Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17380] 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for the Environment 
: Why should the public have any confidence in the latest reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991 when the New Zealand Law Society has stated: “Overall far from a set of proposals which will reduce costs and delays being incurred under the RMA the net result from our collective experience we have no doubt will be worse for everyone—councils industry community groups and ordinary members of the public.”? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The public has confidence because the reforms are timely sensible and well-thought-out. Dr Smith quotes from a letter from the Law Society’s Derek Nolan Convener of the Environmental Law Committee to me dated 16 September 2004. But the member seems not to be in possession of all the facts. Specifically a month later in a later letter dated 21 October this year which I intend to table for the member’s illumination Mr Nolan stated: “We confirm that as a result of ongoing dialogue with officials on the RMA reform proposals many of the earlier concerns held by the Environmental Law Committee appear to have been addressed or reduced in importance.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware of the public statement made this week on Tuesday by close Government ally Mr Dick Hubbard when he said that the Government’s reforms did not go nearly far enough to address the infrastructure problems in Auckland; if so why is the Government choosing to ignore the newly elected Auckland mayor? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of the statement inasmuch as I have heard it referred to although I have yet to see it myself. But I am aware of the comment made by the Buller District Council Planning and Regulatory Services Manager Terry Archer who said in the  
Westport News 
 on 17 September: “Where the hell were these things in 1991 when they introduced the RMA? It would have made it so much easier.” 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Did the Law Society have anything further to say about the reform proposals? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. The Law Society went on to say: “The committee acknowledges the policy decision made by Cabinet that Government intends to remove the mandatory obligation on the Environment Court to conduct appeals as a hearing de novo. It is agreed that this change could well lead to savings in cost.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How on earth will this proposed set of amendments to the Resource Management Act reduce costs and delays when the Minister’s own press release today outlines at length the additional processes involved and indeed describes the bill as “a package of measures reflecting a stronger leadership role for central government”; why should we not agree with the analysis of the Law Society? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The proposal will clearly reduce the length of time and the cost of the process. It can best be explained in the words of Mr Basil Morrison President of Local Government New Zealand: “We agree with the Government that more education is needed on resource management and the Resource Management Act. While many people may complain about the current Act it in fact compares well internationally. Compliance costs are 10 to 15 percent less than in Australia and we are required to lodge fewer than half the number of applications for consent than in Australia. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is meant exactly by “national interest” because his bill fails to define it and can he confirm that under the bill any application that he thinks is in the so-called national interest can be approved by his appointees instead of the council and with no right of appeal to the Environment Court? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In answer to the second question no. In answer to the first question the capacity to identify the national interest is the new element introduced in the package. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How will the problem of costs and delays with the Resource Management Act be fixed by allowing the 95 percent of consents or 47000 per year that are non-notified to be open to appeal to the Environment Court? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is false to suggest the Act is delaying the process or that development is hamstrung. In 2003 the New Zealand economy grew 3.5 percent against an OECD average of 2.2 percent. In fact growth has been significantly higher in New Zealand compared with most other OECD countries for some years now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. The bill introduced today includes a very specific provision that allows for consents that are non-notified to be appealed to the Environment Court. The Minister made no attempt to address my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is fair comment. The Minister will address the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Dr Smith is confused. The capacity to shift the appeal on non-notification is an Order in Council process available to the Minister under the bill. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is he proposing changes to consent hearings that will make it much more difficult and expensive for groups like the Cape Kidnappers Protection Society which yesterday won a decision to protect that iconic headland from a luxury resort development—which did not comply with the plan—thus overturning a decision by a council which the court described as having an uncompromisingly partisan stance in support of the proposal? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Nothing in the package of proposals would make that appeal process any more difficult. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister stand by the assurance given to the Local Government and Environment Committee by the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs that there will be no truncation of the normal select committee process as a consequence of this bill after its first reading given the bill has been introduced 4 months late by this Minister? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would be keen to ensure the maximum time available was permitted. That may or may not be the case depending on the operations of the House.