Nikki Kaye

[Second Reading]

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values, expectations, and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation’s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues, and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall, I think that this bill will improve the legislation, but I have raised some concerns, particularly about trees, as people will be aware, and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue.

We are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity, and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans, making decisions on proposals of national significance, preparing and implementing national instruments, resource consent applications, decision making, and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance, the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act’s reform.

I thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions, with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process, significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes, and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall, as I have mentioned, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection.

I will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation, including proposals of national significance, the Environmental Protection Authority, and, of course, trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions, local authority plan changes or variations, requests for plan changes, requests for preparation of regional plans, and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance.

The other key aspect of this bill, which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about, is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms, as mentioned by a number of speakers.

We now come to trees. Firstly, I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue, particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Point of order, Jonathan Coleman.

NIKKI KAYE: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Order! I am on my feet, and I have called order.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the barracking has got out of hand. Members are here, wanting to listen to this speech. Occasional interjections are fine and are in the tradition of the House, but I think there is an attempt over there to break up this member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I would have some sympathy for the member’s point of view had there not been a barrage of interjections from the seats just in front of the member. There has been quite a robust exchange, but the point is made: interjections should not be to the detriment of the speaker speaking. The person wants to be heard. I invite Nikki Kaye to continue.

NIKKI KAYE: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue is absolute politics. I want to use the “h” word, but I will not. Members on that side of the House—including Mr Twyford, Mr Hawkins, and Mr Jones—supported the tree provisions and failed to put in a minority report on this issue. There is no minority report. They are not interested in the policy; they are interested only in politics.

I personally believe that the current system of tree rules is fraught, and has led to individuals and councils spending excessive time and money on resource consents for trees. Most people, environmentalists, community leaders, and local authorities believe that the current system is not working. The question needs to be asked: how do we fix it? I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees without getting resource consent, which is what this law change will achieve. My concern lies in Auckland, and it lies specifically with the ability of local authorities in Auckland to adequately protect high-value trees via scheduling. Ironically, with the reforms in Auckland governance, scheduling may become easier, with one system for tree scheduling in the future. However, rather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister regarding my concerns.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We sometimes find in the House that men with very loud voices are able, despite the lack of microphones, to completely shout down women who are speaking, and I think this is such an occasion. I am not trying to shut down interjections either, but in my view this has gone a bit too far.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I could hear the member from here. I could hear her well. She appeared to be coping quite well. I think the sexist implications from that member are regrettable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Regrettable or not, members are entitled to their opinions, and this is a place of free speech. They are entitled to express their views strongly and robustly. I think that is a fair enough point. A point of order was raised before by the Hon Jonathan Coleman about the noise, and as long as people can be heard I am reluctant to stop interjections. I thought that I had left a hint for some members to ease back a little, but it was not taken. Before I invite Nikki Kaye to continue with her speech, I say to people that interjections are fair enough but not such that they drown out the person. It was getting very close to that point. Interjections are fine, but they should not drown out the speaker, who is entitled to be heard.

NIKKI KAYE: I reiterate that Jeanette Fitzsimons has worked very constructively on this issue.

Rather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister for the Environment with regard to my concerns. The question I have specifically put to him is that if this legislation is passed, how can the people of Auckland have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and areas of bush will be protected through scheduling? I have asked the Minister how he can ensure that councils will undertake this work in a consistent, efficient manner at a reasonable cost. I know that in the Committee stage the Minister will set out how he will ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that tree scheduling will work in Auckland. I choose to work constructively with local authorities and the Minister to ensure that that will happen.

Except for my reservations with regard to clause 52, I think that this bill will help to redress the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall, this bill will be good for New Zealand.

[In Committee]

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values, expectations, and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation’s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues, and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall, I think that this bill will improve the legislation, but I have raised some concerns, particularly about trees, as people will be aware, and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue.

We are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity, and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans, making decisions on proposals of national significance, preparing and implementing national instruments, resource consent applications, decision making, and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance, the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act’s reform.

I thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions, with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process, significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes, and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall, as I have mentioned, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection.

I will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation, including proposals of national significance, the Environmental Protection Authority, and, of course, trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions, local authority plan changes or variations, requests for plan changes, requests for preparation of regional plans, and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance.

The other key aspect of this bill, which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about, is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms, as mentioned by a number of speakers.

We now come to trees. Firstly, I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue, particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Point of order, Jonathan Coleman.

NIKKI KAYE: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Order! I am on my feet, and I have called order.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the barracking has got out of hand. Members are here, wanting to listen to this speech. Occasional interjections are fine and are in the tradition of the House, but I think there is an attempt over there to break up this member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I would have some sympathy for the member’s point of view had there not been a barrage of interjections from the seats just in front of the member. There has been quite a robust exchange, but the point is made: interjections should not be to the detriment of the speaker speaking. The person wants to be heard. I invite Nikki Kaye to continue.

NIKKI KAYE: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue is absolute politics. I want to use the “h” word, but I will not. Members on that side of the House—including Mr Twyford, Mr Hawkins, and Mr Jones—supported the tree provisions and failed to put in a minority report on this issue. There is no minority report. They are not interested in the policy; they are interested only in politics.

