Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – House Business
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – House Business


this fellow sit down for committee stage Nick sitting day I call on government order of the day number three resource legislation amendment bill second reading mr. speaker the Honorable dr. next time a point of order the Honorable David Parker so you’ll be aware of the controversies around this process sir I have a copy of the form of the bill that’s the only one that’s available to members and it’s the first reading vision this debate sir cannot proceed until that will want this bullis is the table certain sir members do not have available to them the piece of legislation which is the one that we are meant to be debating I I’ve asked the clerk to attempt to obtain copies of bills for members because it is a most undesirable position to be in to have a bill which I presume is three days out of a committee and not have that available and in fact I don’t know precedent for this I will look while the minister is speaking if the exact rules and interfering my ruling on whether the debate will proceed until the end of the minister’s speech because clearly he has a copy of the bill okay I look oh i think i am sorry i blew up ugh you’re not gonna debate what I’ve just seen heavy no except that I looked quite carefully on the table to get a copy of the bill as reported back and couldn’t find it so I think it does impede the ability of members to discuss that when it hasn’t been on the table when we’ve me I understand that that is the case and it is as described by mr. Parker what I what I have said is that I’m i am aware of rule in the past in different circumstances which the members might not find satisfactory if I follow the president’s so I’m what I’m asking for is some indulgence so I can look at those speakers rulings from the past to see if in fact I can differentiate from them but i will do that while the minister is speaking i would ask you to reconsider too because i don’t think you can have a debate on a bill that’s not before us sir in the context where it’s come back from select committee so see unless you’re willing to reconsider i’m going to have to move a motion well i’m i am advised by mr. Robertson that the bill is now on the table but I live so we’ll also i will also advise the member that the precedence on this from my memory unfortunate but clear speak the Honorable dr. mixed-mode speaker the copies of the full select committee report and the bill have been publicly available since four o’clock on monday so it’s rather pedantic of opposition members to retain simply because the copies have only just arrived on the table that that in any way impedes the capacity for Parliament to debate the bill so I I what every call the speaker sir but an hour copy has arrived but it would have been absolutely absurd for us to have this debate without the legislation being available to us and even this I think is just incredibly poor process that members had not been able to pick up the legislation that we meant to be debating right now yeah I so I do have a method to deal with before I get back to the memristor make it clear to the Honorable David Parker that when I am in the chair you I am the speaker and if he doesn’t like my opinion he can’t call the real one that the question I just want to ask the Honorable dr. Smith now is whether whether and faint given the session in the fact that I think we’re both aware that something is going to happen quite soon whether whether in fact he does want to continue with this debate now I use mr. speaker okay the Honorable doctor next month Mr Speaker I move that the resource legislation amendment bill be now read a second time mr. speaker this is the second phase of the government’s substantive reforms through the Resource Management Act it’s the largest package of reforms since the original Act was passed 25 years ago the success of the government’s first phase of reforms is witnessed by projects like water view like the Kapiti expressway like major roading programs in Christchurch and new power stations that have been able to be consented in a far more crisp way in this bill is particularly focused on addressing the long-term issues around housing it is a litmus test for parties in this Parliament as to whether they are serious about addressing the long-term issues a d housing supply and affordability this Parliament is full of MPs that want the omelet but aren’t prepared to break the egg unless we address the core issue of opening up land supply reducing the time taken to getting consents reducing the costs of land subdivision and enabling the construction of infrastructure we are not serious about addressing New Zealand’s long-term housing supply and affordability issues the evidence of the connections between the Resource Management Act and the housing issues are overwhelming eighty percent of the real increase in the cost of a home today as compared to 25 years ago is in the price of the section Mr Speaker I point out that a section worth $100,000 in 1990 in Auckland and the most recent average is five hundred thousand dollars a mr. speaker you are not going to build a starter affordable house if the price of the section is that expensive and here’s the further evidence why is it possible in Christchurch to buy a home of a hundred and fifty square metres for under four hundred thousand dollars when the same home in Auckland would cost over seven hundred thousand dollars the building materials cost in Christchurch is about the same the