Ardern Shane: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5328] 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) as have other National colleagues for a number of reasons. The first is that this bill absolutely abuses the parliamentary process and there is no doubt in my mind about that. Others have said they have never seen such an abuse of the process in some very long careers. I think the Hon Ken Shirley said that. He has been here for a long time and I agree with him in the sense that this bill first came into being in the name of Simon Upton with 16 proposed amendments to the principal Act. We now have a bill with two amendments both of them at odds with what Simon Upton proposed initially—110 clauses and 18 parts which have now been reduced to two parts. If that is not an abuse of the system I do not know what is. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee in the forty-sixth Parliament received 400 submissions travelled to seven cities spent 80 hours on the process and at the end of that process had a recommendation that was by and large changed by the forty-seventh Parliament. At that point in time the process was hijacked by the suggestion that the new Local Government and Environment Committee made up of members who support the Government—the United Future party—who were not on that select committee during that long process should not hear any further submissions particularly around the substantive changes that were made. 
I would like somebody in the Government to tell us how that is not an abuse of Parliament an abuse of this process and an abuse of the 400 people who chose to submit. The United Future party should sit down with the Greens at some stage I suggest and ask some questions about how to negotiate with a Government that one is supporting. The Greens I would suggest to United Future knew how to do that and got much better deals with regard to trade-offs than United Future has in this instance. During the last election they campaigned up and down the country and like some of my colleagues I spent a lot of time on platforms up and down the electorate with United Future party members talking about how they were going to bring about amendments to the Resource Management Act. If they have not rolled over in this instance then somebody should suggest to me where there is an example of somebody rolling over. They have absolutely gone back on what they campaigned on and have not delivered in any way on what they promised the electorate when they said United Future was the common-sense party and would bring about amendments particularly to the Resource Management Act that would make development in business and job creation in this country so much easier. 
The Government itself allowed these amendments to sit on the Order Paper for 100 weeks. That shows members how much priority the Government has given this legislation. This single issue was raised at every political meeting. I cannot believe that the Cabinet Ministers who went to political meetings during that campaign did not have exactly the same issues raised. One can only conclude that they have totally ignored the overwhelming view of those who were at those meetings who said that the Resource Management Act was the single biggest barrier to growth and development in this country and the single biggest issue. 
The Owen McShane report brought forward 12 recommendations. Simon Upton had a look at them and changed them to 16 recommendations in terms of the legislation that was in place. The Resource Management Act itself when it was first introduced by National was hailed as very significant legislation. In fact I think it was said to have been the best world-class environmental legislation at the time. The way that legislation has been abused is an absolute indictment I have to say on local authorities and New Zealanders at large. It was enabling legislation and the way it has been abused is something that I guess would be a lesson for most members of Parliament in terms of putting in place enabling legislation. 
It was interesting to listen to David Parker the member for Otago a few minutes ago talking about the ”think big” projects and in particular the Clyde Dam where people’s private property rights were trampled over by previous Governments. To some extent he is absolutely right. That is what did happen and that is where the Resource Management Act came from. As a response the Resource Management Act was created. 
But let us have a look at how stupid it is today. The Clyde Dam just recently had to go through a full consent process to have its consent renewed to allow it to continue to generate electricity. I say to the Government that if the Clyde Dam had had its consent revoked how would the energy crisis in this country be solved today? If the Clyde Dam had been put through that absolutely nonsensical expensive process how would it proceed to generate electricity if its consent had been withdrawn? How could that happen? The Minister should take a call and explain to us how that process is sensible and why it should be allowed to continue. This bill is the most nonsensical legislation that has come before Parliament in recent history. 
Let us just have a look at some of the suggestions that were put forward by the various groups that submitted. Federated Farmers submitted that the legislation will slow progress and particularly with regard to the heritage provisions will substantially increase costs to our primary industries up and down the country. There are examples after examples of that. The collective of the mayors of Auckland said I think to a person including Bob Harvey that this legislation will slow down progress with regard to fixing Auckland’s roading problems. Here we have a Government on one hand charging extra taxes and putting in place a whole lot of extra cost to industry right across New Zealand to fix the undoubted problems we have in Auckland and then on the other hand passing legislation that is seen as the single biggest barrier to that situation being overcome. How can that be? How can we comprehend that the two things could happen in one go? 
Subpart 2 outlines the principles and purposes of the bill. I ask the House if the principles and purposes of the bill are put in a subpart what would be put in a whole part? What would be significant enough to go into a part if a subpart is the principles and the purposes of the bill? That is a question that absolutely astounds me. I do not have an answer to that and I wish that one of the Government members would take a call and suggest to us how he or she thinks that will help in this situation. 
With regard to Sky Tower it took 6 years to get the consent for that to go ahead and it took 2 years to build it. That is just one example. Now some could argue that Sky Tower should never have been built and I am sure there were views on both sides of that but it is there; it did go ahead. It took 6 years and a huge cost for that process to be negotiated and for an agreement to be reached and it took 2 years to build it. That demonstrates how out of kilter our environmental legislation has become. The legislation we are debating here today will not fix that problem. In fact it makes it worse to the extent that those who wish to object to that type of development and others like it—whether it be roading individual development at a private level or significant structural development—will now under this legislation be granted legal aid to object. I suggest to the House that that amendment is clearly not one that is going to improve the consent process. It will actually do the opposite and slow things down. Carter Holt Harvey and others in the forestry groups submitted to the select committee in the forty-sixth Parliament that this process is flawed and should not be allowed to continue.