Sio Su'a William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6154] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Talofa lava and kia ora tatou katoa to members of this House. The member who just spoke Nikki Kaye said that she was concerned and she is right to be concerned. I have here copies of over a hundred emails that have come to me from Aucklanders expressing their outrage about a particular amendment in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Many of the people who have sent emails are from Auckland and at the very top of the list of people they have sent emails to is the name of that particular member so she needs to be concerned. The big question that people from the Auckland region will be asking her is what she will do about the particular amendment they are concerned about. 
Labour voted in favour of this bill during its first reading. The reason was that the bill could advance to the select committee process thus providing the public with the opportunity to participate by way of public submissions. National rushed through the first reading of the bill and Opposition members had fewer than 24 hours in which to consider the detail of the bill at its first reading. So it was important that public consultation take place and it was important that Opposition MPs were given the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits or otherwise of a large number of the proposed amendments as outlined by the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Labour expressed some real concerns about the detail of a number of those provisions. We also expressed our willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and public participation. 
Labour members extend our sincere appreciation to those who took the time to give evidence to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this important bill. There were over 840 submissions and we heard directly from about 339 submitters. Other submitters were heard via teleconference. Although there was support from obvious quarters for the Government’s proposed amendments the bill received significant criticism in the select committee for poor drafting and the introduction of unnecessary amendments which were described by submitters as confusing and too complex. I like other MPs in this House continue to receive emails from individuals community groups and small businesses outlining their strong opposition to particular amendments in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill by this Government. Later I will share with the House some of that feedback. 
The Resource Management Act is a balanced piece of legislation which provides for sustainable development local participation in decision making and protection for the natural and physical environment. Labour is generally supportive of ongoing moves to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act. Labour will support measures that reduce unnecessary costs and the delays and objections motivated by trade competition. 
The bill underwent significant changes during the select committee stage which highlights the haste with which the Government put together the changes to this significant Act. Although Labour supports improvements to the bill it does not support proposals that will rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. Labour believes strongly that we should not allow New Zealand’s environment to be degraded. Although we support streamlining the consent process we do not support removing the safeguards for protecting the environment. New Zealanders are rightly proud of our “clean green” brand and there are strong views in the community that the Government simply cannot be allowed to ram through its pet projects without adequate public input and scrutiny. 
One of the principles that undergirds the Resource Management Act is the principle of community participation. The Resource Management Act is about making sure that development is enabled but also that there is collective responsibility for the management and development of valuable natural resources and our beautiful environment. The Resource Management Act permits this by allowing communities and individuals to get a chance to have their say in the development of their local areas. It is important to ensure that communities and people that are adversely affected should be able to have their say. In fact the Minister said in the first reading of the bill: “No changes are proposed to the purposes or principles of the Resource Management Act. I believe that those principles are sound.” 
Labour agrees that the principles of the Resource Management Act are sound. However we believe that there are three key areas that if the Government were to go ahead with them would undermine these sound principles and ultimately undermine the democratic rights of local communities their rights to participate in the local decision-making and the need to protect our environment for the benefit of not only present generations but also future generations. Labour does not support the changes to the way resource consents are notified. Labour does not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in relation to restricted coastal activities. Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow local authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Labour is concerned that the removal of the presumption in favour of notification will undermine public participation and the ability of local communities to be involved in decisions that affect them. 
The bill raises the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. It raises the threshold for effects on the environment before a local authority needs to notify an application. The committee received about 395 submissions on this proposal and 75 percent strongly opposed the change. The main concern of submitters was that the changes would reduce public participation. The removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consent for restricted coastal activities will lessen the environmental protection of the coastal area under the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers allow the Minister to advocate for the public interest on proposed coastal developments. These powers provide an important environmental check on proposed coastal developments. Eighty-three percent of submitters on this amendment strongly opposed it. 
Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow for the general protection of trees. This proposal undermines local decision-making powers and the ability of communities to determine development in their area. Local authorities should be left through their elected representatives to make their own decisions about the protection of trees in their communities. 
I want to share with you Mr Assistant Speaker and with members of the House some of the concerns that have been shared with me and I suspect with many other members of this House. I have here an email from Amanda of Auckland. She says she is standing up to those who think they are king. She expresses her concern and asks that clause 52 be deleted. She says that we need to “retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have an email here from Tony of Piha who says that he lives overlooking the valley of all the old pohutukawa that line the hills. “Every tree that I can see from here is on private land. If clause 52 of the proposed Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill goes through they are all at risk.” Tony’s request is simple: “Please delete the clause and talk to the communities about what level of protection they would like to see.” I have here an email from a Dr Andrew of Mairangi Bay who says: “I request that you delete Clause 52 … retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.” I have one here from Wendy of Auckland who says: “Trees are an important part of the landscape and provide oxygen to the environment and hold the surrounding land together more than we might think. The loss of large historic trees from my neighbourhood would be devastating for me as well as the birdlife that live in them. Please reconsider the above clause.” I have many many more.