Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22276] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The unprincipled rhetoric of that last speech can be unpicked by two simple examples. National will always scratch the itch. Its representative did so in relation to Maori issues in that last speech by saying that nothing in this bill changes the status quo. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He was obviously asleep at the relevant times at the Local Government and Environment Committee because one of the things this bill does is make it absolutely clear that no applicant for a resource consent has an obligation to consult with anyone—with anyone including iwi or Maori groups. There is now no obligation to consult. There was an uncertainty of law until this bill was brought forward as to whether that was the position. This bill remedies that uncertainty by making it clear that no one has to consult with anyone else prior to making an application for a resource consent. That change in the law is appropriate because we all want to have transparent procedures in this country whereby no one can blackmail other people to pay money in order to get resource consents. So Dr Smith on behalf of the National Party has misinformed listeners today on that important point. 
The other issue is that he said there were problems with great delays in dealing with applications under the Resource Management Act. That was the position 5 years ago but it is not the position now. Again Dr Smith was on the select committee when we met with Judge Bollard the principal planning judge of the Environment Court. Judge Bollard set out— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are far too many interjections across the House from one to another. I mention to members that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call and that practice has been going on far too often. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was true of my speech. I had a continual barrage of interjections—quite contrary to the speech of the Minister to whom we gave a pretty fair hearing. Now when the tables are turned and a Labour member is speaking suddenly you get all precious— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No! The ruling has been given because two members who do not have the call—you and Mr Samuels—have been interjecting on each other. You have been doing it far too often. I did not pick on just one person; it was one all. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I thank you for that ruling Mr Speaker and trust that that time will not come out of my speech time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Certainly not. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The second issue on which Dr Smith misled listeners concerned the suggestion that time frames for dealing with appeals on consents have not been improved. We heard from Judge Bollard the Principal Environment Court Judge— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I never said that. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member said there were still substantial delays that were problematic in terms of consents but the reality is different. Judge Bollard came to the select committee and showed us that the majority of cases are now allocated a hearing date upon appeal within 6 months of the date of the appeal. There are exceptions to that but those exceptions are cases where the parties are in mediation and are happy on all sides for the matter to be delayed. Apart from those cases the majority of cases are being dealt with in a very timely period. Why is that? The answer is twofold. Firstly a large number of plan references—or appeals against plans as people might understand them to be—that were outstanding have been resolved. Secondly the number of Environment Court judges has been increased so there are not as many delays as there were. 
The select committee and indeed the Government were faced with strident criticism of the Resource Management Act. The essential choice for any central Government on those issues is whether the decision-making process is delegated to councils with appeal rights to another body or whether decisions are taken at central Government level in Wellington. I for one and this Government believe that the current principle of delegating those decisions to territorial authorities is the right way to go. 
When the matter came to the select committee we had experimented with the idea that we would truncate appeal rights by limiting them to re-litigations of evidence that had already been given at initial council hearings. That had some initial attraction because it was thought that it would avoid going through the facts twice. But as was pointed out by almost all submitters be they territorial authorities developers environmental groups the Law Society or the Planning Institute the sting in the tail is that because only fewer than one in 10 cases goes on appeal we do not want to add costs to the nine cases that do not go on appeal in order to save costs on the one in 10 that does. 
 The problem we have to grapple with is that if we limit appeal rights so as not to give people a right to introduce new evidence on appeal then everyone is forced to go about their initial hearing before the council in a much more thorough way which requires them to lead more expensive expert evidence to take a more litigious approach and probably more often to employ lawyers to represent them at the first hearing. That is undesirable in terms of both the accessibility of the initial forum to lay people and the cost of the process to applicants and objectors alike. The Local Government and Environment Committee felt that that evidence was compelling and the Government agreed. So we have reverted to a position similar to what we had prior to this bill. 
But we have made an important change: the Environment Court must now have regard to the original decision at the first hearing. Until now the Environment Court has been able to start again and completely ignore the council hearing. Indeed on occasions the Environment Court has said that it does not even need to read the original decision because it has the right to start again and to decide as it thinks fit without regard to the original council decision. We have changed that situation by making it an obligation of the Environment Court to have regard to the original decision. In effect that means that the Environment Court will have to give reasons if it departs from the decision of the council. That is very proper. 
This bill does a couple of other things. It sets up a regime to deal with matters that cross boundaries and projects that are very large. The most recent examples are Meridian Energy’s applications for consents on Project Aqua. Such projects are so large and so complex that they are very difficult for smaller councils especially to deal with. Those councils do not have the expertise or the resources needed to deal with some of those applications relating to very large projects. So there has been a call not just from developers like Meridian Energy but also from councils and other interest groups to have some of those bigger things dealt with under a separate process. We have set up that separate process in this bill but we have taken steps to ensure that it will apply only Resource Management Act principles. We are not weighting it in favour of the outcome. 
The select committee made an additional recommendation to protect the independence of decisions on those matters by making sure that the decision-making body is always chaired by an independent judge. In this case the judge has to be either a member of the Environment Court or a retired member of the Environment Court. So a judge will always hear those matters independently with an expert board that will be well placed to consider the issues raised. 
Long hearings on big complex issues can take 6 months to a year and no one who is running that particular gauntlet wants to have to do it twice. We do not want a board of inquiry listening to things for 6 months and then an appeal right creating a similar sort of hearing again on the facts for another 6 months. That is a waste of everyone’s time and money. The appeal might reach a slightly different answer but I do not think it would normally be a better answer. So in respect of applications that have been called in and put through this special process appeals are limited to matters of law rather than re-litigation of the facts. 
The select committee heard about problems with the complexity of layers of plans where some councils have not finished their planning documents. The plans are the planning laws for the district. Some areas have old transitional plans—which were old town and country plans—proposed plans under the Resource Management Act proposed variations and proposed variations to proposed variations none of which have been finished. That creates layers of complexity and means that more applications have to be dealt with as non-complying activities. Even the most expert people have trouble knowing what is allowed and what is not allowed. As a consequence the select committee has recommended that plans and variations at the council stage of proceedings should be completed within 2 years of the date of their notification. That recommendation came from the select committee and it is a good one. I thank the select committee members for their hard work on this bill.