Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am happy to take a quick call just to answer a number of the questions that members have raised. Let me work through those. Grant Robertson has raised concerns. He keeps referring to it as a planning template. It is a planning standard.Grant Robertson: Well it used to be called a planning template.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. But here is the bit: everybody wants the omelette; no one wants to break the egg—that is if we are serious about reducing the 80000 pages of Resource Management Act (RMA) plans and policies across New Zealand we do not need for New Zealand 800 different classifications of residential zones. We do not need 55 different definitions on how you measure the height of a building. What you are doing in terms of those planning standards is actually saying it is for councils to choose where residential and where commercial activities will be but we need to standardise them across the country and that makes good sense.In respect of Catherine Delahunty's concerns about participation she makes a very flawed assumption and that is that the environment wins from slow processes. We have had a Resource Management Act since 1991 and yet we have only two councils out of 16 that have rules for excluding stock from streams. Slow bureaucratic processes when we are dealing with environmental issues actually do not help and that is why actually the measures to speed up plan making is good for the environment.In respect of Mr Twyford he had a question around development bonds. He has missed the boat. This Government made changes to the Local Government Act 4 years ago that allow there to be bonds for infrastructure. It is in the Local Government Act. It is already in the law. And the part that I found ironic about Mr Twyford's contribution is that every time it comes to an actual housing development whether it is Point England whether it is Three Kings or whether it is Māngere he is opposed. So he wants more houses but actually every time we have a housing development he invents some cultural landscape or other reason as to why he is opposed.Mr Peeni Henare raised a question in respect of the issues around the iwi participation arrangements and how they interact with Treaty settlements. There is a very specific provision in the part that says that Treaty settlements are sacrosanct and do not override those iwi participation arrangements.The most ironic contribution came from Gareth Hughes. He had moved an amendment before the House that wants to put climate change effects back into the RMA. The interesting thing is that I have the Hansard before me from 2004 when the Green Party voted to take it out. In fact I have got the speech before me from Jeanette Fitzsimons who voted for the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 4) in 2004 which distinctly took climate change out of the RMA. So I think it really does show a confused position.David Parker has asked the question as to how crops" is defined. I would simply refer him to the Oxford Dictionary—and it is not the only bill that would refer to crops—and that is that they are "produce of cultivated plants such as cereals vegetables or fruit".The last question I wish to answer is in respect of David Seymour. David Seymour asked the question that he could only support an RMA reform bill that dealt with the issues in the principles of the Act in sections 6 and 7. Well Mr Seymour it is a simple problem.David Seymour: That's not what I said.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No you said that your biggest concern about this bill was that you could not support it because it did not make changes to sections 6 and 7. There is a simple issue of arithmetic—there is not a majority of members in this Parliament who support changes to sections 6 and 7. I would wish him well for the election coming up on 23 September. In the event that we have a majority in the Parliament we would welcome your support at that time but I am disappointed that you have chosen not to support over 20 other amendments that actually make a real difference in terms of both housing and the economy and making processes work better.Finally I would say to Mr Seymour in respect of new section 360D that he expressed his opposition because he was concerned it may end up like the Economic Stabilisation Act and end up with regulations that would be excessively used. Can I tell you where the member is mistaken. New section 360D can be used only for reducing regulation—it can only be used for reducing regulation by definition.Denis O'Rourke: That's not what it says.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it does. It can only be used—and to the member who interjects and I challenge Mr Seymour give me any example under new section 360D where it could be used to increase restrictions on owners. What it does do is appropriately—new section 360D is a mechanism for reducing duplication of regulation and I am very surprised the ACT Party is opposed to it."