Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (3) – Part 1
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (3) – Part 1


from this Minister particularly that those obligations and rights are put at risk cured hams we go mr. chillin mr. Chairman Ben just to the Honorable dr. nikki smith mr. Chairman I welcome this opportunity for the committee stage at debate of this big bill the reality is that the National Party campaign on substantive reform of the RMA in a two-phase process when we first came to government we completed that first phase in our first tomb we were not able to secure the parliamentary numbers in our second tomb and we welcome the process today that enables these big reforms to be able to be progressed I acknowledge the comments of the chair that this is a big part and I am keen to ensure that we do justice in this committee stage to the 34 changes that are in this part of the bill now the first change I want to highlight is the move to cleaning standards I could put a pile of plans taller than this chamber over 12 meters tall of the resource management over 80,000 pages of plans and rules over a thousand per district pages of rules and plans and every member of this house would accept that that level of bureaucracy is excessive and needs to be addressed and this bill provides for planning standards so that we don’t have 56 ways of measuring the height of a building that we don’t have over 800 different ways of defining a residential activity and I challenge members of this house that are not supporting this bill to please explain top for me why you don’t support planning standards this bill also provides for a streamlined planning process we did that process by special Chapman our special laws in respect of both Auckland and in Christchurch and they’ve worked exceedingly well rather not taking over seven years to be able to process a new plan those streamlined planning processes of a neighbor huge plans for our two burger settings Auckland and Christchurch to be able to be completed in two years and they will not find you will not find a resource planner in New Zealand that does not accept that that was a better process and a good way in which us to be able to plan our resources I draw the attention to the house of a really serious issue natural hazard management there should not be a member in this house after the quakes and Christchurch and kaikoura who does not see the seats and adding right into the principles of the Act the issues of natural resource management as recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry it is a tragedy when we look at a subdivision like bexley that the issues of liquefaction that were knowing were not properly considered and that’s because they’re not in part 2 and this provision makes change for that I think every member of this house has had the frustration of New Zealanders with minor conceits Prevert to spend tens of thousands of dollars little example I have the weekend Rutherford kindergarten in my community wants to move five doors down the road to a church in phases fears of over forty thousand dollars to be able to get conceit for that forty thousand dollars for a kindergarten committee is a lot of money not to be spend on children’s education but RMA bureaucracy and when I see the provisions in this bill that gives the council the discretion to be able to wave of the need for a consent I say that makes good sense same with the provisions in the spill that provide for a tenday concede saying for the provisions that enable us to build a deck where we can get the agreement of our neighbor without having to spend money this bill the provisions of this part will save thousands thousands of consents and I am befuddled as to why members would oppose that I come to the issues of housing every member of this house knows the pressures that were under to build additional homes and that’s why and I do challenge members of the Act and the Labour Party who have rel against the RMA and understand that it is at the core of the housing challenges that we face and I say why are they opposing the various specific provisions in this bill that required councils to provide for adequate growth of housing in their communities those provisions are essential in cities like Oakland and cities here in Wellington in my own community of Nelson and I challenge members why they are opposing that specific provision on the issue of Appeals the provision in this bill removes the appeals after an area has been zoned residential yes absolutely a community should have a say about whether an area is zoned residential but after it has been zoned residential why should we allow appeals to slow down the bringing of those with Kim why should we slow down the provision of getting those sections created in those houses built and I’d appeal to members to apply common-sense and allow that I didn’t draw two members attention the June the jewel proceeds of charging for subdivision we’ve got a regime under the local government act called development contributions why should we double up with financial contributions under the re man that’s a very important change involving hundreds of millions of dollars of costs in the housing sector that is addressed in this bill mr. speaker veers the new procedural principles that is in this part that require councils planes to use concise language for the processes to be efficient to be cost-effective and to ensure that timely that I think this house should welcome I look at the new fixed fee raging you know where you go to the council and you apply for a conceit you’ve got no idea what the cost is going to be to get the resource concede for your dick or your garage or the like and isn’t it sensible that we have fixed fees for those sorts of activities I come to some of the environmental issues can the members in this house that oppose national regulations so that we can fence stock out of our lakes and rivers please identify them some who’s opposed to that for serious about improving water quality why wouldn’t we provide a provision that enables us to make that very basic step to improve the water quality in our lakes and rivers and all of us I think would know that on the issue of offshore platforms that we do actually need to make sure that they have a decommissioning plan because in other countries that cost he has fallen on tech space i adjure a teach-in and I acknowledge the Maori Party in respect of the provision about water takes for farming for stock water at the moment the losses if you are an individual you don’t need a water permit but if you run your farm as a company or in the case of mini Mari they run them an incorporated trust there will be some stage of benefits from that change so mr. speaker there are dozens of provisions in this part that makes such good seats if you’re committed to improved resource management laws Mr Speaker I do want to mr. chinnough I want to just quickly address a couple of ESO piece yes there is a sop in my name it is solely around issues of drafting from PC oh there’s no policy changes it is inevitable with a 300 page bill that following the report back from the Select Committee that the PCO drafters have identified some issues and I would draw that sop to the attention of the house there is also an SOP in the name of the colleague Mary party maremma fox in respect of the issue of the 36 DD regulations and let me deal with the members questions quite specifically on that issue why do we need section 316 because our government believes in reducing bureaucracy we do not want the RMA duplicating other acts of parliament that just add costs so for instance there are numerous incidents where councils will say and respect on building laws workplace safety laws fisheries law marine laws telecommunications laws will though want to put things in their plan or is on consents that duplicate other national regulation so that is why we want to have 360 d now the issue that’s been raised by Marama Fox is that there are communities that have put in place regulation are rules in their plans are to ban GM crops in their particular area now I have to say my concern and I said absolutely until this Parliament that I’ve a look at the Auckland Council draft plan currently before the courts that it would prevent the treatment of people with liver cancer liver cancer isn’t as well that’s what local hospital says that’s what Auckland hospital says that’s what Auckland University says and that matter is currently before the courts and it is the view of the National Party that of a GMO to treat liver cancer has been approved by the EPA we’re not going to have councils have rules on GMOs and their plans that prevent people from being able to get that treatment and stand by them now what what Ballmer Fox has put the case in in the discussions that we’ve had with our support party they had said yes well we’re not uncomfortable that but we are uncomfortable around the issue of crops and that is why the government will be supporting as always occurs in an MMP palam between support parties a compromise provision where we will be supporting our own my foxes amendments that will not allow our section 362 be able to use now in here mr. Robertson sites a champ believe me just look let me let me just challenge that mean for money mr. speaker mr. speaker was the shimmer me mr. chillin I’m gonna call the right honorable Winston Peters the members had to cause and he gets in the bursts of two he has an unlimited number of bits of to thank you I repeat of time before I before the member start so just will explain because members have been going for the call I the it’s slightly controversial because normally a member who has an amendment and those from a party of similar size would get priority but in this case the experienced member who is the leader of a party will get the call first the right honorable Winston Peters Thank You mr. speaker the National Party bull

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *