12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Will the Government reform the Resource Management Act 1991, given that this month’s Mood of the Boardroom survey found the most negative Government policy on productivity and growth was the Resource Management Act legislation, with 88 percent saying it was negative, 12 percent saying it was neutral, and 0 percent saying it was positive?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
I would like to thank the member for bringing to the attention of the House last month’s Mood in the Boardroom survey, which had this to say: “… Brash’s poor rating as an effective political leader by CEOs must raise questions over whether he will achieve the necessary political skills to head off the formidable Clark.”
Madam SPEAKERHon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Despite efforts by the member to misinform New Zealanders, he knows only too well, as do members of the House, that changes to the Resource Management Act last year addressed the concerns of many in the community, including those of industry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can he claim that his amendment bill, which was passed over a year ago, has addressed the problem, when 88 percent of business leaders said this month that it is an impediment to growth and is in need of reform; and is that not saying that his bill was a failure?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Easily and no. Those views are not reflected, for example, by more reputable groups in the community, such as Local Government New Zealand, KPMG, and Yale University, if I could cite those examples. Local Government New Zealand surveys have shown that compliance costs with the Resource Management Act are 10 to 15 percent lower than in one of our largest trading partners, Australia, and that, on average, New Zealand needed to lodge only half the number of applications to fewer authorities. A KPMG survey on costs in 2005 showed that compliance costs had declined by 28 percent from 2004, and 51 percent from 2003. The environmental performance index, which was produced by a team of experts from Yale University and Columbia University, rated New Zealand first out of 133 countries surveyed.
Hon Jim AndertonHas the Minister received any other reports on the Mood of the Boardroom survey affecting political or economic issues that face New Zealand?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that Mr Anderton is a new member to the House, but this question is to the Minister for the Environment, and it needs to be within his ministerial responsibilities as Minister for the Environment, none of which Mr Anderton’s question addressed.
The very question the member asked reflects on the Mood of the Boardroom survey of this organisation. I am asking the Minister whether he has had other reports on that survey, so the House can be informed about those, too.
The phrasing of the question does raise that point, but I think it is appropriate that the answers are confined essentially to the environment, and I also take the opportunity to remind members that both questions and answers should be succinct and concise. [ Interruption] We have not got a question; that question has been ruled out of order. I will take a question from Steve Chadwick.
Steve ChadwickHon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Instead of the one-sided question in the Mood of the Boardroom survey, it might have been more helpful if chief executive officers had been asked whether they thought the Resource Management Act achieved a balance between economic development and environmental sustainability, or even how New Zealand compares internationally. As the member will know, the latest World Bank report, Doing Business in 2006: Creating Jobs,ranks New Zealand first in terms of the ease of doing business, and second in terms of dealing with consents and licences, such as with the Resource Management Act consent processes. Clearly, this Government, at least, has got the balance right in terms of balancing economic development and environmental sustainability.
R Doug WoolertonDoes the Minister accept that many businesspeople blame the Resource Management Act process for holding up projects that are often delayed more as a result of their own poor planning; and does he agree that any moves to streamline the Resource Management Act process must be balanced against any lengthy community consultation and significant ratepayer costs incurred by councils?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Yes, I do. Negative Resource Management Act surveys are, no doubt, based on people’s experience of negative media reporting and the misinformation we consistently see from members opposite. The facts of the matter do not support those conclusions. Of the nearly 55,000 consents processed, 99.3 percent were granted, and 0.7 were declined. Ninety-five percent of applications are processed on a non-notified basis—the majority within 20 working days. The average median charge for a non-notified land use consent was $400. Of the 5 percent of applications publicly notified, just 1 percent is appealed to the Environment Court. Those are the applications the company bosses surveyed read about in the newspaper.
I did ask that Ministers please make their answers succinct. This is not the opportunity for speeches.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does he accept any responsibility for New Zealand dropping six places in this year’s IMD world competitiveness study, which noted that of the 61 countries surveyed New Zealand ranked as the absolute dunce of the class at number 61 for the effectiveness of its environmental laws, and why does he continue to refuse to reform the Resource Management Act when there is such compelling evidence that improvements are desperately required?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I give no credence to results like that that are absolutely at odds with the details I read earlier.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can any credibility be given to all the Government’s talk about economic transformation and productivity gains, when in respect of questions about the Resource Management Act, he listens only to the views of local government and dismisses the views of 128 chief executive officers of New Zealand businesses as not credible; and does he really expect us to believe that those 128 chief executive officers, who are in the engine room of the New Zealand economy, are wrong and he is right?
Before the Minister replies, it is not only answers that should be succinct but questions, please. Would the Minister please address the question.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Those 128 chief executive officers clearly consider the results they gave in this report to be—in their words—another nail in the Brash coffin. But in terms of the Resource Management Act, every year between 45,000 and 50,000 resource consents are issued, and 95 percent of them are processed without the formality of public notification.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister recall the promise from Labour in 1999 to deliver a national policy statement on biodiversity—a promise restated in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 but that still has not happened; and why should this Parliament give any credibility to the latest announcements by the Minister of Energy and himself that there will be a national policy statement on energy, when they have not delivered a single national policy statement in 7 years?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Neither of those questions, as far as I can see, has any relevance to the original question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My primary question was in respect of the Resource Management Act. It was also in terms of business leaders’ concern, of which—in the “mood of the boardroom” survey—electricity in the Resource Management Act was a key component. The Government has recently announced, as part of its addressing of the blackout in Auckland, a national policy statement. A national policy statement is a key part of the Resource Management Act. For the Minister to suddenly argue that national policy statements are nothing to do with the Resource Management Act and the primary question is a very long stretch.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The policy statement for energy is issued by the Minister of Energy, not the Minister for the Environment.
I thank the member, but I do not need any further assistance on this. The original question, as I ruled, focused on the Resource Management Act. The question was a long one, but it did sound as though it raised the question of energy. [ Interruption] I ask members to please be quiet if they want to remain in the House for what is left of question time. However, the Minister, if he felt it was inappropriate, should have raised his point as a point of order, so the response he gave in that sense was not a proper reply. So we shall start again.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have asked a question—a quite specific question—about national policy statements under the Resource Management Act—
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I will be very happy to do so. Does the Minister recall the promise from Labour, in its 1999 Resource Management Act policy, to deliver a national policy statement on biodiversity—a promise restated every year since, but not delivered—and why should we give any credibility now to the promise of a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act in respect of energy, when it has not delivered a single national policy statement under the Resource Management Act in 7 years?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
Labour policy and Cabinet announcements on biodiversity will be made shortly. I have no responsibility for the policy on energy.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Is the Minister aware of the undertaking by Mr Maurice Williamson on behalf of the National Party—I think it was reported in Driver Magazine, from memory—to gut the Resource Management Act; and can he confirm that this Act to be gutted was actually passed by the National Government in 1991?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE Link to this
I think it is unfortunate that a case of selective amnesia applies to the matters to do with the Resource Management Act—legislation introduced by the previous National Government—and National members now constantly refuse to acknowledge the importance of balancing the needs for economic development and environmental protection.
I seek leave to table an article in the New Zealand Herald, dated Tuesday, 8 August 2006, entitled:“Another nail in the Brash coffin”.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
To remind the member, given his comments about selective amnesia, I seek the leave of the House to table a tennis ball.