Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this

I move, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would first like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered 840 submissions on this huge bill. The select committee did a good job on what is a very complex area of law, and in a tight time frame. The House should acknowledge the huge number of submissions received and heard by the committee, the long hours it worked, and the considered way that it dealt with a number of very contentious issues.

The bill was developed with the assistance of the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group, led by practitioner Alan Dormer, which I appointed last December. I thank that group for its hard yards, I thank the expert panel that was appointed by the committee for its assistance, and I thank the officials whose work on drafting the bill was done to a pretty challenging timetable.

This Government was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, and specifically on a programme to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act. Our focus has been on reducing the costs, reducing the delays, and reducing the uncertainties of the Act without compromising its underlying environmental integrity. This bill is about addressing the vexatious, frivolous, and anti-competitive objections that can add tens of thousands of dollars to the costs of ratepayers and consent applicants. This bill is about getting a single-step process in place to enable major infrastructure projects to get consent in a more timely way. We want to consign to history the notion that it takes longer to get a resource consent for a piece of infrastructure than it takes to actually build it. This bill is also about speeding up resource consent processing for smaller projects. I do not think there is a member of this House who would not know of a resource management horror story in his or her electorate. The Government wants to give council officials much more discretion when the effects of a resource consent are minor. We want to simplify the decision making, but we also want to hold the councils to account for processing consents in a timely way.

The bill is also about improving the separation of powers that operate within the Act. Politicians, nationally and locally, make rules and laws, but it is for the courts and for independent commissioners to make decisions on individual consents. That is why, under this bill, applicants and objectors are being given the choice of having independent commissioners, and it is why Ministers in future will not be able, as we have seen occur in relation to restricted coastal activities, to overrule decisions made by independent commissioners or the Environment Court.

The bill also tackles the arcane bureaucracy of blanket tree protection rules whereby people have to apply for a resource consent to do none other than trim their own tree. The 5,000 consents in this area cannot be justified. I am sure that in the Committee stage we will debate those provisions some more, but I say that an underlying principle is that before a council restricts what homeowners can do with their own trees, the council should consult them and go through a process of listing those trees, or groups of trees, in a district plan or schedule.

The bill is also about improving the plan-making process, because anyone who works in the area of the Resource Management Act knows that it is only as good as the quality of the local plans. The bill also strengthens compliance with the Resource Management Act by upping the penalties for those who breach the Act. It provides that the Crown can be prosecuted like anybody else, and it provides for a wider range of enforcement measures.

I want to note a number of the changes that were made by the Local Government and Environment Committee. First, the committee has dropped the proposal in the original bill to do away with the non-complying activity class. It is my view that our Resource Management Act has too many activity classes and that adds to its complexity, and that if we were to start afresh, we probably would not have this class. However, given that we are 18 years down the track with this Act, the select committee had to weigh up the gains of removing that activity class compared with the costs that removing it would impose on the councils. I think the committee has fairly concluded that the provision is not worth its salt.

The most challenging job for the committee was the issue of plan changes, further submissions, and appeals. The changes made by the committee reflect just how hard this area of law is. People want their say, they want their cross-submission rights, and they want their appeal rights, but they all agree that the process is too cumbersome and slow. The bill contains some useful amendments, which will improve things in this area, but we will have to give this issue further consideration as we move into the Government’s second phase of reforms.

I particularly commend the committee for its work on timely resource consent processing. After the bill was introduced I received, and the committee studied, the latest report of the Ministry for the Environment on resource consent processing. It shows that in 28 percent of cases consents are not processed on time, and, worryingly, that does not even take into account the 31 percent of consents where the councils grant themselves extensions. What is of concern is that this situation has become worse with every single survey since 2000, and that there has been a ninefold increase—ninefold—in the number of times when councils grant themselves extensions. The select committee’s changes in requiring the councils to report on the processing of consents, providing for a nationwide system of financial penalties, and restricting the extension of consent processing times are, in my view, a very strong step forward. I am confident that these changes will result in the more efficient processing of consents.

I also note the committee’s caution in respect of the changes to designations and notices of requirement, and where the decision making lies. This is a complex area, and in the second phase of reforms we need to take into account the select committee’s conclusions.

I conclude by making two points. First, the Resource Management Act is by nature a fraught area of law. We all believe we should be able to do whatever we like on our own property, but if our neighbour wants to do anything, we expect to have a say and to be consulted. This bill is about improving the balance by reducing the bureaucracy in some of the more arcane areas while maintaining the underlying environmental integrity of the Act. This bill will make a positive difference, but it is only the first phase of the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act. We have 10 important work streams going on in water, aquaculture infrastructure, urban design, further work on the Environmental Protection Authority, and work on the interaction of the Resource Management Act with forestry, with building, with conservation, and with the Historic Places Act. As well, further work is being done on some generic issues that could not be advanced in the time frame required of this first reform bill.

Again I thank all those involved in the hard yards of progressing the bill through to this point, and I look forward to the more detailed debate in the Committee stage. I am pleased to commend the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Tēnā tātou katoa. It is a rather unusual feeling I have. As a youngster in the late 1980s I was a member of the core group, reporting to Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that wrote the Resource Management Act, along with Denise Church, Kathryn Ashley-Jones, and Joan Allen. That some 20-odd years later I have the privilege of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee to work on improvements to the legislation shows that I am growing older, but hopefully wiser.

