Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 2
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Third reading – Part 2


judit and the clerk recorded it and I’ve announced a result the Honorable in exmouth I move that the resource legislation amendment bill be now read a third time this bill is a critical part of the government’s program to increase the supply and affordability of housing to grow the economy with more jobs and higher incomes and to also improve New Zealand’s Environmental Management the bill is a second phase of our reform program that began with a major bill in our first term but for which we were unable to get progress in our second term because we’re unable to secure a parliamentary majority it is a significant milestone that today we will pass this 250 page bill involving 40 substantial changes and over 700 specific provisions after multiple rounds of technical advisory groups public consultation and negotiations with other parties in this Parliament parties opposing this bill are doing New Zealand a disservice in the committee stages they quibbled at the edges they tried to manufacture myths but they’ve been I am able to amount any credible argument against the substantive reforms in the spill in fact they barely mentioned them this bill introduces national planning standards so as to simplify the 80 thousand pages of resource management rules and policies more than a thousand pages per council that make the RMA a nightmare for New Zealanders to navigate a country or 4.7 million people cannot justify that level of bureaucracy it makes common sense that we have standard zonings standard ways of measuring things like the height of a building standard definitions and a standard format for our plans the bill radically changes the way plans are written by introducing a new streamlined and Clara process this matters because it takes on average seven years currently for a council to complete a new plan and that is just too slow to address the sort of water and housing issues that our communities face we know this new streamlined process works because our government has used it through special legislation and writing new plans for the major cities of Auckland and Christchurch through special legislation the overwhelming message is that the process was robust the plans were better and the results achieved in a fraction of the time i’m equally appalled that members opposite are opposing the addition of natural hazards to the matters of national importance earthquakes floods cyclones tsunamis and landslides and not something to play politics with the recent quakes and Christchurch and kaikoura the floods in Auckland and Northland earlier this year and the flooding of each come today are reminders of the significant natural hazard risks our country faces this change was recommended by the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch earthquakes because planners had been so diverted by the more politically correct requirements of the current act that those hazards were overlooked every responsible member of this house genuinely concerned with the well-being of our country should be backing the inclusion of this important requirement into the most central part of the RMA its purposes and principles one of the biggest issues facing our country right now is the supply and affordability of housing I am God spectat members opposite who demand that the spear dressed and then come down to this house and oppose the very measures that will make a real difference report after independent report be at the Productivity Commission be at the Treasury be at the OECD be at the New Zealand initiative for the property council make plain that it is the supply Oh blame that is at the core of the issue the numbers speak for themselves the cost of building an average 170 square meter house in Auckland has increased from a hundred and twenty thousand dollars twenty-five years ago to three hundred and sixty thousand dollars today a three-fold increase but the cost of the average section mr. speaker has on the same period gone from fifty three thousand dollars to five hundred and thirty thousand dollars eighteen fold increase you cannot pretend to be serious about improving the affinity of housing unless you are prepared to address the price of new sections and the reform of the very act to the RMA that governs their creation this bill introduces a new specific requirement or councils to free up land supply it removes appeals on resource consents for residential development it reverses the presumption and favour of subdivision it removes the double charging system of development and financial contributions to a single tighter regime this will help bring the cost of sections down this bill is also a help in getting the roading the rail the water the telecommunications and electricity infrastructure built to support a strongly growing economy it will speed up the process but gives in designations and consents the changes to the public works at giving more generous compensation to affected landowners but also including a financial incentive to be able to do so more early will help get the infrastructure that our country needs more quickly another important issue in this bill progresses is that of water quality in enabling national regulations requiring stock to be fenced out of water weighs only three of our 16 regional councils have any rules on this national rules are a sensible way forward backed up by the instant fines in this bill members opposite cannot cry foul in any credible way over the state of our waterways when they then come down to the house and vote against these practical measures there are also environmental gains and the new provisions that will require offshore