SpeechHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): It's a pleasure to follow from the Hon Ron Mark and reminiscing about the One Plan. He was more or less indicating that the National Government should have been meddling in a court process. Yeah that's not the way that we operated in Government. I know that New Zealand First may well have wanted to do that.I thought it's ironic Ron Mark banging on about the One Plan. Well he's sitting in Cabinet now and the Wairarapa water storage project which is really going to help the community where he resides—finally he's put some money in. Finally he's put some money into it.Hon Member: Thirty-five years they waited.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah and we the National Government put a lot of money in. I acknowledge the Minister for doing that because Labour campaigned along with the Greens for no support for water storage projects. So it's kind of interesting how politics works on the other side of the House for those that are listening and no doubt we're going to hear more of that when we move into an election campaign—just a couple of months away. In fact we can already start seeing that evolve with COVID-19.You may well ask what this bill has got to do with COVID-19. Well it actually has got a hell of a lot to do with COVID-19. When this response moves as it is now from a health response to an economic one when the New Zealand economy is screaming out for infrastructure to stimulate it to protect jobs to grow opportunity what is this bill going to do to help stimulate the New Zealand economy? It's a fair question. Their heads are down over the other side. I'll answer the question myself: very little.This bill will do very little. If anything it will be a couple of clicks on the handbrake. It will slow the New Zealand economy. Nicola Willis our new housing spokesperson gave a great contribution just a couple of moments ago to this bill where she said it is going to be a step backwards. It is going to create more costs more uncertainty and more bureaucracy at a time when New Zealanders are thinking We need to really get started and build some infrastructure and build some houses to protect jobs and grow the New Zealand economy."I'm really disappointed in this bill. It promised so much but it's going to deliver so little. I've sat in this House and sat in the Cabinet table listened to the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith who had big bold plans to reform the Resource Management Act (RMA) and couldn't get the numbers through the National coalition with United Future and at times the Māori Party. So the changes that National implemented in 2017 were never as good as we wanted them to be but we did make changes.Now looking back is one fine thing but looking forward is really important. If we look back just for a moment the RMA has had 18 reforms since it came in about 30 years ago.Nicola Willis: It's a beast.Hon NATHAN GUY: "It is a beast." Nicola Willis rightly says. The volume size has grown by double. So there's been tinkering and changes and amendments—Barbara Kuriger: Bigger than this.Hon NATHAN GUY: Way bigger than that bill. We just debated that Barbara Kuriger and I mention that it's 720-odd pages long when you include the Supplementary Order Paper—that's the emission trading scheme bill. This bill is about environment and planning the RMA is and trying to get the balance right. But this is not going to get the balance right at all. It is going to mean that the appeals when someone wants to subdivide—take a developer: it's going to be so easy for people to appeal and they're going to be bogged down in the Environment Court. There will be hundreds and hundreds of appeals though the Environment Court which is not what I thought the Government would want to see on the back of COVID-19 when they're trying to open up the New Zealand economy and create jobs and kick-start our economy as well.What is also interesting is the financial contributions. We get the fact that local government and councils should be able to strike a development charge on developers from time to time. We get that because that's important when you think about all of the major utilities that are involved in building a subdivision—the roading the sewer the lighting the footpaths. It's only fair that a developer makes contributions under the Local Government Act. But this means now that there's another contribution that could be required under the Resource Management Act. So if that sounds like double-dipping to those listening or in the Chamber this evening that indeed is what it actually is.What is also a bit bizarre and I'm going to get into this when we get into the committee of the whole House stage is how submitters will be able to cross-examine other submitters. Do you think that sounds a little bit bizarre that submitters are allowed to cross-examine other submitters? I can see heads sort of thinking "That's a pretty good question." Even on our side of the House we're thinking "How's that going to work?" So I'm curious to get the Minister in the chair to try and understand how that specific point is actually going to work and streamline the Resource Management Act.We had 385 submitters. We heard 59 of them. Some of those submitters had spent a lot of time and effort into making very very good submissions. Others were there saying "Yes we just think that the RMA is so frustrating that any change has to be better than it currently is." but they obviously hadn't read the bill because this bill is going to drop the anchor out of the back of a progressive and growing New Zealand economy and slow down our growth at a time when we really want it to turbocharge and grow.So the National Party has some grave concerns with this bill. We can't support it. The other concluding comment is there's a review under way. The Minister will have that on his office desk done by a retired appeal court judge. It'll be thorough and the process should be a full re-write of the RMA not more tinkering that's going to slow down the New Zealand economy. Thank you.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."