Labour will support this bill, but with some important reservations. Colleagues of mine will be addressing those reservations during the Committee stage, which with flair and a bit of innovation will prove to be a very focused and, I think, entertaining debate. Firstly, let me join with the Minister in acknowledging the work that was carried out by the officials. This is a complex area, and select committees are really only as good as the quality of the advisers, consultants, etc., and the actual clerical staff of the committee. The committee was well served during that period.

This bill deals with a number of very deep issues. The first issue is devolution. We have a system, which this bill largely keeps intact, of enabling New Zealand citizens, through the agency of both regional and local government, to influence plans, policies, and allocation decisions that are made in relation to the environment they live in. I think that spirit of fairness, deeply rooted in the Kiwi personality, means they should be allowed—and the law should sanction it—a whole host of rights to participate, and, indeed, to go on and appeal those decisions.

Against that right, which is what led to some of the more creative debates in our committee, there is the fear that 50,000 statutory consents is quite excessive. It represents a cost and a burden upon ordinary citizens trying to do things with their property, upon investors, and, indeed, upon others who fear that some of the decisions that are being made are not in the best interests of either the community they live in or the environment. As a Parliament this is a debate for us. Have we got it right? Ought devolution remain the exclusive basis upon which our major resource management decisions are made, or should they be moved to a level that some might argue is more efficient? We look forward to phase two. Yes, this bill is a simplifying and streamlining initiative, but the big business I rather suspect lies in phase two. I look forward, along with my colleagues, to receiving briefings from the Minister in that regard.

Let us turn to some of the important innovations in this bill. The bill will create an Environmental Protection Authority. We do not know what it will fully do. We know that Gary Taylor has written a paper on the issue. I am not entirely sure whether that will provide the policy basis for the Minister’s new Environmental Protection Authority. We on this side of the House have not been briefed and we do not know the final functions of this authority. But there is an awareness that if it represents a more efficient way of dealing with large, resource-intensive resource management decisions, then that is not bad. The fear, however, lies in local communities feeling that their local directly elected representatives are either being circumvented or being completely written out of the script. That is the first thing I would like to point out.

Secondly, there was a fear, and fortunately the select committee was able to address it, that people were going to lose the ability to contest a statutory decision on the basis of merit. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, along with the rest of us, a lot of these resource management decisions are not quantitative decisions alone. They are highly emotional and they are highly expensive, and people are making decisions not just on what can be counted, but on what can be felt. It was a pleasure to find that colleagues on the other side of the House, along with ourselves, agreed that New Zealanders ought to be able to contest environmental decisions not on the basis of black-letter law alone, but on the basis of merit or, dare I say it, virtue.

That was one of the key improvements in this bill. But that in itself is a reflection of how difficult it will be for any Government to buy into a corporatist approach of environmental management that does not allow local communities to continue to have their say. My colleagues from Auckland will be amplifying that message, no doubt, when we get to the children of Tāne Māhuta, dwindling in number in Tāmaki-makau-rau as we speak.

There are three elements that we did not agree with. The first is the role of the Minister of Conservation in the coastal environment. For us, it is quite a simple issue. If I, as an owner of property, learn something is happening with my property I ought to be entitled to have a say, yea or nay, as to whether the proposed usage on such property should be tolerated. That will no longer happen. Once the Minister of Conservation as the putative owner, on behalf of the nation, of the coastal environment is written out of the script, the Crown will be reduced to the role of rule maker or regulator, not proxy owner for the nation. Not surprisingly, as the people who are still working through the detritus of an earlier attempt to deal with the seabed and foreshore legislation, we see a strong ongoing role for the Crown in that regard. We will have Supplementary Order Papers in that respect.

The second point is notification. The only reason notification has loomed large is that it is the trigger that allows a neighbourhood either to learn or to participate in a decision that they rightly or wrongly believe will affect their quality of life. That is a fundamental tenet about where social democracy meets resource management. For those reasons we do not feel that the bill has the mix right.

The third point, and obviously I have already referred to it, is the insistence by the current Government that while it is building a super-city for Auckland it will deny Aucklanders the ability to derive their own rules and regulations as to how they deal with that aspect of the local environment called trees. This is not just about the number of permits. This is a deep issue. It has resulted in the Government’s forcing its will on the neighbourhood, the citizenry, and the broader community of Auckland as to how they want to deal with trees. The Government, through this bill, is depriving the Auckland elected local government people and their advisers of the ability to do that. But more on such matters later on.

As I have said, Labour will be agreeing with this bill, but the big unanswered questions lie in phase two. We are glad that certain things have been tossed over to phase two, not the least of which is designations. Therein lies a great debate as to where social democracy ends and economic efficiency takes over. They are legitimate, hotly contested issues and there is no better place to have these arguments than in this House.

The number of submissions was extensive, but, unfortunately, a number of them were driven by fear because the Government sought to compress far too much in the 100-day initial period of its reign. Had more time been taken and had a greater amount of resource been dedicated to the technical advisory group, the committee that tidied up the bill possibly would not have been so busy.

Just before I sit, I say that we experimented with an innovation in our committee time. We secured access to four advisers. They looked at various drafts of the bill, and I think both my colleagues on the other side of the House and, dare I say, even the Minister can see that because of the collective wisdom of these people, Judge Skelton and others, the bill is a better product, is more user-friendly, and will actually achieve some of the objectives that Kiwis want, which is the ability to make decisions in the most efficient, friendly manner to the environment and to their quality of life. Kia ora tātou.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this

I am honoured to speak during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I would firstly like to thank my fellow committee members, who considered 840 submissions on the bill. The committee heard 339 of those submitters during 68 hours of hearings. It was an interesting, dynamic bill to have before the committee, and I am grateful to all members of the committee, particularly to those who could bring to bear their experience in earlier practice associated with the Resource Management Act. All members and all parties certainly worked very hard to get the best result, and I can honestly say I cannot recall a single partisan issue being raised throughout the weeks and months of the committee hearings.

