Upston Louise: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6176] 
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.