platforms to have the commissioning plans it has been expensive experiences overseas mr. speaker we’re petroleum companies have exhausted the oil and gas then leave the huge cost of decommissioning to the taxpayer and this bill addresses that problem the bill also tackles the problems of those thousands of unnecessary consents that caused so much frustration and cost for constituents I’ve got an example right now and now some of the Rutherford Street kindergarten moving just 100 meters up the road to new premises and the parents and the kindy committee having to fundraise for over fifty thousand dollars of resource consent and related costs I could bore this Parliament for hours with examples of minor projects like dicks and carpals actually costing more to get a resource consent than they actually cost to build these issues are addressed with this bill with the power for a council to be able to wave of the need for the consent the new ten-day fast-track process for minor issues and the ability to resolve boundary infringement rules issues that can only be resolved with the consent of the immediate neighbour the e we participation arrangements and the Spiller about a make existing provisions and the RNA and section six seven and eight more workable it will enable councils to work out practical ways for Erie to participate in the process and help the system work better by getting early involvement the law is plain that decisions on plans and consents remains with the council’s and the council’s cannot be forced into agreements there are many councils that already have such arrangements and they are proving to work well for both ewee and resource consent applicants as a consequence of greater clarity about who to consult and what issues are of importance to ear we there are dozens of practical provisions in this bill that will reduce bureaucracy and red tape it tackles the problem of the RMA being used by councils to duplicate the issues that are already regulated in other statutes like building insulation standards telecommunications regulations fishing laws which place safety requirements or hazardous substance rules we need a regulatory system that leaves no gaps but which also avoids double ups the changes for the reserves act and the Conservation Act align notification periods and enable joint hearing so we won’t have the two separate processes debating the same project Mr Speaker I need to conclude by acknowledging the mountain of work that has gone to this bill over many years I particularly want to acknowledge Amy Adams the former minister who during the last term of Parliament put huge work into its provisions to Scott Simpson who worked honestly and cheering the Select Committee to tour our flevoland Maremma fox and their team in the Maori Party who worked so hard to find compromises and 22 minutes and George Radel in my beehive office as well as the teams from PC oh and the ministry for the environment the passage of this resource legislation bill is a significant milestone for this government it delivers on reforms planned and promised over many years it will make houses easier to build and more affordable it will reduce unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy for Kiwi homeowners for farms and for businesses it will help our country build the infrastructure to support a growing economy it will ensure our country is safer by better managing those natural hazards this bill is a litmus test that MPs as to whether their intent is playing politics or doing what is right for our country I urge this Parliament to pass this complex but very necessary reform the questioners of the emotion be agreed to point of order crush Afghans point of order mr. speaker in 2011 the Standing Orders committee made some determinations and recommendations to the house around the reading of speeches one of those was that the speaker is the sole determinant of whether someone should be allowed to read a speech but the other was that a minister should be given greater latitude to read a speech we’re there dealing with our meters of a technical nature I haven’t interrupted the minister because I recognize that the sole right to determine that someone can or can’t read a speech is yours but if a minister is going to use the right to read a speech to read out a litany of abuse against other members then that is going to bring the principles that the Standing Orders committee discussed and disseminated to do remember the presiding officers I think the member for his points I am the sole determinant as you identified as to the reading of speeches The ministers and clarifying the position that the minister has been involved in under his name has some latitude to read from its notes and that’s always been an accepted practice in this house and I lot very closely at the reading of speeches and I’m now going to call the Honorable doc mr. speaker as I said you point it is any point of order mr. speaker crab comes viewpoint or mr. speaker can you clarify the basis on which ministers are allowed to prove be in the soldierz easel I well if there’d been some assault on a member i insult sorry I didn’t actually pick that up that this is this is a debating chamber in the in this being a robust paid over the last few over the last couple of days in the committee stages there have been no points of order brought up about insults against other members I’ve looked very closely i presided over much of the committee stages and I listened very clearly to the debate now that’s my Rawdon i’m calling on the Honorable David Parker Thank you Thank You mr. speaker Mr Speaker we heard it again from the minister and I think it’s got to be said that the

Leave a Reply

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