Sio Su'a William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sio Su'a William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6250] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 From the outset of this debate Labour supported having this bill referred to the select committee. It was important from our point of view that the general public be given the opportunity to participate and give their evidence in such an important change to the Resource Management Act. We raised our concerns about the rushed and hasty manner in which the Government wanted to proceed with this bill. As a responsible Opposition party Labour also expressed its willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and that they did not undermine public participation. We believed from the beginning that if the Government were not so intent on showing off and flexing its ministerial muscles and its new powers as Government and that if the Government were genuine in actually listening we would have arrived at a bill that allowed for more efficient processes but still maintained environmental protection and meaningful public participation. 
Earlier in the debate a National MP from Auckland commented that she was concerned about her Government’s amendments. But when asked whether she would do something about her concern there was silence. Her behaviour however highlights a pattern that this Government seems to have well rehearsed in its 9 months in power. The pattern is one whereby it attempts to show empathy. Government members say they are concerned and attempt to portray that they are listening. They use the word “listening” repeatedly. This gives the impression that they are consulting people but the reality is that they will go ahead and do what they want to do anyway irrespective of whether the weight of evidence is against them as is the case in three specific areas of this bill. 
Protecting the environment and public participation in the decision making in managing and developing our natural resources are the two pillars that underpin the Resource Management Act. Although Labour supports the bill generally there are three specific areas where we are still in disagreement with the Government. We disagree with the changes to the notification of resource consents. We do not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making ability in respect of restricted coastal activities. We oppose the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. 
I want to focus on two of these areas and firstly say that Labour opposes the changes to the notification of resource consents. The current Act contains the presumption that consent authorities will notify a resource consent application unless they are satisfied that the effects will be no more than minor and that the approval of the affected parties is obtained. Unless the application pertains to a controlled activity public notification is not required unless a rule in the plan or proposed plan requires it and notice must be served on any affected persons unless the relevant plans specifically state that notification is not required. The Government is now intent on changing all this by introducing clause 68 which will alter the process for the notification of resource consents. The Government’s amendments were bulldozed through in the Committee stage earlier tonight even though 75 percent of submitters on this particular area opposed that clause. 
What does this amendment mean? It means the National Government’s amendment is designed to neutralise the Act and remove the presumption towards notification of resource consents. It means the threshold for the required public notification is raised and the threshold for affected parties is also raised. With this amendment the Government lays out a foundation where the potential for reckless and irresponsible development could take place by some unscrupulous corporation without that corporation then taking responsibility for any damage to our natural environment and with little concern for the impact on the lives of local residents and their communities. It would seem from this specific amendment that the Government is giving big corporations the key to unfettered and uncontrolled development driven by profit and taking no responsibility for any damage and destruction such corporations may cause to the environment and local communities. 
The public shares Labour’s concern in this area. Let me give the House an example of how this Government’s amendment is going against the grain of public opinion. The public is asking for more input and more notification of corporate activities but this Government is instead removing these protections. This week Sue Kedgley of the Green Party tabled the petition of Sharon Stewart David Collings and 1451 others. By the way Sharon Stewart is a National Party supporter from Howick. They requested that the House take urgent steps to prevent the construction of cellphone sites cabinets and electromagnetic radiation equipment immediately adjacent to residential homes preschools and retirement villages; to prohibit cellphone towers and similar transmission devices from being erected near educational facilities; and to legislate to require community consultation and notified consent prior to the erection of cellphone towers and similar transmission devices in residential areas so that telecommunications companies are required to consult local communities on the location of cell towers cellphone sites cabinets and other electromagnetic radiation equipment in the area and to seek to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearby residential dwellings and schools. The community is concerned about phone towers because of the potential health risks they pose. 
If Sharon Stewart David Collings and the 1451 others who signed that petition are listening to this debate they will hear clearly that the Government’s clause 68 goes against the thrust of what they are seeking in their petition. The people of Howick who voted National will be very worried by this clause and what it may mean for development in the Howick village. Without the general presumption either for or against notifications I believe that the public can expect more and more activities to be advanced by big corporations through this amendment without public input and without corporations taking any responsibility for their activities on the lives of people and their communities. Notification is important and as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said tonight notification is about participation and participation is the cornerstone of our democracy in New Zealand. 
I have also said that Labour opposes the removal of local authorities’ ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Clause 52 prohibits councils from using blanket tree protection rules in an urban environment. Clause 52 says that a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling trimming damaging or removal of any tree or group of trees unless the trees are specifically identified in the plan located in a reserve or subject to a conservation management plan. Clause 151 requires councils using blanket tree protection rules to get rid of them by 1 January 2012. Labour believes that prohibiting the use of general tree protection rules undermines the ability of local authorities to decide how their local communities develop. The community’s response to the Government’s clause 52 is simple loud and clear: “Stop the chop Dr Smith—stop the chop!”. 
I will share with the House some recent emails sent from concerned citizens which highlight why this message is important for the Government to hear. I quote Thea Govorko of Westmere Auckland who wrote and shared a very simple but very powerful message: “Trees are living creatures and we need them. Kids play in trees birds live in trees trees protect us from the sun and they give us clean air to breathe. Trees block noise and shelter us from the winds.” Finally I quote Tamsin McDonald: “I find it particularly abhorrent that clause 52 is supported by our leader John Key our Minister of Tourism. What a farce to even consider trying to promote a clean green image of New Zealand all the while sanctioning the wanton destruction of our urban forest. It is not only ludicrous but insulting to take the decision-making authority away from local government as clause 52 does. To say that clause 52 is a cost-saving measure is ridiculous. The cost and time involved in listing on council district plans the individual trees to be protected will cost so much more be so much more time consuming and is an insane alternative to our current tree protection laws. Hundreds and thousands of trees will be lost needlessly and with no requirement for replanting.”