As stated by the Minister for the Environment, the improvements made to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill provide a useful reminder of how much can be achieved through solid engagement by everybody in the select committee submission process. This is a significant piece of work, and very serious legislation. I would like to also acknowledge the hard-working officials, and the assistance of the expert panel mentioned by the previous speaker, Shane Jones, in delivering a finely tuned legislative amendment back to the House.

The Resource Management Act is the core of our legislative framework, and with it comes all the heartfelt appeal of what makes New Zealand what it is today. It reaches into property rights, values, and culture. On the whole, however, it reaches the right balance between the economy and the environment. These amendments have not altered that balance, but they have looked at the processes under the principle that the Act balances. National, on coming into power, had strong support for amending the Act. Officials, the electorate, business, and communities supported our policy.

I am pleased to say that the bill as reported back is much improved. The Local Government and Environment Committee has reversed some of the headline proposals in the bill, especially those concerning plan appeals and non-complying activities and designations, and has made it more modest and considered legislation. Even so, it delivers a substantial shake-up to the Resource Management Act regime, and we can expect more changes from the phase two reforms.

The bill contained a number of contentious proposals, and the select committee decided that a couple of them would result in more costs than improvements, so changes have been made. However, there are many that we considered to be appropriate. In the light of the submissions received from both business and communities, the planning process remains intact, as in the original Act. However, this means that more considered work is required in phase two of the resource management reforms. Although there are improvements to the further submission process and decision processes, there is no single silver bullet to fixing the planning process.

The select committee recommends some useful refinements. There will be new scope for combined regional policy statements and/or plans, which will encourage greater consistency and quality in plan making. Whole-of-plan reviews will be replaced by 10-yearly rolling plan provision reviews. Councils will apply the cost-benefit disciplines intended by section 32 of the Resource Management Act, and this is a helpful change. The 2-year time limit for councils to issue their decisions on plan submissions and the ban on whole-of-plan appeals should speed up decision making, even if in reality there will be little sanction on the laggard councils or determined litigants who frame their appeals to cover almost all the plans. Councils do not have to issue decisions on each and every submission. A single decision from the council is all that is required.

Unfortunately, the bill presented to the committee will not fix the very significant costs and delays associated with the planning processes. These are the biggest headaches of the Resource Management Act, especially in regard to issues of regional resource allocation and management, where many councils are hopelessly behind. Typically, even modest plan reviews are taking a decade or more to complete. If we put that against 10-yearly review cycle plans, then plans will be outdated even before they become operative.

This is not to say that real streamlining and reform in the planning process area is not possible, but the problem is multifaceted and not open to a quick or even single solution. This will be the role of phase two resource management reform. Phase two now provides an opportunity to take a more rounded look at planning processes, and inefficiencies and their causes, in order to identify truly effective solutions. The committee looks forward to the next instalment in this regard.

Another contentious proposal that has also been dropped is the removal of non-complying activity status from the plans. The committee’s decision not to proceed with the proposed repeal of the non-complying activity category should also be generally welcome. The category was a very important model in protecting investment quality plans, and can be an important shield for major infrastructure or industrial activities against the risk of more sensitive uses being established near them, which is known as the reverse sensitivity risk. If the Government was starting with the Resource Management Act legislation again, it probably would not include non-complying activity as a consent category, but we are not in that situation and the provisions should stay. The retention of non-complying activity status means that councils will retain the ability to say no if development proposals with more than minor environmental effects are contrary to the plan’s objectives and policies.

A high-pressure change that was sought by many submitters that was not made was the removal of tree protection provisions in district plans from 2012. That is disappointing, and I am sure we will hear more about that issue as the bill proceeds through the parliamentary process. I would like to spend a bit of time on this provision, clause 52 of the bill, because I think people have their perceptions and their noses too out of joint on what is being achieved. The intent of the clause that relates to the removal of blanket tree protection rules and plans is to reduce cost and time spent by the community on applying for resource consents for relatively minor matters. Of the 50,000 resource consents that are applied for every year, 5,000 are for tree trimming or removal. They are applied for because of unnecessary tree protection rules in council plans. The cost on individuals is unjustified, the approach is blunt, and the law is lazy.

The amendment bill as reported back from the select committee has quite rightly retained the provision of clause 52. Only a few councils have sought to put in place such blanket tree protection rules, but, really, when we think about it—and I look forward to discussing this in the Committee stage—almost all the consents are granted, so where is the problem? Why have the consents? Many cities such as Christchurch, the garden city of New Zealand, Hamilton, and Wellington do not have the same rules; they rely on protecting those trees of significance through scheduling them in the district plan. I also note that one council where the issue is most significant, Auckland, has supported the change.

Clause 52 does not take effect for some considerable time, by which time the councils will have had time to amend district plans and put in place non-regulatory means of encouraging residents to retain vegetation on their properties. The intention of these reforms—simplifying and streamlining—has been achieved, and the Minister for the Environment should be pleased with that outcome. In addition, the fast track for major infrastructure projects remains largely intact, so development interest should be satisfied.

