I rise to speak on the first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. ACT supports this bill because, for too long, high costs and unnecessary delays have been pushed on to anyone who wants to upgrade his or her home, build a garage, or trim a tree. For too long, companies have been able to engage in anti-competitive behaviour by objecting to rival developments. For too long, local authorities and a tiny minority have held up positive developments in our regions. This bill goes just some way to redressing the balance.
I start my speech by talking rather generally. New Zealand faces many challenges. We have falling living standards and falling productivity, and over the previous 9 years the Labour Government made many decisions that led to very poor-quality Government expenditure. It was interesting that the Hon David Parker talked about roads all being consented to under the Resource Management Act, hospitals all being consented to under the Resource Management Act, and schools all being consented to under the Resource Management Act. Well, I wonder whether that former Minister actually gave any consideration to the cost of that consent.
I stood in the North Shore electorate. The people of the North Shore are very proud of its new busway. That took 10 years to get consent—10 years to get consent; 10 years of objection. I note that Jeanette Fitzsimons said the only people who will gain from this legislation will be the developers. I put it to members that the people who will benefit from that North Shore busway and from the public transport improvements the Green members are so happy to talk about are the people of the North Shore and the people of New Zealand.
Chris Tremain: And the environment.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: And the environment. The ACT Party campaigned on a 20-point plan to address some of the challenges this country faces. In particular, within that 20-point plan we referred in the sixth point to a total review of the Resource Management Act. I am very pleased that, following the election, we were able to reach a confidence and supply agreement with National—this very document I hold now. The three key policies we campaigned on, in addition to the Resource Management Act amendments, were a review of the emissions trading scheme, which was agreed to prior to Christmas; our “three strikes” bill, which was introduced into the House yesterday; and a full review of Government expenditure.
One of the things that happened over the previous 9 years of the Labour Government was that the increase in Government expenditure over and above the effects of inflation and population growth was $230 per week, per household. So the average New Zealand household is poorer by the rate of $230 per week. Nearly $12,000 a year per household was spent over and above the rate of inflation. So we have to make it easier to create higher living standards and higher productivity.
We had rising productivity during the 1990s and the early 2000s, following on from the reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s. But over the previous 7 years our productivity has been declining. The move to introduce these amendments will go some small way to improving productivity in New Zealand.
The bill is a first step in implementing changes recommended by the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group, which was established as part of ACT’s and National’s confidence and supply agreement.
The Hon David Parker referred to the fact that the Resource Management Act was introduced by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Just on a personal note, I tell the House that my very good friend Dennis Bush-King worked with the Ministry for the Environment in the late 1980s and worked on that Act. He also worked diligently—as did many other members of the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group—on reviewing this bill over the Christmas break.
All members of this House will have heard of instances in their communities where the Resource Management Act has been abused, and I congratulate Labour on supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. This bill will give the Environment Court real power, for the first time, to determine who is abusing the objection process and will allow for significant punishment. Stiff penalties will be meted out to those who are found to be lodging anti-competitive objections, which are common to the current consent process. Once again, I give the example of the North Shore. People on the North Shore should be very proud of the fact that the North Shore busway took only 10 years to consent, because, in the North Shore electorate, Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd would like to own a Pak ’N Save supermarket that has been completed but has not been allowed to open because of the objections of Progressive Enterprises. That supermarket is yet to be opened, and it may well take a lot more than 10 years.
The bill will allow for an expedited consent process for developments deemed to be of national importance, such as new regional roading and other infrastructure that is critical to our economy but has been held up for far too long by a self-interested few. A very good example of that is the North Shore busway. Under these provisions it is most unlikely that it would not have taken 10 years to gain consent, and we could have had improvements to public transport on the North Shore a lot sooner than has been the case.
Up until now ratepayers have had to endure long delays in having their consents approved, often for no good reason. I say to the Minister that we are pleased that a proposal from the ACT Party that has been talked about for some time has found its way into this bill and that there is a provision for discounted fees for late consent decisions. Councils will be required to operate discounts and keep a record of late consent decisions.
On that note, I tell members that I have some personal experience of a late decision. I lodged a consent application for a dam, which was an existing dam. It was built by my father and me in the late 1980s. The Auckland Regional Council, when looking through its records in 2000, found that the dam had not had a formal consent. So we applied for a resource consent and paid our money. Nothing happened. Then, lo and behold, 3 months ago the council got in contact with us wanting to grant consent for the dam—which has been in existence for 20 years—some 6 years after we lodged the application.
Another change that prevents local government from holding up consents will be the ability of local authorities to stop the clock only once when asking for further information. We have had instances where local authorities have continually gone back to the applicants seeking additional information to basically hide the fact that they are holding up the consenting process. Under the provisions of this bill they will be allowed to seek additional information only once.
The third change will see a requirement that councils close consent hearings no more than 10 days after the final giving of evidence. This will prevent councils and applicants from wasting weeks in limbo.
Other changes will help councils speed up the consent process internally, and the presumption of application notification will be removed. The weight of litigation that has plagued councils for so long for non-notification will be lifted.
Another problem that is all-too-well known in Auckland is the requirement that a resource consent is necessary to simply trim a tree over a height of 3 metres. Once again, New Zealand’s living standards have been declining, our productivity has been declining, and a huge percentage of resource consent applications are for things as simple as trimming a tree. The Garden City of Christchurch does not require automatic tree protection, so, surely, the trees in Auckland should not require it.
Finally, I hope the National Government continues to include ACT and other parties in the process, and I thank Nick Smith on behalf of the ACT Party for his willingness to discuss prospective changes to this bill. The ACT Party seeks fundamental changes to the Resource Management Act, so we are very happy to support this bill and we commend it to Parliament. Thank you.