Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Tēnā koe. Thank you. It's interesting—the National Party speakers have failed to take any responsibility for the increased complexity of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (RLAB) that the Hon Nick Smith introduced and failed to recognise the major opposition to that bill and just the huge number of hours that this House and select committee spent considering the bill and the widespread opposition from submitters. So one of the key things that this bill does in the first stage of this Government's reforms of the Resource Management Act (RMA) is to repeal some of the worst changes that the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill made because the RMA is a cornerstone of natural resource management in New Zealand. It's critical that it works well because otherwise we get poor outcomes in terms of urban planning we get poor outcomes in terms of the way we manage land and fresh water and this Government is committed to sustainable land and water management and to improving the rate at which we build houses. So this is the first stage of a two-stage process and unlike the National Party which just rammed through the RLAB totally ignoring the submissions from the public from both environmental organisations and major businesses from airport authorities to quarry owners this is part of a considered process. It's interesting too the fact that the National Party again failed to recognise that the RLAB significantly increased the complexity of the RMA. The Act is now over 800 pages in length. What this bill does is strip out some of those changes to reduce its complexity. One example there is the removal of the provisions around collaborative planning processes because they were widely criticised by submitters at the time for being overly prescriptive overly complex and they took about 22 pages of law. One of the really important things that this bill does is recognise that the RMA when it was introduced and prior to the RLAB was all about ensuring that neighbours could have a say on what happened in their neighbourhoods and that people concerned with land and water could participate in resource consent applications and have a say about resources in places that they cared about. So the Hon Nick Smith when he was Minister in very Draconian changes to the RMA because National didn't believe in public participation moved to shut the public out and prevent notification of resource consent applications if they were for controlled activities if they were for residential activities if they were for boundary adjustments or for subdivision. Seventy-four percent of submitters on those changes to the RMA opposed those restrictions on notification and the shutting out of the public. What this bill does is repeal those provisions so that once again the public will be able to submit and once again access to justice in terms of the Environment Court and the full scope of appeal rights will also be restored. Those provisions which were an attempt by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to streamline housing development to change the RMA to continue the HASHAA legislation—and it was a hash the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act which has directly resulted in the mess that we have in terms of Ihumātao because those special housing areas shut people out from their ability to make submissions. When you change the presumption as the former Minister did around subdivision so you make subdivision a much more permitted activity—rather than the constraint that was originally in the RMA which allowed subdivision only if a provision and a plan or resource consent allowed it—that meant that development was occurring in areas that are potentially at risk from changing climates from coastal hazards. We need residential development to be well planned. We need to ensure that it's well connected to transport links so that we get compact cities. We need to ensure that it's in areas that aren't at risk of flooding or coastal erosion. So this bill goes back and reinstates that original provision around subdivision—that it's not permitted unless it's explicitly provided for by a district plan or a resource consent.Again with the changes around appeals that means that when applicants are concerned about the conditions that the council may have put on a consent it can appeal those in relation to subdivision and residential activities. The appeal process is a very real check and balance on the power of councils and stripping it out as the former Government did with RLAB reduced access to justice and led to some poor decisions. One of the best things that this bill does in my view is it removes the excessive ministerial powers which the Hon Dr Nick Smith put in in section 360D. That was an ability for the Minister to override rules in district and regional plans in determining what activities could be notified or not. It was an effort by the former Government to fast-track decision making so that effects weren't properly considered and that goes right against the heart of the RMA which is all about our sustainable management. So those inappropriate regulation-making powers in section 360D are coming out under this bill. One of the other key changes that is a major improvement in the bill is the provisions around fresh water because as the Minister the Hon David Parker noted the 2017 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—there is no hope of implementing the provisions in that by 2030 let alone implementing the provisions in the stronger national policy statement (NPS) on fresh water which will go into force next year. So this bill is providing for a new process not excluding nominees of regional councils as the Hon Jacqui Dean suggested but having a panel similar to the Auckland Unitary Plan process where up to five members on that panel will consider changes to plans around fresh water. Two of those members will be recommended by councils—they can either be councillors or external commissioners; two of them will be appointed by central government and another one will have expertise in mātauranga Māori and tikanga Māori. So that will be a panel of expert commissioners that will ensure that plan changes to implement the NPS in relation to fresh water can be considered in an expeditious way making our planning process much more nimble because we have a major challenge to ensure that we can swim in all of the waterways that farmers rural communities and everyone wants to swim in. We want streams and rivers that are safe for swimming not the half of the sites which are currently monitored which are unsafe for swimming. So that's making this new process of considering changes to plans in relation to fresh water much more agile. It is about safeguarding farmers because it is safeguarding brand New Zealand. It is safeguarding the environmental credentials that we go to the world as a basis for marketing our food and fibre products. We're investing in sustainable management and there's a major package in Budget 2019 of over $200 million to support sustainable land and water management. So this is part of an integrated approach by Government to significantly lifting fresh water management and improving how we do that. One issue where the Greens have a different position is around climate change. The urgency of the climate crisis—the school strikes that will be occurring tomorrow where our young leaders highlight the urgent need for action. Yes we're acting with the zero carbon bill. Yes there will be changes to the emissions trading scheme but we can improve the RMA by requiring decision makers to take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions for applications that are coming before them.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who took it out?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: At the moment it is excluded under the RMA. And yes—the Hon Nick Smith is saying Who took it out?"—it did come out. It needs to go back in because the seriousness of the climate crisis is much more recognised and at the moment the Act explicitly prohibits any consideration of emissions and their contribution to climate change unless it's in relation to renewable energy. So the Green Party will be very interested in the submissions from the public on that part of the Act and whether there should be change there.The other major area is in relation to enforcement. I fully support the changes which will allow the Environmental Protection Authority to work alongside regional councils and potentially take over some enforcement action. Those enforcement provisions as a big Environmental Defence Society report highlighted have not been properly implemented. They need to be. If we're making rules they need to be enforced. The Green Party supports this bill. Thank you."