. Our aquaculture industry is vital to the supply of high-quality seafood. I might add that Maori have a huge stake in the seafood industry. So if we want Maori along with the tourism industry to be successful protecting the aquaculture industry from biosecurity incursions is vital. 
The possibility for marine biosecurity incursions is huge. In fact a survey of ports around New Zealand conducted over the last few years—in itself a major biosecurity exercise requiring the participation of a number of highly trained and expert staff—found that many invasive species were already established. Each one of these incursions is a threat to our aquaculture industry which is bad enough but the flow-on effects on industries such as tourism mean our country’s economy is hugely jeopardised. In fact the Pacific oyster itself a delicacy up north is actually a hitchhiker and a pest. My uncle once told me how as a kid he used to walk along the Kawakawa River for some 3 or 4 miles in the 1930s and 1940s. These days it would be impossible to walk along it as our feet would be torn to shreds on the oyster shells growing along the same river banks. Those Pacific oysters were transported amongst ballast rocks on the ships that sailed up our river having come from the Pacific Islands. In order to get as far as possible up the river as it became more and more shallow the ships’ crews would dump their ballast rocks and thus the oyster spat attached to those rocks on to the river banks along the way. Those piles of ballast rocks can be seen today under layers of oysters. 
The modern-day equivalent of ballast holds are the bags the suitcases and even the footwear of travellers from every corner of the world. Instead of oyster spat in the hold we are threatened with food fruit plant cuttings seeds fungus barnacles meat animal products smuggled animals insects and even viruses. Members will remember the calicivirus outbreak not too many years ago when frustrated farmers smuggled in the virus to control rabbits. 
That brings us to the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill going to a select committee. Labour believes that an effective biosecurity regime is vital for protecting our interests. Biosecurity is essential to protect New Zealand from environmental and economic damage. 
Raising fines as suggested by this bill if someone is convicted of not properly declaring goods that should have been declared is a good idea but of little point if the biosecurity system as a whole is jeopardised by the axing of 54 jobs and $2 million from the biosecurity budget. This budget cut is a risk to our country’s primary industries our tourism trade and our economy in general and may therefore compound the effects of the recession. Last year 66 known incursions of unwanted pests and organisms were dealt with by New Zealand’s biosecurity staff. Those job cuts mean that less staff will be charged with protecting our borders at a time when the Prime Minister is looking to open our border with Australia. Open borders mean more visitors. More visitors mean more opportunity for biosecurity incursion. Biosecurity risks arrive in New Zealand by many vectors not just air travellers: the hulls of yachts inside containers and container ships amongst cargo in luggage and on the bottom of shoes just to name a few. We need more biosecurity staff to protect us not less. 
On 8 July it was reported in the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 that because of a 13 percent drop in cargo volumes and a 4 percent drop in passenger arrivals Biosecurity New Zealand was reviewing its operations and those 54 jobs were cut. The reality is that the review of operations is a result of the $2 million budget cut not a drop in cargo volumes or passenger numbers. We have read recent reports that we may be emerging from the recession. One would assume that this would mean both cargo and passenger numbers would rise as a result. We can add to that the new procedures that will be put in place when our border with Australia is opened up. Common sense would suggest that now is a good time to train staff to be able to deal with the new customs procedures not lay them off so that when traveller numbers increase again and the common border is set up we have staff there who are prepared and ready to cope with the changes. It is an opportunity missed. 
On the face of it it seems reasonable for the select committee to have an opportunity to hear submissions on the part of the bill enabling the amount of infringement fees to be increased in regulations and the detail of the infringement offence regime to be prescribed in regulations rather than in the Act itself. 
I ask for the House’s indulgence while I recount a short tale from my time as a school principal at Karetu where we studied the effects of the possum on our local bush. I organised a short field trip to my uncle’s place down the road because this uncle was the head of a possum gang. Each day the gang would go into the bush laying lines of cyanide. Part of the study was learning about possum culling seeing the effects of the possum on our bush and looking for alternative uses for possum products such as the pelts. On this particular day one of the form 2 boys brought in a live possum in a trap. I took this creature down to my uncle’s place with the class and asked him to quickly euthanise the animal around the back of the shed and to demonstrate to the kids how a possum was skinned. My uncle duly dispatched this possum and showed us how to skin it which is a bit difficult when it is freshly killed but the House can be reassured that these kids were all typical country kids who did not need counselling afterwards. After a bit of difficulty my uncle completed skinning the possum—[ 
Interruption 
]—hang on members should wait for the punchline—to a round of applause. All the kids were suitably impressed except for one. I looked round and saw that the boy who had brought the possum to school was crying. I asked one of the kids what was wrong with Daniel and he replied: “Sir that possum was his pet.” I guess the moral of the story might be that biosecurity incursions are bound to cause somebody a bit of pain. Thank you. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate but I seek leave to alter the Green Party’s vote on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill from eight votes opposed to nine votes opposed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The correct result will therefore be shown that the Ayes will be 108 and the Noes 14. 
