Wagner Nicky: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Wagner Nicky: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1501] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I have to say it is about time. We need these reforms urgently. The Resource Management Act is important legislation and it is invaluable in protecting our environment but New Zealanders in all walks of life continuously complain about its processes. It does not matter whether it is an environmental group a council individuals or businesses; they all seem to agree on one thing: that the Resource Management Act processes are too cumbersome too bureaucratic and too expensive. It is probably not surprising because this legislation is complicated and very large. After all when it was developed in 1991 it was an amalgamation of about 60 pieces of legislation—60 pieces of planning and environmental legislation. 
The Resource Management Act became a one-stop shop to protect the environment but within that one-stop shop there was a whole lot of complexity. If I had a dollar for every complaint I have received about the Resource Management Act I would be a rich woman. But as I said those complaints are not about the purpose of the Resource Management Act which is to protect our environment and manage our natural resources in a sustainable way; the complaints are about the processes. It is one thing that nearly every person who takes part in the Resource Management Act processes shares. There is real consensus that this legislation needs reform and I appreciate the fact that Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Greens agreed that there needed to be reform about the cumbersomeness and costliness of the legislation. The public believe that the Resource Management Act is slow and bureaucratic and we believe that slow and bureaucratic processes do not do anything for the environment. 
National has taken these concerns on board and has agreed to reform the legislation in two phases. This is the first phase today: the phase that streamlines and simplifies. I am really delighted that we could introduce it today because today is the last sitting day in National’s first 100 days in Government. It was our promise to do it within 100 days and we are delivering on that promise. The project has actually taken many many months and large numbers of people have been involved. We have worked with the community the public business and officials and they have all agreed on three process goals: the first is to streamline and simplify which is where we got the name of the bill from; the second is to reduce costs and delays; and the third is to speed up plan-making processes. The Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Dr Nick Smith has given us a good overview of the bill and has discussed its nine objectives. I will focus today on improving the plan development and plan change processes. 
I was very pleased to hear the Hon David Parker acknowledge the problems we have with poor planning in local government. In my family we have a saying “If you fail to plan you plan to fail.” I think a lot of the frustration and failure of the Resource Management Act is caused because local authorities have been unable to develop plans that work effectively. 
Hon Member 
: That should be a principle. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: It is a principle. No one argues with the importance of plan-making. It is an essential part of the procedures under the Resource Management Act and it is through these plans that local government is able to express the community’s aspirations as to how they want their local environment managed. It is through these plans that councils can regulate activities supposedly by reference to their effect. It is through these plans that they can provide for local implementation of national policy statements and national environmental standards. 
But the plan-making process does not work well. In October last year a survey was done on the quality of planning in local government. Some pretty shocking figures came out. The first is that after 17 years of the Resource Management Act five of our 85 local authorities still do not have an operational plan—five out of 85 after 17 years do not have an operational plan. Interestingly after 17 years only five have a second-generation plan and we have to remember that this legislation requires that councils update their plans every 10 years. So only five have got to the second generation. On average it takes local authorities 2½ years of research drafting and consultation before a proposed plan is notified. That is 2½ years before they even start. Managing the submissions process is also a mammoth task. We know that the Christchurch City Council had 30000 submissions on one of its plans and to manage that process took a long time and a lot of money. This new bill will make sure that that process strips out unnecessary duplication and time-consuming reworking of submissions. On average it takes 3.3 years to resolve the appeals after the council has made its decision on that submission. 
Paul Quinn 
: How long? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: It is 3.3 years. All up the average time taken for a council to create a full plan is 8.2 years. If we remember that this bill requires councils to update the plans every 10 years it becomes a bit like the Auckland Harbour Bridge. We start painting at one end and when we get to the other end we start all over again; it is a rolling process. 
The Government wants to make some changes because the length of time involved sets these plans up to fail. Most plans cannot properly reflect community needs or aspirations because those people have moved on by the time the plan comes into place. Environmental issues change and morph and too often by the time the plan is there it is either too late or the problem has been resolved. Too often plans overlap each other so we have proposed plans plans and transitionary plans all at once. We have a multilevel layer of plans that people have to deal with which adds to the complexity as well. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: So many plans you get lost in them. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Exactly! The same report also talked about cost. The average cost of a plan is $1.9 million. The cost for all our local authorities to have a plan is over $130 million. That is just the cost to councils. It does not count the cost to other public agencies to landowners to resource users to community groups or to individuals. Of course those costs have to be recouped somewhere. They are either recouped from the ratepayer or they are recouped from extra costs for services and goods in the community. 
But perhaps the worst example of waste of money and time is the present process that local government needs to go through to adopt national policy statements. This is really quite unbelievable. Councils must adopt national policy statements; it is mandatory. But under the present legislation councils must also go through a pretend process of consultation with their communities. It is a Clayton’s consultation because councils have no freedom to make any changes. It has been estimated that the cost to councils to implement the current national policy statements in the system is $130 million. The inclusion of clause 48 in the new bill which removes the mandatory Clayton’s consultation process will instantly save millions for the ratepayers. 
The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make plan-making more effective more efficient quicker and less costly. The bill simplifies and streamlines planning processes in local government. But let me make it clear: it does not compromise the intent of the Resource Management Act which is strongly supported by New Zealanders. The intent of the Resource Management Act is to protect the environment and to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner. I am particularly pleased that we are introducing the changes within the first 100 days of the National Government because the need for reform is urgent. The Government is aware that over $100 million worth of projects are ready to go into the consent process. But people are awaiting these changes before they can start work. New Zealand needs these projects to stimulate our economy so we must pass this bill as soon as possible. The bill will cut costs and avoid lengthy delays in planning and consents. It is very welcome in these restrained economic times.