﻿Mr SPEAKER: Question No 8, Dr Megan Woods.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for the Environment:
Why did he announce yesterday that he is going to seek
the approval of Parliament to refer the Resource Legislation
Amendment Bill back to select committee given that so many councils,
environmental groups, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,
and the Law Society have criticised the bill?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):
Because reform is pivotal to improving NZ's environment,
to being able to build more houses, and to supporting economic growth
and jobs, which members on this side of the House support.
I will give you a practical example. The bill will enable
national regulations so that stock will not be in our rivers and lakes.
The bill provides for more houses being built by requiring councils
to release land. The bill will prevent billion-dollar stuff-ups,
like what occurred at Bexley when natural hazards were not
properly considered when that subdivision was approved.
It is inevitable with a bill of this size that it will require
refinement at select committee. The Local Government and Environment
Committee only received the 500 page report last week,
and I am at a loss why members opposite will not let the committee
consider that report.
Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Dept of Conservation,
which says that the bill will undermine its work and have
significant adverse effects on important conservation values,
such as impacts on threatened species?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not agree with that view.
If we are serious about improving our planning processes, this reform
is required. What I find so ironic about the Labour Party members
is that they repeatedly accept that the Resource Management Act (RMA)
as part of the housing problem and then every time we go
to amend it they oppose it.
Paul Foster-Bell: When did his ministry provide departmental reports
to the select committee, and what are the substantive issues
addressed in those reports?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill attracted over 800 submissions
that were heard through May and June, and on which the ministry
carefully conceded in its departmental report. This was provided in two volumes:
150 pages in August, and a further 500-page report last week.
This timetable is not unreasonable given the size, complexity,
and number of submissions. It would be impossible
for the select committee members to give proper consideration
to those reports when they only had 1 day. That is why the committee
sought a reasonable extension, and that is why this afternoon
this Government will refer the bill back to the select committee
to do the job properly.
Eugenie Sage: Why should NZers believe that this Government cares
about hearing their views on anything when National members
of the select committee would not even allow the select committee
to report back and would not allow the members of the Opposition
to have their report-backs reported?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The idea that the select committee would be able
to report back on a bill when it received a 500 page report
and only had 1 day's consideration— actually, it is members on this side
of the House who are saying the bill should be referred back
to the select committee so that it can do its job properly.
It is our side of the House that is showing proper respect
for those submissions.
[MEMBERS INTERJECT]
Dr Megan Woods: Was the reason the department did not provide
the departmental report for 5 months after the submissions were heard
because it was awaiting his approval, or is the incompetent delay
someone else's fault?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is plain wrong.
Submissions were finished in June. The first departmental report
was provided in August. By my calculation that is 2 months.
Dr Megan Woods: Why is he ignoring the submission of councils, developers,
and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that further changes
to already complex notification rules and adding hundreds of extra clauses
to the RMA will further complicate the RMA—the opposite of his stated aims?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That just shows the member has not bothered to read
the departmental report, because one of the most significant areas of changes
that is proposed in the departmental report is around the proposals of notification.
Dr Megan Woods: Why does he not just admit that the shambolic process
and widespread opposition to the bill shows he has got it wrong yet again—
another Nick Smith special?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government set out on two-phase reform programme
for the RMA and whether it be Transmission Gully in Wellington,
or the Pūhoi-Tūhoe roading project, or whether it be the Waterview Connection—
all of those projects were only able to be approved because of this Government's
RMA reform bill. It is rich for members opposite to make the connections—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called.
It needs to be heard in silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I was listening very acutely to that answer, and in the noise
I thought I heard him talking about the Pūhoi-Tūhoe road,
and I know he might have lost it.
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order!
The level of interjection has been relatively loud throughout.
I am now going to have to get tougher with one or two members
if I do not get any cooperation, and I think those members know
who I am talking about.
Subtitles by the Amara.org community