Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6253] 
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.