Overall, the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers. I am pleased to have been part of a process that had a Minister who was prepared to listen and a committee that was prepared to shift ground where needed. All members of the committee got involved, shoulders to the wheel, and made the best they could of the bill before us. It was innovative on the part of the committee to include a group of specialists for a final look before we reported back on the bill. That was a most worthwhile exercise. This is a much better bill than when it started out, one that will simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

As my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said, Labour is supporting the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, with three main reservations; I intend to focus my comments on one of those reservations, clause 52. This debate should be dedicated to the Lorax, Dr Seuss’s character who spoke for the trees. Someone has to speak for the trees in this debate, because the National-ACT Government surely will not. The contributions from the other side of the House could be dedicated to Ronald Reagan, the late President of the United States, who once said “Once you’ve seen one tree, you’ve seen them all.”, and that is pretty much the philosophy demonstrated by the National Government on this issue. The first thing to say about this is that it is a heavy-handed intervention by the Government.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) Link to this

The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is vastly different from the bill that came before the House in February. For that difference, I thank warmly the hundreds of submitters who took the trouble to come to the Local Government and Environment Committee. For most of them it was unpaid time; the bill would be much worse without their efforts. But that cannot disguise the fact that the bill’s true purpose is to remove the obstacles of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and other people.

The Resource Management Act has always been about how we resolve the conflicts in our increasingly overpopulated world between short-term economic gain and the long-term health of the environment that supports out lives. The Act, as initially written by Labour and passed by National, set out some bold principles. It was to enable people to provide for their economic and social needs while maintaining “the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;”—even trees. That is the ecological bottom line set out in Part 2 of the Act, but these days it is hardly ever referred to. Meanwhile our biodiversity plummets, and the kōkako and the mohua head for extinction. Our waterways have become filthy, and our urban air will not meet World Health Organization standards.

There has been an incremental process since 1991 to weaken environmental protection under the Act and to weaken the powers of communities to have a say about the places where they live. And here we go again. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the attack on nature, even the little of it that remains in cities, than the proposal to end protection for urban trees. A city without trees is hot, dusty, shadeless, and ugly. It is a city not worth living in. But so often developers want to cram the maximum possible number of sections into a subdivision, and the trees are in the way. Most councils manage without blanket rules for tree protection, but the areas where we find them are areas of rapid growth, urban infill, high land prices that attract greedy developers, and where the community values its trees and wants to protect them, such as Auckland and the Kapiti Coast.

It is true that processing consents takes a lot of time and cost for the council. That is why the Greens proposed an amendment that allowed reasonable trimming, but not felling without a consent. That would have more than halved the compliance costs. But was the Government interested? No. We will move that amendment later today, but the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, has already turned it down. Instead, he proposes to saddle councils with the time and cost of describing every tree that is worth protecting and scheduling them, and dealing with every submission that opposes scheduling a tree. That will be enormously more trouble than processing consents. Most councils will not do it or will leave out very significant trees that the community values. The Minister knows they will not do it. We will lose the green spaces in our cities, the shade, the habitat for birds, the dappled light, and the cooling in the summer heat. Where are the Bluegreens on this issue? Where are their proposed amendments to the bill?

The attack on community participation begins with the reinstating of the power of the Environment Court to require an objector to put thousands of dollars up front as a bond before he or she can be heard. The Government and the developers know the court will only do this in extreme circumstances, but community groups who are having their first tangle with the Resource Management Act do not know it. So it becomes a fearsome weapon that applicants use to deter local people from ever setting foot in court. Planning cases are not just arguments about competing property rights and whether someone’s building blocks someone else’s view; often they are David and Goliath struggles between well-resourced corporates with the best lawyers and community groups with little experience of the law who are running cake stalls to pay for some professional advice on how to protect the natural values of the places where they live. They do not need to be intimidated by the threat of ordering security for costs, even if it is unlikely that the judge would ultimately issue such an order. Such groups are to be further disadvantaged by the removal of their right, under section 274, to join an appeal brought by another participant. No big firm with full-time lawyers would ever need section 274, but volunteers with a day job and a family often find out too late what is going on, and section 274 has enabled them to join the action and to put their case by piggybacking on the submissions of other parties.

Local knowledge counts. When a goldmining company applied to build a mine in a tailings dam in the beautiful Waitekauri Valley near Waihī, those who had lived there for generations told the hearing that the land was unstable. It had slipped before in extreme rainfall and could threaten the integrity of the dam and risk toxic sludge sliding into the Ohinemuri River. But they did not have the money to bring in expert geologists. The mining company did, and it found overseas experts to testify that the land was stable. A few years later, the land cracked and slipped so badly that it cost $20 million to stabilise it, and we still do not know for sure that it really is safe now. But the Minister wants to shut out these people with his changes, including the Supplementary Order Paper, which further raises the hurdle for public notification. I will expand on that Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage.

The Greens also object to the removal of the role of the Minister of Conservation in consents for restricted coastal activities. These are high-impact activities carried out on public land in the coastal marine area for private purposes. The Minister is there on behalf of all of us who are joint owners to consider the wider public good of the coastal ecosystem that is under threat. There are undoubtedly areas where the local iwi should be in this role, and others where perhaps the power should be exercised jointly under a co-management regime. But we should not do away with the power of the joint owners of the commons to decide what can go on there. I am heartened that the select committee and the Minister think that the role of the Minister of Conservation and coastal planning should be examined again in phase two of the reforms. But when we look at the history of allowing the privatisation of public space against the wishes of most local residents, I am not too hopeful.

