5. Question No. 5—EnvironmentLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 5—Environment 5. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: How will the repeal and replacement of the RMA reduce costs and consenting times?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Resource consenting has become ever-more costly under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Between 2014-15 and 2018-19 council fees increased by 66 percent for non-notified and 124 percent for notified consents. It's also taking longer with median decision-making time frames increasing by 50 percent in the same years. Processes under the new system will be faster cheaper and better delivering substantial cost- and time-savings. More than 100 district regional plans under the RMA will be replaced by 15 plans. More activities will be permitted in Natural and Built Environment Act plans; fewer consents will be needed; clearer notification requirements; independent hearing panels; better designations; narrower appeals will further reduce delays costs and re-litigation. The fast track which has already been shown to reduce consenting times by 15 months on average for infrastructure will be made permanent for infrastructure and significant housing developments. The repeal and replacement of the RMA will be faster cheaper and better for Kiwis.Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Why is the Government not proposing to replace all resource consenting with the fast-track pathway?Hon DAVID PARKER: Fast-track consenting has been shown to reduce consent times by an average of 15 months. I've seen suggestions that fast track should be used for everything. That of course is the wrong track. Including thousands and thousands of extra applications in fast track would cause it to turn into slow track. It would in fact delay major infrastructure and housing developments. It is a wrong-headed and confused idea.Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What reaction has he received about the repeal and the replacement of the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: Reaction to the Government's planned repeal and replacement of the RMA has been positive from experts in the field including the Employers and Manufacturers Association Environmental Defence Society and Local Government New Zealand. Infrastructure NZ says the repeal and replacement marks a long-awaited milestone that can be celebrated." and the bills "represent a significant shift in focus to prioritise the front end of the planning process rather than relying on the current individual project consenting battleground which results in expensive and delay-ridden bespoke solutions."Lemauga Lydia Sosene: What other reaction has he received about the repeal and the replacement of the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: One commentator last year said that the number one solution to the housing crisis is to repeal and replace the RMA but now claims that the reduction of more than 100 RMA plans to just 15 natural and built environment plans the standardising of consent conditions the reduced consent costs of at least 19 percent is in fact more bureaucracy and won't improve anything. It seems some people have fallen back in love with the RMA. Another doughnut for the Leader of the Opposition.Chris Bishop: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Order! Oh yeah take the point.Chris Bishop: Supplementary.SPEAKER: I was going to make a ruling on the last comment; I thought you were going to ask me to do that. The Government shouldn't use its own questions to itself to hold itself accountable to criticise the Government and certainly not to be bringing the Leader of the Opposition into the answer.Chris Bishop: How does enshrining into law that the purpose of the new bill will be to recognise and uphold te Oranga o te Taiao—a legal term that does not exist in the statute book already—promote certainty and predictability?Hon DAVID PARKER: That clause was recommended by the Randerson panel. In effect it carries forward the intergenerational environmental test from the RMA to the new system. The idea that the old system was somehow perfect is incredible to me including in respect of environmental protection where it failed to deal with cumulative effects. The new system will be far better."