cost of labour in Christchurch is about the same the cost of the consenting process is about the same the core issue is at the average price of a section in Auckland is five hundred thousand dollars and the price of a section in Christchurch is 190 thousand dollars now mr. speaker in Christchurch we use the syrah act to overall the RMA and to substantially increase the supply of land and that is why wreaths have dropped in that city by eight percent over the last 12 months why in that city why homes are so much more affordable order so mr. speaker no I will ask the Honorable Ruth Dyson to adore and apologize I withdrew and apologize mr. speaker mr. speaker the act that core governs the creation of sections is the Resource Management Act and it’s not just the government that is calling for their reform the Productivity Commission has produced through substantive reports the new zealand institute the Reserve Bank the Treasury similar issues in the UK we’re heist prices are similarly at ratios of eight times those of incomes have been enquired into and the report in the House of Commons in the last couple of weeks a 400-page report saying exactly the same thing and mr. speaker this is a test of leadership because whether it be the issue of superannuation or RM a reform members on this side of the house and particularly the Prime Minister I prepared to deal with the long-term issues for New Zealand we’re members opposite are far more interested in paying short-term politics most mr. little and mr. Levine mr. Twyford have acknowledged their tight urban limits have been at the core of New Zealand’s housing issues and when we have the very bill before the house that’ll make a difference they vigorously oppose it and that mr. speaker is a lack of leadership if Andrew little was really up to the cat he would take the sort of measure that John Key did on the issue of smacking when label was in the government and be prepared to address these long-term questions mr. speaker when it comes to the issue of housing these are not new issues I remind members opposite that house prices doubled under the former Labour government and home ownership declined in every year that they were government if there was a quick easy fix it would have been done a long side ago what we need is a systemic law term reform of the very act that drives the creation of sections and is at the core of those major issues in New Zealand’s housing market mr. speaker there are ten very specific amendments in this bill that will make a material difference the first is that this bill specifically includes a new function and requirement on councils to ensure that they provide a sufficient supply of land for development and for growth secondly a key weakness of our current planning system is that it takes so long for plan changes Auckland has been functioning for the last 20 years on a plan that was drafted in 1993 when its population or 600,000 smaller the streamlined planning provisions in this bill will enable Newland to be able to be zoned for housing in a matter of months rather than the many years of the current law mr. speaker the spill quite specifically removes appeals on resource consents for residential activities where a land has been zoned for housing purposes that too is a key change in speeding up the process Mr Speaker we have a very confusing regime for developers in that we have councils able to charge both financial contributions under the RMA and development contributions under the local government act those two regimes do not make sense they create uncertainty they can result in double charging and it is sensible in this reform that we require those two provisions to be integrated mr. speaker this bill provides for planning standards it does not make sense that across this country we have over 50 definitions on how you measure the height of a building we have our cross this country more than a thousand different categories of zoning of land that makes the development a nightmare for those people that are trying to build the buildings for jobs and the buildings for houses and those planning standards that are provided for in the spill will make a real difference the changes to the reserves act that enables you to be able to integrate the changes to reserves with planning changes and resource consents there are thousands of homes in which that is exactly the circumstance of which this bill will provide for a better process and you can’t build houses unless you have infrastructure and right now there are difficulties with the Public Works Act in terms of being able to bring infrastructure on stream and the sensible more generous provisions for those people thats property is required for infrastructure while speeding up the process makes absolute sense mr. speaker there are the new boundary provisions that enable homes and those issues to be resolved more quickly the issue of fixed fees there’s the issue of having the capacity to be able to even waiver the need for a consent in minor cases mr. speaker there are far more and bigger reforms there’s the issue of natural hazards that was an act of neglect in not including in the original law that was recommended by the Royal Commission and we need only look at us at a subdivision like Bixley to say that natural hazards should have been at the front end of the decision making in those areas there’s the new collaborative requirements there is the new provisions in this bill that provide decommissioning plans for those activities in the easy there are the new provisions requiring the fencing of streams and