I want to record again my appreciation of the 850 people who took the trouble to bring to the committee their concerns, their expertise, their knowledge, and their skills. I am pleased that with their help we managed to reverse the proposal to allow no appeals against plans and plan changes, because getting the plan right is at the heart of the Resource Management Act process. A poor plan will lead to poor consent decisions for years. It is the most important time for the public to engage, and the council cannot be left as the sole arbiter of what will meet the purposes of the Act. Likewise, the committee has restored the opportunity to put in cross-submissions if another submitter proposes changes with unwanted effects. Green members sought input on the removal of the non-complying category for resource applications from all the councils that appeared. They told us of the huge cost in workload to rewrite their plans, so this silly proposal has gone too.

I want to record the enormous help given to the committee by a panel of experts—Professor Peter Skelton, John Hassan, Helen Atkins, and Ciaran Keogh, all of whom submitted on the bill—who were engaged to advise us on whether the drafting reflected the policy intentions of the committee. They raised many issues that led to substantial clarifications in the bill. The purpose of this bill is supposed to be simplifying and streamlining. No one could object to that purpose. Yet the bill itself adds many pages and layers of complexity. There are now multiple routes to a centralised planning process that can be initiated by the Minister, the applicant, or the council, and that can pass through the Environmental Protection Authority or through the Minister’s office, and that can result in either a call in to a board of inquiry or direct referral to the Environment Court—all to achieve basically the same thing. The expert panel noted in its interim report to the committee that the bill, as it stood at that time, did not simplify and streamline, but rather complicated and confused those processes. We are indebted to the panel for its meticulous work with officials under great time pressure to remove many opportunities for misunderstanding and litigation.

The environment needs more protection, not less, if the places we value are to endure, and if biodiversity, soil, water, and air quality are to be there for our children’s children. Communities need more say, not less, about the nature of the places where they live, and of their landscapes, built environments, urban trees, coastal marine areas, and waterways. This bill will not help, but at least it will not hinder to the same extent that it would have done in its original form. The Greens will still be voting against it.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In years gone by—or perhaps one should say centuries—a man’s land, as well as his home, was his castle. [ Interruption] Or a woman’s land, indeed, although I do not know whether many castles were owned by women centuries ago.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ata. I do not intend to use all of our allocation for the second reading to open up all of the questions in respect of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, but I will make some general comments in regard to the Māori Party’s stand, and then I will focus on some of the things we want to put to the House by way of Supplementary Order Papers as we go to the Committee stage.

The Māori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone. Within this, we are committed to assisting whānau, hapū, and iwi, as tangata tiaki, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. And so we welcome this bill to amend the Resource Management Act 1991, because of the two key words: “simplifying” and “streamlining”. We fully support the intention to reduce costs, uncertainties, and delays, by simplifying procedures and streamlining appeal processes. At the same time, we realise that the penalties must be sufficient to discourage inappropriate practices. Those general statements put fairly clearly the Māori Party’s position in general terms.

I am advised there was a strong theme in the submissions from iwi to the select committee. They seemed to focus on the notion that the Crown guaranteed to protect the special relationship between tangata whenua and their landscapes and natural environments. It is a consistent theme. We are likely to hear it at many hui with Māori. A Māori world view would be that the Treaty relationship should be accorded respect in any aspect to do with environmental integrity. In fact, Māori spend so much time telling agencies about the need for respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that some members might have heard about a new concept that has risen throughout the Māori world called “hui fatigue”. “Hui fatigue” was expressed as an issue at the Sustainable Water Programme of Action hui, which closely followed hui on the foreshore and seabed, land access and aquaculture reforms, and the review of the Resource Management Act 1991, with Treaty negotiations also proceeding in some areas. For those unaware of what “hui fatigue” is, it comes from the notion, I suppose, of saying the same thing over and over again without actually being heard.

And so we are here today putting forward four Supplementary Order Papers—maybe more as we investigate the bill even further—to ensure that the Treaty is acknowledged, and the implementation is secure, in any development of the resource management legislation. The Māori Party is tabling amendments to strengthen the role of tangata whenua in the Resource Management Act. The first of our Supplementary Order Papers strengthens and elevates Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions already included in the Act, and the second will enable hapū and iwi to initiate a transfer of powers from the councils so that mana whenua can manage their lands, their waters, wāhi tapū, and other taonga.

The Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of resource management law and practice, and it needs to be recognised as such. We want to ensure that local governments acknowledge the mana and authority of mana whenua. This will require robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua, as well as a commitment to establish effective strategies for engaging Māori communities and advancing Māori representation. Issues around water must include mana whenua, including water rights and privatisation. Treaty claims to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the context of the Resource Management Act, and to do so requires respect for Treaty provisions. So our amendments will strengthen the requirement for all persons to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi in the implementation and administration of the Resource Management Act. This addresses the concerns of whānau, hapū, and iwi that resource management appropriately reflects obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The second set of amendments address the transfer of powers from the councils to hapū and iwi authorities, which for some is probably a fairly radical move. These amendments will allow hapū and iwi authorities to request a transfer of powers for them to manage their lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga, when they determine that they are better able to meet the purposes of the Act. We think this is a pretty innovative line to take. Local authorities will be required to give full consideration to the matter, including completing a comprehensive evaluation of the request for transfer, reporting on the evaluation, and making the report publicly available. At present, hapū and iwi authorities are not empowered to initiate a consideration of transfer of powers. It relates, too, to the need to strike the best balance between conservation and the use of natural resources. The law already allows councils to transfer their functions, powers, and duties under the Act, and our amendments simply take that one step further to specify that mana whenua can initiate a transfer of powers process, and if they decide to do so, the councils must seriously consider their proposal.

The rationale for our approach comes from the common call for a shared understanding about the relationship of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to everyday life. We believe that many so-called Treaty issues are community issues that are best handled through face-to-face discussion and debate at the local level between the people who are directly affected. There is nothing people need to fear when the Treaty of Waitangi is in discussion.

