Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1492] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I commence my speech by emphasising to the House that in my view the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our law books. Without the Resource Management Act we would be bereft of legislation that would stop inappropriate development to the detriment of the environment. It is worth recording that the Act was developed in principle by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and I do not think many people doubt the intellect of Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I think it is pretty clear now that the environmental principles that lie at the heart of Part 1 and Part 2 of the Act are left untouched by this amendment and I thank the National Government for that. The Act was passed by National. It has been periodically updated and it remains fundamentally sound legislation which ought not to be thrown out. 
I will say something about some of the claims that changes to the Act will somehow double New Zealand’s economic growth or will have a significant impact on economic growth. I challenge that assertion. The reality is that New Zealand has come through a period of strong growth in the past decade—as was acknowledged by the Hon Bill English yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and during that period there have been unparalleled levels of private investment in property. Houses and buildings have been built from Bluff to the top of New Zealand and all were consented to under the Act. The biggest hospital and school-building programme that this country has seen for many decades was consented to under the Act. Prisons have been built which are very difficult to get consent for. There are some problems around gaining consent for prisons but even they have been built under the Act. So the Act has not held back spending. 
There has been a cry that the Act has held back infrastructure spending. Well that again is wrong. What held back infrastructure spending in earlier years was not the Act; it was actually a lack of money. Money was not being spent on infrastructure. When the tap was turned on by the previous Labour Government spending on public infrastructure increased dramatically and it was all consented to under the Act. Transport expenditure under the previous National Government was around 1 percent of GDP. GDP grew very greatly under Labour but on top of that the percentage of GDP that was spent on transport infrastructure increased from 1 percent to 1.6 percent. All of those projects were consented to under the Act. 
Electricity transmission expenditure during the 1990s ran at around $50 million per annum. It is now up to $500 million per annum all for projects consented to under the Act. It is true that there were insufficient numbers of generation projects consented to and that because of some delays in respect of some proposals we had a tight patch there. That is true but that is because the electricity companies were not planning to build increased generation. That was their mistake; it was not the fault of the Act. In recent years we have got ahead in the consenting for electricity generation and we are now building renewables. We are building them at a faster rate than the rate of growth in electricity demand and they are all being consented to under the Act. There are many years of projects out there ahead of us that have already been consented to so the processes required under the Act are not holding up investment in electricity generation now. 
Having said that I actually concur with the Hon Dr Nick Smith in respect of his concern about what I think is a fundamental problem with the Act at the moment—that is how long it takes to complete plan processes. It is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of the Act that the plans promoted by local and regional councils can be promoted in a timely fashion that there is appropriate public input but that the plans can none the less be brought to fruition and put into effect within a reasonable period. I accept that the current processes need improvement. I think that some of the averages that are spoken about are slightly historic in that they are for the first plans under the Act. They will be changed in the future rather than started from ground zero. The averages even with the Act left untouched would decrease quite naturally if there were no change. 
I also take issue with Mr Brownlee’s statements in respect of the renewal of consents. The fact that those renewals took so long was an indictment on all those involved but actually did not prejudice those who had the existing consent because the existing consent if there is one continues during the period of renewal. That is probably why the holders of consents were not pushing very hard to bring renewals to a conclusion. 
I accept that there is a need to improve plan change processes but I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that I am worried about appeal rights. I think it is very very important that people have the ability to appeal plan changes. We have a long history of proven instances of very poorly drafted plans that are sometimes far too complex and sometimes without environmental protections. There are examples of that on both ends of the spectrum. Up in the north councils got into trouble by trying to prescribe environmental controls on everything and that was a mistake. We had problems in Queenstown where there was no effective environmental protection for landscapes against inappropriate subdivision. Both of those plans were fixed only because of the right of individuals to appeal to the Environment Court and the Environment Court fixed those problems. So we have to look very carefully at that point. 
In terms of the call-in process I congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith because my worry here was that the environmental test in the improved processes under call-ins would be diluted. That would have been a quite inappropriate dilution of the environmental safeguards under the Act. I am quite happy with the changes that have been made to the call-in process by and large. I think that the Minister has preserved the essence of the environmental test. I sat with the member and Jeanette Fitzsimons a few years ago when we considered the call-in process and we introduced an important control: that it had to be chaired by an Environment Court judge or a retired judge. That too is being preserved and it is a very important protection of the environmental integrity of the scheme of the Act. 
I am somewhat less concerned about some constrained appeal rights around plans that give effect to national policy statements but the devil of that is in the detail. Of course we have to make sure that the councils cannot chuck everything into the plan ostensibly to give effect to a national policy statement and still not give people the right to appeal. So I think that issue requires some consideration too. 
In terms of direct referrals to the Environment Court I congratulate the member on diluting some of the earlier proposals whereby the applicant was to have elected whether the referral went directly to the Environment Court. Including a provision that the council has to agree that that is appropriate is I think a very sensible safeguard if the member wants to have more direct referrals and involve applicants in that way. I do wonder whether there should not be some reciprocity there. If objectors and the council agree that a matter ought to go directly to the Environment Court why should that not be possible given that it is possible for applicants to refer it there with the consent of the council? I can see situations where that would be appropriate. A council sometimes feels deeply conflicted because it has so much involvement in an issue and in that case sometimes the matter should go directly to the Environment Court. Similarly there are times when these applications are complex and a direct referral might be the answer particularly where it was undoubtedly going to go on appeal to the Environment Court anyway. 
However we have to encourage councils to guard against just being a rubber stamp for an applicant who wants to go on a direct referral to the Environment Court because that puts parties into a more structured forum where they are more likely to have to incur legal expense. Because it is a one-step process every stone has to be turned over and the process becomes more complex so we must take care that the habit does not develop that lazy councils—not that there are many lazy councils—effectively throw away their responsibilities and leave it all to the Environment Court. There is a need for some check or balance to be worked out there. 
Having said that I say to Dr Smith that I think there are some good changes in the legislation and I am pleased that he has up to this point preserved those environmental tests. 
I say one further thing. It would worry me if a change were proposed to the land-use controls that relate to discharges to water. There are some provisions in the amendment bill that I have read but am not yet sure of the import of. I will be checking to see that we are not giving away the point of control that district and regional councils need in order to exert appropriate influence regarding improper land use that degrades water quality. That is one of the most pressing environmental issues we face in our country.