rivers and new zealand air lakes so that we might have cleaner waterways Mr Speaker I want to acknowledge the merry party yes they have advocated strongly for the year we participation agreements that are in this bill but they are a party that’s prepared to deal with the issues that are at the core of housing rather than simply playing politics Mr Speaker I also note the substantive issues in this bill about bringing together the different processes for national direction whether it’s a national policy statement whether it’s a National Environment standard or whether it is those 360 regulations mr. speaker there have been cries of foul that the spill is going to remove the powers for communities to be able to have a say here’s what I say to the Parliament why should it after parliament has regulated and set a standard for earthquake-prone buildings or their people can use or any time has expired before I call a member i am going to go back in he’d give the member half an apology for the comments that I made earlier under sending order to 672 unless a bill is under urgency it has to be made available to members and in the experiences I’ve had in the past had been under urgency in there for my initial reaction was wrong however this bill was made available to members on the 6th in and it was available on monday end and therefore that does not apply the question is the motion of you greedy mr. speaker a point of order david paquette mr. speaker with respect your gloss on the obligation to take you there are two issues here a Messer cannot be put on the order paper until a bill has been tabled in the table office more than two days before the debate two or three days whatever the limit was that you suggested sir that is a different matter from whether the bill is meant to be on our table in here when we debate a bill now I have been in the house to sir when messes have been consider under urgency and an urgency debate has started before the bill has been even on the table din the in the bills office and it’s a terrible practice but we seem to have some ruling which should be overridden one day by a spreaker of this house to make sure that we don’t have fallacious debates where we can’t see legislation that’s under urgency there is no ruling that I am aware of in standing orders that says that this Parliament is meant to debate a well that isn’t available to members when they are debating it sir okay well we’ve heard your point of view and and my ruling is that as long as bills have been made available at the appropriate time in the bills office if members see a bill is coming up and it is not on the table I don’t think it’s asking too much of them to walk the 20 meters and get it all to ask the clerk to to get the bill before the debate this has been on the order paper all day in in the bill has in fact been available the bill has in fact been available I since Monday you are you making a ruling when you don’t need to and respect of such a serious matter because if you if you’re making a ruling that’s going to bind future speakers and respect of that rule when you actually don’t need to because then that well the matter is now was cured by medieval resume a sec I mean my the ruling that I have made is that sending order to 67 applies to booms being available to members now that that I happen to agree what I happen to agree with a member on the question of urgency where bills are not available to members end up being debated but if those are available to members full debate then then I don’t think a debate should be held up I think it’s a matter of politeness in a matter of efficiency and I no doubt there will be some investigation the clerk’s office as to why it took from Monday to today to actually get the plane out when it was when it was down for debate today but that’s that’s a matter I think of efficiency rather than a rather than a ruling eugenie sage to speak with board of order I I have a concern that you are making a potential role in here which may mean that bills do not have to be available on the table and I think that is quite significant implications if we are just expected to pick them up electronically I think it physically should be available in the chamber and your ruling I suggest is actually potentially saying that that does not leave me the guy I can I can heat I can hear the member but I’m not going to make the extreme ruling that the debate cannot happen if there’s been an efficiency question here or members I think if members are unable to make it to the bills office in order to get a copy of a bill then it’s part of the role of the staff here how to do that is a member really got something new to weigh it well it’s mr. speaker I’m looking at that time standing order 267 for be yep the bill is not available for the base until copies of it as reprinted have been circulated to members and my understanding from mr. Parker’s original point of water was that this was a reprint I could be mistaken wonder if you could clarify that’s it yeah in in in in Vedas the case and my understanding under the modern practices of the house for about the last ten years is that the circulation to members has been its availability in the bills office for those members have become aware of its existence electronically or through other any other method and they request it we’re used to earlier in my time have every bill and every reprint taken to every members office and we decided that that wasn’t actually a very good practice the Honorable sorry Graham vs

Leave a Reply

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