The third set of amendments we will be submitting to the House focus on the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of the ministerial veto for coastal permits. These amendments reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. We noted in the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs, as it may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those who are simply able to raise the security. We say that is unfair. The Māori Party also proposes that we reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee again revealed that many submitters, including Māori, were opposed to this amendment. The ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment.

Finally, we will be putting to the House a set of amendments relating to projects of national significance, which could go to boards of inquiry and be subject to appeals to the High Court if needed. Some might suggest that these mechanisms make for more bureaucracy and hold up the process even further. But, on the other hand, we of the Māori Party believe that these protection mechanisms need to stay where they are to ensure that our place, the Māori place, is still intact if it comes to the crunch. This Supplementary Order Paper introduces a number of amendments to Part 6AA, which deals with proposals of national significance. Boards of inquiry will be required to include a representative appointed by mana whenua, and will also be required to seek the advice of mana whenua in any matter being considered, and to reflect that advice in any decisions and recommendations they make. Any draft and final reports produced by boards of inquiry will be required to be sent to mana whenua, and to any other relevant hapū and iwi authorities. The Supplementary Order Paper will remove the limitation applied to appeals, so that appeals against decisions based on merit can be brought before the High Court.

I remind the House that the Māori Party believes in the efficient use of water, the conservation of energy, and the need for active environmental management. We certainly support the call for simplicity and streamlining, and our amendments are put forward in that context. We will be putting up further amendments to address clauses in the bill that hamper Māori involvement in resource management.

Iwi see the amendment bill now before Parliament as an opportunity to discuss some longstanding issues. As is our practice and our desire, we will be advocating on their behalf to ensure their aspirations, their voices, are heard. We support the second reading of this bill at this stage, pending the discussion on the Supplementary Order Papers we will be putting before the House, and we reserve our right to vote against the last stage. Kia ora tātou.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I am enormously pleased that the bill has finally come to the House. It has been a long haul, but it has been a very important, interesting, and worthwhile process. I will echo others in thanking everyone, including the submitters, the two advisory groups, officials, Crown Law, and the Local Government and Environment Committee members, who have all worked hard on the bill and added value. The bill is very different now as it comes out of the select committee process.

The promise to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act was something National campaigned on before the last election. We promised to deliver a bill to the House within 100 days—and we did. The bill is phase one of a significant reform of the Resource Management Act that is ongoing. However, the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act, and no reductions in environmental protection. The bill provides for significant improvements to the implementation of the principles behind the legislation.

Over the past 18 years that the Resource Management Act has been in place there has been increased criticism from all parts of the community—from environmental groups, local government, and businesses—about slow and expensive planning and consent processes. There are absolutely no benefits to the environment from heavy-handed bureaucracy, lengthy delays, and expensive legal arguments. In fact, the length and expense of planning processes have often meant that the environment has suffered. The average time taken for a council to produce a full plan is over 8 years, and when it requires several million dollars to be invested it is not surprising that plans are often too inflexible to deal with environmental issues as they arise.

The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make plan-making more effective, more efficient, quicker, and less costly, but it does not compromise the intent of the Resource Management Act, which is strongly supported by New Zealanders.

The bill has now been through a very robust select committee process. As we have heard today, there were over 800 submissions, and we heard nearly two-thirds of submitters. We worked long hours and we worked well together as a committee. After hearing submissions, we have made significant changes to the bill. The key provisions of the bill include the establishment of an environmental protection agency and improved processes for proposals of national significance. The bill provides for a one-step consenting process for resource consent applicants and notices of requirements for designations through direct referral to the Environment Court.

The bill introduces provisions to deal with the longstanding problem of the Resource Management Act being used for trade competition purposes. The new measures include the introduction of mandatory damages, rather than discretionary damages, when a party seeks damages against a trade competitor. This will increase the deterrent effect. The bill also reinstates securities of costs. It is true that many community groups were concerned about this provision because they felt that it may have excluded them from participating in environmental decisions. However, when we reviewed court decisions from the past, when the provision was in place, we felt that judges had used it with discretion and that genuine environment groups with genuine concerns were not disadvantaged. It may be that environmental groups need more information about the provision so that they can work with it.

After listening to submitters we have several provisions that we will not be proceeding with. We will not be removing non-compliant activities and we will not be limiting appeals on plans to points of law. We have deferred changes to decision making for designation until the next phase. Again, after hearing suggestions from submitters, we have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve their outcome.

The bill is better as a result of there being much debate and a robust select committee process. The major areas of contention have been worked through successfully by the committee, and modifications have been made. Only a very small number of differences of opinion now remain. The bill will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act, but let me make it very clear that it does not compromise the intent of the Act or reduce the level of protection of our magnificent national environment and natural resources. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

I rise to talk on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to place on record my view that the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. It is obviously important that we protect the environment and protect neighbours against industrial intrusions in residential zones. That is achieved through the Resource Management Act.

The Act is cornerstone legislation. When it was passed by the previous National Government back in the 1990s, having been designed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the prior Labour Government, it was world-breaking legislation. It has stood the test of time. It is now 18 years old. It was passed in 1991; it is now 2009, so it is 18-year-old legislation. Although it is in need of a bit of an update and some housekeeping, which this amendment bill largely achieves, the underlying principles of having environmental legislation that regulates activity according to its effect on the environment remains sound. That is the underlying principle here; we ought to be preserving the environment so that subsequent generations inherit an environment that can sustain them in the same way as the environment has sustained us during our lives.

