Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6171] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister who has just resumed his seat the Hon Nick Smith said he had read the commentary on the bill and found no reference to Labour members’ concern about changes to the tree protection rules. The commentary on the bill makes the point that not all of the committee supported the prohibition on blanket tree protection. I will read from the commentary: “On balance most of us supported prohibiting blanket tree protection rules in planning documents. A number of us however regard clause 52 as amended as unsatisfactory and would have preferred a more comprehensive solution for protecting urban trees.” There it is; there is exactly what the Minister said was not there. The Minister has not even read the commentary from the select committee. He has made that same reference twice. 
I will return to some of the other serious issues in the bill—firstly the Environmental Protection Authority. I encourage the Minister to build up the capability of the Environmental Protection Authority with the Resource Management Act. In 2005 the Minister with me and Jeanette Fitzsimons was on the select committee that considered the previous major amendment to the Resource Management Act. We were somewhat dismayed at the quality of some of the drafting and some of the suggestions that came forward. With respect to the officials there have been similar concerns about some of the amendments that were put forward for the legislation that went to the select committee this time. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Resource Management Act is a complex document but there is a need for more capability within the Ministry for the Environment in respect of what is its core legislation. The fact that the ministry needs to do better in that regard is pretty clear from some inadequate drafting and advice in respect of both pieces of legislation. I am not making a political point here because the last time it happened was under a Labour Government; this time it is under a National Government. There is a need for better understanding within the ministry of the detail of its own legislation. If it does not have such understanding internally then it needs to contract it in. 
The second point I will make is in respect of notification. I agree with comments that have been made by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Charles Chauvel. The Supplementary Order Paper that has been brought forward today dramatically changes the notification rules from those that were reported back. Until now the version of the bill that came back from the select committee stated that if there may be an adverse effect that is more than minor then it had to be notified. Notification is the prerequisite to public involvement. If people do not know about something they cannot submit on it. 
According to the version that was reported back to the House people have to be notified if there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor. The wording now gets changed so that it has to be proven to the satisfaction of the consenting authority that there will be an adverse effect that is more than minor or there is likely to be such an adverse effect. Rather than it being a case of there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor there now has to be a probability that there will be an environmental effect. Councils will be advertising and notifying fewer applications as a consequence. Therefore people will not be informed of more applications that may have an adverse effect than was the case previously. That is a very significant change and I am surprised that it has been done late by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. Again that amplifies the point I made earlier in terms of capability within the Ministry for the Environment on Resource Management Act matters. It is a poor change and it is something that I would like to see overturned in the future. 
There are some good things in the bill which I acknowledge. There is always a need for housekeeping legislation. Again I repeat the point I made that this legislation is vastly improved compared with its first reading version because we have restored rights to appeal on the merits against plan changes which were absolutely essential changes. If it had not been for that change Labour certainly would not be supporting the bill with reservations. 
I will make two other references—firstly to the Minister of Conservation’s power. Under the existing law if an application is made that affects land above the high-water mark that land is generally owned by somebody and the owner of that land has the right to say that he or she does not want that happening on his or her land. The owner effectively exercises a right of veto. The owner or occupier of land has an effective right of control to say “No not here. It’s not right. It might be permitted under the plan but I don’t want it.” 
Under the prior legislation in respect of areas that are in the marine environment they are not owned by private landowners. That right of veto is effectively held on behalf of all New Zealanders by the Crown. That is how it should be. The Crown deals with that through the Minister of Conservation having a right of veto and being able to say on behalf of the Government the Crown and the people of New Zealand just as if he or she was a private landowner “No it’s not going to happen here; we don’t think it’s the right thing.” Of course the Crown should have the right to do that; it is one of the responsibilities of the Crown to look after the wider public interest in respect of areas that are being managed for public purposes by the Crown. 
The existing rights are constrained. That was shown clearly by the marina decision that the Minister relied upon in saying there was a need for change. In fact in relation to the marina decision it was found through a High Court review of the Minister’s discretion that in that case the Minister had incorrectly exercised his discretion. There is no shame in that; sometimes these mistakes are made. But it showed that the system works because there was not an inappropriate withholding of consent. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abuse of power. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member says it was an abuse of power. No it was a mistake according to the court. It was not some sort of machiavellian abuse of power. The Government’s response is to say that there should be no power of veto on the part of the Crown. I fundamentally disagree; the Crown is effectively the de facto owner—not an owner in the foreshore and seabed sense—controller or protector of those spaces on behalf of the public. The Crown should maintain that right. There are ways in which the mechanism could be improved. I agree that those decisions should be taken earlier in the process rather than waiting until the end of the process when someone has spent a lot of money on planning and probably spent money on engineers consultants and resource consent applications only to have the Minister say he or she cannot do it. I do not think that is good process. The Minister’s decision ought to be brought forward to earlier in the process. I would willingly agree to that. The Minister’s discretion ought to be retained so that the Minister on behalf of all New Zealanders can veto inappropriate developments in the coastal space just as I can veto inappropriate developments on land that is under my ownership or control. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect—to retain the veto—and I hope that members of the Committee support it. 
I will also make reference to the tree provisions. We heard Nikki Kaye wringing her hands and saying there is a terrible problem here. I am one of those people who think the existing law goes too far in the absolute prohibition on removing trees including pruning. The Greens have put forward an amendment which is supported by Labour that deals with that issue and allows pruning. The Minister represents the current situation as prohibiting the cutting or pruning of all trees. It does not do that even now. A minimum size applies before that rule applies. In any event the Greens’ amendment is sensible. 
There is a degree of overregulation now which could be remedied through the Greens’ amendment. It permits pruning but states that local authorities that want to control the cutting down of all trees over a certain size can do so. If councils want to do that why should they not be able to? If people disagree with those plan provisions they can appeal to the Environment Court. If the Environment Court disagrees with them they can strike it out as it often does with other inappropriate plan provisions. Why does the Minister feel the need to control that by way of central government limitation of the powers of councils under the regional district plans? It seems to me to run in the opposite direction of the one that the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that he is in favour of which is to delegate these proper powers to councils to exercise. The Labour Party will be supporting the Greens’ amendment— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: It’s just a nanny State. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a nanny State response; I thank Ms Fitzsimons. It is an overreaction. Having said that I agree that there is currently a degree of overregulation but the Greens’ provision fixes that. Nikki Kaye pretends that she is interested in the issue but she will not even vote in favour of the Greens’ amendment. They are crocodile tears. She turns up to public meetings says that she shares the public’s concerns and that she remains concerned and then she does nothing about it. She had a staged little comedy act with the Minister in the chair about how it will not be that bad but she will not vote in favour of the Greens’ amendment.