Heatley Phil: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHeatley Phil: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17620. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I welcome the opportunity to stand and speak to this member’s bill in the name of Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I thank her for bringing this issue to Parliament and indeed to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We do have some bad news for her though. Although she put this bill tirelessly to us—and the select committee certainly did a tremendous amount of work on it hearing 27 submissions holding hearings inWhakatāne and Wellington—as a committee we came to the majority belief that in fact this legislation is not necessary. So National will not be supporting it in the second reading here this evening.National does not support this bill. We understand that the purpose of this bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances to 5 years. Those circumstances were exceptional in all the cases we investigated. The Environment Court confirmed this and we see no reason to change the law.People understand pretty clearly in New Zealand that National does know how important the environment is to New Zealanders and to our quality of life. It is central to our international reputation our primary sector our growing tourism market and of course our economy. We are delivering on our promise to make the Resource Management Act a law that better balances environmental protection and economic growth. The Resource Management Act is not a tool for extreme environmental activists to stop growth to rid the country of jobs and to involve themselves in economic destruction. It is an important law. The key factor behind our ongoing Resource Management Act reforms is a drive to ensure enduring outcomes while reducing the time costs and uncertainty involved in the process. That is of course what we are doing.So we came to this bill as a select committee and we received and considered 148 submissions from interested groups and individuals as well as three form submissions comprising 18 individuals. The committee heard 27 submissions as I said in bothWhakatāne and Wellington. We have examined the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and we recommended that it is not passed. That is where I will be casting my vote this evening.In regard to the water quality issues which were the sort of high-level issues that we examined we were not persuaded as a committee that this bill is the most effective way in fact of improving water quality. Rather initiatives at a national level such as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management are more likely to be effective in driving regions districts local communities catchments and individuals into making good decisions about what they do in their environment which eventually leads to effects on water quality.On the exceptional circumstances issue that was raised at the select committee and by the member Catherine Delahunty it was questionable whether exceptional circumstances were a good reason to allow discharge permits. Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act has been used only a few times and in each case the Environment Court has actually applied a stringent test and considered time frames. Each case has also involved detailed discussions about what constitutes exceptional circumstances including these considerations: something out of the ordinary or unusual or not typical a substantial investment projects that involve a regionally or nationally significant resource projects that of their nature rely on the use of a waterway and projects that will contribute to resilience to national hazards.That gives a very broad scope of consideration indeed. To narrow these things down simply to direct environmental consequences is not wise particularly when many of these discharge permits are brief and due to unforeseen circumstances. The committee also believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and ensure adequate long-term investment.In summary the Government’s resource management reforms are about ensuring that we manage our resources more effectively and efficiently to deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations. It is a balance. That is why we are a centre-right party. We look at both sides of the argument. We are looking for a way through to solutions and a balanced approach. We are not part of sort of an extreme movement on one side driving only one agenda. We are the type of party that you would like to run your country or your business or your family. We are not sort of mad-out on one side.The Government is currently in the second phase of its Resource Management Act reforms and addressing whether this particular section needs to be amended should be part of a well-thought-out Resource Management Act reform package. Section 107(2)(a) which this bill seeks to amend is rarely applied in discharge or coastal permits as I discussed before. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately or in a widespread manner. I mean case law examples of where the permits have been brought before councils and the courts are very few. It was so easy for our committee to dissect them because they were so few in number.Where section 107(2)(a) has been applied there have been only limited instances where permits issued under the section have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances definition and reaffirm conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. In other words when the permits issued were tested on appeal to the courts by litigants concerned about what was going on sensible people sitting in the judicial hierarchy looked at all the information and arguments and the science and took it upon themselves to make a decision that essentially said that all was well.In addition this proposal to limit the time frame for consents issued where section 107(2)(a) applies would have no effect on current consents. So there is no way to use the legislation in looking back retrospectively to consents that are already granted that the member claims there are problems with. This is not the tool for Catherine Delahunty to fix problems that she perceives to be in existence at the moment under current permits because it cannot do that. It cannot do that retrospectively. In addition it is not likely to affect many consents in the future given the current limited use of the section. As I expressed historically consents under these permit conditions are not often sought and not often given.National’s reform programme has been about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act processes providing stronger central government direction and addressing problems in areas such as infrastructure water aquaculture and agriculture. We are not in the business of making resource management law more complicated and more difficult for environmentalists businesses and Joe Kiwi to understand. We want the process to be simple and accessible not more complex. I am afraid that introducing legislation like this to the House makes things more complicated and difficult for people. That is not what this Parliament supports and certainly not what voters supported when they put this Parliament together to form a National-led Government with a particular view. I do say that we will be voting against this bill inthe second reading. I cannot commend the bill to the House although I acknowledge CatherineDelahunty’s work.