The principles of the Resource Management Act remain sound. There was a lot of talk by the National Party before the election. One would have thought the Resource Management Act was why New Zealand had some sort of poor growth rate. The reality was that during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government New Zealand had a higher growth rate, on average, than Japan, the United States, and Europe, and an average that was on a par with Australia, which is one of the strongest economies in the world. So the idea that somehow the Resource Management Act was an enormous handbrake on economic activity is something that this side of the House has never accepted. I think history will show that after the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is passed, New Zealand’s growth rate is not all of a sudden going to jump as a consequence.

There has been a lot of exaggerated rhetoric from the Government as to the importance of the bill in economic terms. Having said that, I think the bill makes some wise changes. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee, with the agreement of the Government, has changed an issue that I spoke of in the first reading debate, which is the limitations on the ability to participate in appeals against plan changes. The fundamental rules that we reply upon in our cities, and towns in the provinces, relate to the rules that are effectively in delegated legislation that is promulgated under the Resource Management Act. That delegated legislation is the district plans and regional plans that are produced by district and regional authorities.

As originally promoted, the bill severely limited the rights of citizens to appeal against changes to plans. In fact, there were going to be limitations to appeal only on matters of law, which would have excluded the ability of people to appeal when they had a matter of substance and a matter of fact that they wanted to challenge. That would have been the most egregious change to the Resource Management Act and it would have severely undermined the effectiveness of the Act to properly protect the environment. So I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because I think he has made a wise decision to keep appeal rights in respect of plans.

There are a couple of negative points that I must mention. The first relates to coastal permits. This was another of those dog-whistling issues where the Government said that it was somehow improper that the Minister of Conservation retained the right to veto coastal permits. These are developments that are proposed in the coastal area. If there is a development on private land, the private landowner can effectively veto it by saying that it will not happen on his or her land. In respect of public lands, there is no private owner, so we are reliant on an arm of the Government to exercise that right on behalf of us all. The Government is standing in the shoes of the citizens of New Zealand to control what happens in that coastal space.

The provision that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto proposed developments in the coastal area is but another example of the landowner, or the seabed owner in this case—or the person who has custody of it, even if he or she does not own it; given the foreshore and seabed debate, I should be careful that I do not talk about ownership here—controlling what happens there. The person who is effectively the proxy controller on behalf of us all in respect of that space is the Crown, and the person within the Crown who exercises that right of control is the Minister of Conservation. So it is quite proper that the Minister of Conservation has the ability to veto proposed developments in the coastal space.

That ability to veto is not unconstrained. Principles of law have to be applied by the Minister of Conservation when exercising the discretion of whether to veto a proposed development. We have seen cases in recent years where the decision of the Minister of Conservation was overturned by the courts because the courts found that the Minister had improperly exercised that discretion. That does not mean that the rule that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto certain developments should be completely done away with. In fact, that court decision shows that there were proper limits on that right of veto anyway and that there was no need for more intervention from Parliament to remove that right of veto.

I for one think that it is sad that we are saying that the Crown no longer exercises its right to control what happens in that public space, because I expect the Crown to look after that public space. I expect the Crown to let me veto what happens on my land, but I expect the Crown to make similar decisions on behalf of the people of New Zealand in respect of the public space in, for example, the coastal marine area.

I will raise another issue, which is the fact that under urgency we are considering this bill and we also have Supplementary Order Paper 39, which is 45 pages long. I hope that Dr Nick Smith has the decency to smile in respect of this issue, because that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the size and complexity of the bill is two or three times the size of the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the emissions trading scheme that we considered last year. I do not know whether Dr Smith can remember as far back as that, but if he cares to reflect on the Hansard, he will note that he was here criticising that Supplementary Order Paper as being a constitutional outrage.

A couple of comparisons should be made. For a start, the proportionate length of the Supplementary Order Paper here is far, far longer. The second point to be made is that when we produced the Supplementary Order Paper to the emissions trading scheme legislation, we made it intelligible for people by producing a redline version, with struck-out provisions in redline, highlighting the changes that were made in the principal legislation, whereas with the bill now before the House we are effectively blind as to what the effects of this legion of drafting corrections to the bill are. We are told that there are no policy changes and that they are matters of technical drafting. Well, I have to say that if these are not policy matters but are matters of technical drafting, then it points to pretty slack and sloppy practice on the part of the Government.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values, expectations, and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation’s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues, and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall, I think that this bill will improve the legislation, but I have raised some concerns, particularly about trees, as people will be aware, and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue.

We are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity, and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans, making decisions on proposals of national significance, preparing and implementing national instruments, resource consent applications, decision making, and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance, the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act’s reform.

I thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions, with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process, significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes, and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall, as I have mentioned, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection.

I will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation, including proposals of national significance, the Environmental Protection Authority, and, of course, trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions, local authority plan changes or variations, requests for plan changes, requests for preparation of regional plans, and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance.

The other key aspect of this bill, which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about, is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms, as mentioned by a number of speakers.

We now come to trees. Firstly, I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue, particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Talofa lava and kia ora tātou katoa to members of this House. The member who just spoke, Nikki Kaye, said that she was concerned, and she is right to be concerned. I have here copies of over a hundred emails that have come to me from Aucklanders expressing their outrage about a particular amendment in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Many of the people who have sent emails are from Auckland, and at the very top of the list of people they have sent emails to is the name of that particular member, so she needs to be concerned. The big question that people from the Auckland region will be asking her is what she will do about the particular amendment they are concerned about.