Biosecurity Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We will educate visitors to this country— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You can’t speak in a rain jacket! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: It is cold in here! I do not know whether that member feels it but I came through that door and there was a huge draught. But I digress. We will educate visitors to this country by hitting them in the pocket and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill does that. This legislation cannot come about soon enough. I commend the excellent Minister of Agriculture for being so decisive and for working so quickly to bring these increased charges into the House. We will deal to those visitors in their pocket. Quite frankly let us hope that the judges follow suit and deal to them in the courts if that is where they end up. We do not want the sentences for offenders to be too light which is what the Green member talked about earlier. We want those visitors to learn a lesson learn it well and learn it the hard way so that they do not take it for granted when they come to New Zealand that they can bring in unwanted goods. 
I am delighted to be on the Primary Production Committee and that this legislation will be coming to the committee. It is excellent to work with members of the committee from both sides of the House. I am really looking forward to working on this bill. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and yes Labour supports this bill going to the Primary Production Committee of which I am a member. We welcome the proposal to increase the fines available for those who breach our biosecurity regulations. 
As has been mentioned however there are some very real fears in that the Government is giving if you like some stiffening to the biosecurity regulations but it is taking with the other arm in the sense that we are losing 54 biosecurity staff. Those staff are the thin green line that protects and preserves our $20 billion - plus agricultural production export base. It is a very thin line. I have spoken to Christchurch biosecurity staff; they tell me it is already very hard to do their job properly and this is before we see the loss of staff that is currently taking place. If those staff are not able to do their job properly then goodness help this nation because everything we have and hold dear is reliant upon their being able to do their best to protect and preserve our borders. 
The MP for Kaikoura talked about balance and tension between the 3 million tourists we as a nation want to encourage and foster and the huge debt we have to our agricultural exports. Education is a wonderful thing but it will not bring about the eternal vigilance that our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity staff put in place. The Primary Production Committee was actually in Australia in the days preceding the Prime Minister’s visit there recently. One gets the sense that this bill is just to implement the photo opportunity that arose there to start discussions around faster movement across borders. That is welcome but I note in the bill’s commentary that “Streamlined border processes including refinements to the targeting of biosecurity risks at the border will allow passengers who comply with the requirements to pass through with minimal intervention while passengers who breach biosecurity requirements will face higher penalties.” One has to ask how we will know. How will we determine that passengers are breaching biosecurity requirements if we have fewer biosecurity staff there to make those checks? That is not just a view the Labour Party is holding and expressing tonight; we are in very good company. The Federated Farmers president Don Nicholson made the point very strongly that biosecurity staffing is one area of government where there needs to be increases in staff and not cuts. He is looking at the risks to the industry he represents and he is not alone in that view. I have an article from yesterday’s  
Grower 
 magazine that says that Tim Knox a top official in Biosecurity New Zealand ran into a volley of hostile statements from growers who were worried about past and future biosecurity threats. Those growers are concerned that their livelihoods could be put at risk by what the Government has in place at the moment. 
I was lucky enough recently to visit Samoa partly to join in a de facto way the Prime Minister’s delegation for a day and then to have a short holiday. Samoa as a nation is not able to export fruit to New Zealand because of ongoing problems with fruit flies. If we have a surplus of biosecurity staff as the Government maintains surely it would make sense to consider sending some of those staff to Samoa in order to get that nation’s biosecurity and phytosanitary arrangements up to a standard where it can export fruit to New Zealand enabling us to support it in a better way and to stop importing bananas from further afield from Costa Rica and so on. 
Of course as of last night Samoa will be in the market to import cars from New Zealand because it shifted in rather dramatic fashion the side of the road on which its people drive. The supposed reason for the cuts in staff at Biosecurity New Zealand is that the volume of car imports has fallen to half. If we were to be a little more proactive and consider sending some of those staff to island nations such as Samoa we might be able to deploy those staff in a better sense instead of cutting the thin green line that exists. 
I will make a final comment about the risks that are posed if we start cutting the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff. One incursion by the varroa mite is estimated to have cost this nation between $273 million and $486 million in lost production jobs and exports. We are talking at the moment of making cuts to Biosecurity New Zealand staff—54 staff—to save $2 million. We could beggar ourselves as a nation for that small amount. This is one of the issues that need to be considered as this bill progresses through the Primary Production Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 October 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 11.29 p.m. (Wednesday)