Adams Amy: Resource Management Reform Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Resource Management Reform Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11227. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):I moveThat the Resource Management Reform Bill be now read a second time . I would first like to thank the chair and members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their work on the bill. I would also like to thank all those who took the time to make asubmission to the committee. I understand the committee received 234 submissions to the bill and heard 147 oral submissions in hearings in both Wellington and Auckland.The Resource Management Reform Bill represents the first step of phase two of the Government’s programme of resource management reform. Phase one of this programme led to the enactment of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009. The provisions of that Act made important and overdue improvements to the operational efficiency of the resource management system. Amongst other changes this has resulted in significant improvements to the consenting process. The percentage of resource consent applications processed on time has increased from just 69 percent in 2007-08 to 95 percent in 2010-11. There still exists however frustration with the resource management system as it currently operates. There is considerable uncertainty in the outcomes of the planning and consenting process.The recent Statistics New Zealand Business Operations Survey highlights the impact of the Resource Management Act on business performance. According to the survey only 3 percent of businesses think that the current processes enhance their business practice and 430 businesses had cancelled projects worth over $100000 each because of Resource Management Act - related delays and difficulties. Businesses have also blamed uncertainty in Resource Management Act processes for the cancellation of projects potentially worth more than $800 million over the last 2 financial years and some have even had to spend up to 25 percent of their total expenditure on applying for resource consents.Interestingly it is the small and medium enterprises that feel the most constrained by the Resource Management Act. The issue for most is not what they can or cannot do; it is the time and cost it takes to get an answer and it is not just businesses. Communities homeowners and families suffer from the same uncertainty and cost either directly or through higher prices and fewer jobs. These issues need to be addressed so that New Zealanders can benefit from a resource management system that provides good environmental outcomes while still supporting economic growth.The Resource Management Reform Bill makes several important changes to the Resource Management Act that will be of real benefit to New Zealanders. The bill delivers on two areas of reform. It makes discrete changes to improve the functioning of the Resource Management Act and provides a streamlined process for the delivery of Auckland’s first unitary plan.Firstly the bill will provide for a 6-month time limit on council processing of resource consents for medium-sized projects. The current average time for processing a medium-sized consent is 9 months so this proposal may represent a reduction in the delay for many communities and developers of about one-third. The cost per day of delaying a hypothetical $10 million project was estimated in 2007 as being around $2200 so this proposal could represent a saving of about $140000 for a project of that size compared with average consent processing times.The bill also introduces improvements to the quality of analysis underpinning local authority decision-making. More robust cost-benefit analysis will now be required before councils and hearings commissioners make decisions on significant plan changes and projects. Section 32 of the Resource Management Act now specifies the requirement to consider economic growth and employment. The level of analysis required will be proportionate to the size of the project or the plan change in question. This means that although major projects and proposals will require careful and detailed analysis small projects will not be burdened with undue cost or effort. I support the select committee’s recommendation that positive as well as negative impacts on economic and employment growth should be considered.An option for simpler direct referral to the Environment Court for major regional projects is also included in the bill and will help increase business certainty. Once regulations are made councils will be required to agree to a request for direct referral unless there are exceptional circumstances. The types of projects that will qualify for this option are those that represent a regionally significant investment. I support the select committee’s recommendation to introduce criteria that must be regarded in setting regulations to determine the investment thresholds for what constitutes a major project. The views of council iwi and other key stakeholders will be taken into account when developing these regulations.The policy intent of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009 to remove blanket tree protection rules has been clarified and I also accept the recommendations of the select committee in strengthening this clause. The bill clarifies how councils may make rules in relation to tree protection. A rule in a district plan may restrict the felling trimming removal or damaging of trees on private property in an urban environment only if the allotments have been identified by a street address or a legal description of the land and the trees are described in a schedule to the plan. Groups of trees that cover adjacent allotments may be identified if they form a cluster grove or line. This does not affect the ability for regional or district councils to identify areas of significant vegetation or to create and use bush protection zones. Although most councils already operate in this way the provision will come into force after 2 years to allow those that have to date used blanket rules to update their schedules.As I have mentioned the other area of reform in the bill is a proposal to develop a one-off hearings process for Auckland’s first unitary plan. The streamlined process for developing and making operational the first plan is essential for developing a set of consistent planning policies and rules within a workable time frame. Long-term costs and uncertainty around the delivery of the plan will be lowered while ensuring the delivery of a high-quality document that has comprehensive input from the public and key stakeholders.Once Auckland Council has developed the plan it will be referred to a hearings panel to be appointed by me and the Minister of Conservation in consultation with the council and the independent Māori Statutory Board. Board appointments will follow strict guidelines and appointees will be competent and have a strong degree of local knowledge and an understanding of tikanga Māori. It is my intention that the board will be chaired by a retired High Court judge or Environment Court judge. The board will consider the plan and hear public submissions and then deliver recommendations to the council. Accepted recommendations may generally be appealed only on points of law. In respect of any recommendations that the council does not accept full appeal rights to the Environment Court will be available. Delivery of the plan within 3 years as opposed to the 10 years it might have taken under the current processes will have real benefits for Aucklanders and the country as a whole. Getting the plan right for the future of Auckland matters but there is no benefit to having an overly drawn-out process that will cause significant cost and delay.I support the select committee’s decision to exclude the district-level provisions relating to the Hauraki Gulf islands from the first iteration of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Auckland Council requested that the Hauraki Gulf islands section of the district plan be excluded as it is on the verge of being made operative now 7 years after it was notified in 2006. It is not the intention of the bill to force the council to re-notify these district-level provisions reopen unnecessary and expensive litigation and place further costs on the Hauraki Gulf islands community.The bill also addresses some minor and technical issues. Environment Court procedures have been amended to explicitly promote timeliness and cost-effectiveness and access to emergency provision under the Resource Management Act to all lifeline utilities has been extended.The Government will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage to address a number of minor issues that have been identified. I intend to move amendments to divide the bill into its three separate parts which is a straightforward move for an omnibus bill such as this. I am also seeking further advice from officials on amendments to ensure that the bill aligns with Auckland Council’s intention to notify the unitary plan in September of this year.In conclusion the Resource Management Reform Bill makes a valuable contribution towards increasing our long-term economic and environmental prosperity. A robust accountable fair and workable resource management system is required to meet these goals. This bill makes significant changes that will help to achieve those goals and a further package of resource management and freshwater reforms will follow later this year. I commend the bill to the House.