I personally believe that the current system of tree rules is fraught, and has led to individuals and councils spending excessive time and money on resource consents for trees. Most people, environmentalists, community leaders, and local authorities believe that the current system is not working. The question needs to be asked: how do we fix it? I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees without getting resource consent, which is what this law change will achieve. My concern lies in Auckland, and it lies specifically with the ability of local authorities in Auckland to adequately protect high-value trees via scheduling. Ironically, with the reforms in Auckland governance, scheduling may become easier, with one system for tree scheduling in the future. However, rather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister regarding my concerns.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We sometimes find in the House that men with very loud voices are able, despite the lack of microphones, to completely shout down women who are speaking, and I think this is such an occasion. I am not trying to shut down interjections either, but in my view this has gone a bit too far.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I could hear the member from here. I could hear her well. She appeared to be coping quite well. I think the sexist implications from that member are regrettable.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Regrettable or not, members are entitled to their opinions, and this is a place of free speech. They are entitled to express their views strongly and robustly. I think that is a fair enough point. A point of order was raised before by the Hon Jonathan Coleman about the noise, and as long as people can be heard I am reluctant to stop interjections. I thought that I had left a hint for some members to ease back a little, but it was not taken. Before I invite Nikki Kaye to continue with her speech, I say to people that interjections are fair enough but not such that they drown out the person. It was getting very close to that point. Interjections are fine, but they should not drown out the speaker, who is entitled to be heard.

NIKKI KAYE: I reiterate that Jeanette Fitzsimons has worked very constructively on this issue.

Rather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister for the Environment with regard to my concerns. The question I have specifically put to him is that if this legislation is passed, how can the people of Auckland have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and areas of bush will be protected through scheduling? I have asked the Minister how he can ensure that councils will undertake this work in a consistent, efficient manner at a reasonable cost. I know that in the Committee stage the Minister will set out how he will ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that tree scheduling will work in Auckland. I choose to work constructively with local authorities and the Minister to ensure that that will happen.

Except for my reservations with regard to clause 52, I think that this bill will help to redress the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall, this bill will be good for New Zealand.

[Third Reading]

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : Tonight we are debating legislation that is focused on protecting the beautiful country that is New Zealand. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard from 339 oral submitters, which took up 69 hours of our time in these hearings. The select committee process was very robust. During those hearings we heard the sometimes horrific stories of average Kiwis just trying to get basic consents. This legislation is dedicated to those Kiwis.

Officials have spent hours of hard work assisting our committee to improve this legislation. I want to thank the efforts of public servants and all of the submitters for their efforts to do that. I acknowledge my National colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee—the effervescent chair, Chris Auchinvole, Louise Upston, Cam Calder, Nicky Wagner—and, of course, I acknowledge the Minister for the Environment for bringing this legislation to the House. I acknowledge the individuals, businesses, and community groups that are listening tonight. There are community groups that have spent time and money on resource consents that could have spent that money on educating kids or spent their time on community projects like the farmers market in Grey Lynn.

The purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection and economic growth. It is a delicate balance, and at times it can be tough, but for too long this legislation has imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and communities. I am confident that these Resource Management Act reforms will reduce the time for processing consents and will reduce paperwork. The costs, uncertainties, and delays of the current Resource Management Act are costing New Zealanders jobs at a time when people most need them.

The current Resource Management Act has been holding up valuable infrastructure in areas like Auckland. This bill will go some way to fix that. It will ensure that projects of national significance will be processed in a timely manner so that New Zealanders and the country can benefit from them. Other than in relation to processing applications proposals of national significance, the role and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill but they will be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act reforms.

There have been some very important changes to this bill as part of the select committee process, and I think it is time that we acknowledge them. There has been a strengthening of the provisions to ensure the timing and efficient processing of resource consents. The bill now limits rather than removes further rounds of submissions on plan changes to ensure property rights are recognised, and it strengthens the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. The select committee also chose not to proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class as we believe that the transitional costs exceeded the benefits.

I think it is important to take a moment to acknowledge the Environmental Protection Authority. The establishment of this entity will be very important for New Zealand. I look forward to phase two of the reform, when the full powers and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority will be considered. Many speakers this evening have acknowledged the delicate balance between public involvement and ensuring that progress can be made in terms of consents. I think this bill strikes a good balance in that respect.

There has been robust debate this evening about trees. I believe it is reasonable for individuals to prune and trim their trees without a resource consent. As of 1 October Aucklanders and New Zealanders will be able to do that. It is good that that provision is supported by most of this Parliament. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment is writing to all local councils and asking them to report back to him to ensure they protect high-value trees for our scheduling. The Minister has also confirmed that he will assess whether they are undertaking adequate scheduling. He has said that he will make a direction under section 25A of the Resource Management Act if they are not doing that. This is a positive step to give Aucklanders confidence in scheduling. I believe that this will help ensure historic trees and others with special value are protected.

Some of my constituents have raised concerns, and I have had the opportunity to raise them through this legislation, but I am very glad that the Minister has shown an ability and a desire to want to protect trees in Auckland, as well. There has been a lot of scaremongering this evening regarding trees, but these provisions regarding the removal of trees do not come into force until January 2012. That gives Auckland local authorities adequate time to ensure that they have good scheduling in place. The changes in Auckland local governance also have the potential in the long term to make scheduling easier as there could be one system of scheduling across Auckland. I have worked constructively on this issue with the Minister and the local community to allay those concerns, and I thank the Minister for taking that step. I look forward to working with him on this issue and on other issues in the future.

Phase one was about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act. However, as the Minister has outlined, further reforms are needed to improve the economic and environmental outcomes of the Resource Management Act. The Minister has identified 10 related work streams. The first four work streams involve greater central government direction to improve the management of aquaculture, infrastructure, urban design, and water. I look forward to being involved with the Minister in those reforms. Our natural environment is a core part of who we are as Kiwis. It is a privilege to be in this House to support this legislation this evening. We are gifted as a country, but we must continue to be active to protect our natural heritage—our parks, our beaches, our rivers, our lakes, our mountains, and even our trees. Thank you.