Labour voted in favour of this bill during its first reading. The reason was that the bill could advance to the select committee process, thus providing the public with the opportunity to participate by way of public submissions. National rushed through the first reading of the bill, and Opposition members had fewer than 24 hours in which to consider the detail of the bill at its first reading. So it was important that public consultation take place, and it was important that Opposition MPs were given the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits, or otherwise, of a large number of the proposed amendments, as outlined by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Labour expressed some real concerns about the detail of a number of those provisions. We also expressed our willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act, provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and public participation.

Labour members extend our sincere appreciation to those who took the time to give evidence to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this important bill. There were over 840 submissions and we heard directly from about 339 submitters. Other submitters were heard via teleconference. Although there was support from obvious quarters for the Government’s proposed amendments, the bill received significant criticism in the select committee for poor drafting and the introduction of unnecessary amendments, which were described by submitters as confusing and too complex. I, like other MPs in this House, continue to receive emails from individuals, community groups, and small businesses, outlining their strong opposition to particular amendments in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill by this Government. Later I will share with the House some of that feedback.

The Resource Management Act is a balanced piece of legislation, which provides for sustainable development, local participation in decision making, and protection for the natural and physical environment. Labour is generally supportive of ongoing moves to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act. Labour will support measures that reduce unnecessary costs and the delays and objections motivated by trade competition.

The bill underwent significant changes during the select committee stage, which highlights the haste with which the Government put together the changes to this significant Act. Although Labour supports improvements to the bill, it does not support proposals that will rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. Labour believes strongly that we should not allow New Zealand’s environment to be degraded. Although we support streamlining the consent process, we do not support removing the safeguards for protecting the environment. New Zealanders are rightly proud of our “clean, green” brand, and there are strong views in the community that the Government simply cannot be allowed to ram through its pet projects without adequate public input and scrutiny.

One of the principles that undergirds the Resource Management Act is the principle of community participation. The Resource Management Act is about making sure that development is enabled, but also that there is collective responsibility for the management and development of valuable natural resources and our beautiful environment. The Resource Management Act permits this by allowing communities and individuals to get a chance to have their say in the development of their local areas. It is important to ensure that communities and people that are adversely affected should be able to have their say. In fact, the Minister said in the first reading of the bill: “No changes are proposed to the purposes or principles of the Resource Management Act. I believe that those principles are sound.”

Labour agrees that the principles of the Resource Management Act are sound. However, we believe that there are three key areas that, if the Government were to go ahead with them, would undermine these sound principles and ultimately undermine the democratic rights of local communities, their rights to participate in the local decision-making, and the need to protect our environment for the benefit of not only present generations but also future generations. Labour does not support the changes to the way resource consents are notified. Labour does not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in relation to restricted coastal activities. Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow local authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Labour is concerned that the removal of the presumption in favour of notification will undermine public participation and the ability of local communities to be involved in decisions that affect them.

The bill raises the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. It raises the threshold for effects on the environment before a local authority needs to notify an application. The committee received about 395 submissions on this proposal, and 75 percent strongly opposed the change. The main concern of submitters was that the changes would reduce public participation. The removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consent for restricted coastal activities will lessen the environmental protection of the coastal area under the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers allow the Minister to advocate for the public interest on proposed coastal developments. These powers provide an important environmental check on proposed coastal developments. Eighty-three percent of submitters on this amendment strongly opposed it.

Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow for the general protection of trees. This proposal undermines local decision-making powers and the ability of communities to determine development in their area. Local authorities should be left, through their elected representatives, to make their own decisions about the protection of trees in their communities.

I want to share with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and with members of the House some of the concerns that have been shared with me, and I suspect with many other members of this House. I have here an email from Amanda of Auckland. She says she is standing up to those who think they are king. She expresses her concern and asks that clause 52 be deleted. She says that we need to “retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have an email here from Tony of Pīhā, who says that he lives overlooking the valley of all the old pōhutukawa that line the hills. “Every tree that I can see from here is on private land. If clause 52 of the proposed Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill goes through, they are all at risk.” Tony’s request is simple: “Please delete the clause and talk to the communities about what level of protection they would like to see.” I have here an email from a Dr Andrew of Mairangi Bay, who says: “I request that you delete Clause 52 … retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have one here from Wendy of Auckland, who says: “Trees are an important part of the landscape and provide oxygen to the environment, and hold the surrounding land together more than we might think. The loss of large historic trees from my neighbourhood would be devastating for me, as well as the birdlife that live in them. Please reconsider the above clause.” I have many, many more.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. National promised to introduce legislation into the House to amend the Resource Management Act within 100 days of forming a new Government. We have kept our promise. This bill is the first phase of a two-stage process to reform environmental resource management. The Local Government and Environment Committee has been working in a collegial manner on the Resource Management Act. I mention collegiality advisedly. The measured, mellifluous Scottish brogue of the chairman sought and received valuable contributions from all members of the committee. I wish to express my appreciation of the efforts of all members, submitters, and officials whose input informed and shaped this bill.

There is a broad understanding and appreciation that changes to the Resource Management Act are required to ensure a better balance between environment protection and economic growth, and that the cost, uncertainty, and delays of the current Act are adversely affecting New Zealand. Understandably, there are points of difference. The major urban area affected is Greater Auckland, where a number of councils have general tree protection laws. Clause 52 is being used to address this issue. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resource. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? Are all these good residents vegetal Visigoths? Are they Philistines of philodendrons? Are they pillagers of Pūriri, castrators of Kauri? They are not. Are these good people ravagers of rhododendrons? We will talk about this later, in the Committee stage.