Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1503] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I like that: “Simplifying and Streamlining”. I would have called it just the “Resource Management Amendment Bill” because that is what we ought to state we are doing if we substantially amend any major law such as the Resource Management Act which was passed 18 years ago. As previous speakers have said the Act pulled together about 60 different pieces of legislation. It was momentous legislation and nobody argues about that. It heralded a new approach to the sustainable use of land the protection of the environment and the protection of the natural features of the land. 
I was very pleased to hear the Minister Dr Nick Smith say that the Government is not changing the fundamental purposes and principles of the Act. As Minister he will be travelling internationally and he will find that our Resource Management Act is the envy of many countries. I was in Bonn last year at the biodiversity strategy convention and was told that we were very lucky to have such a good piece of law. The Australian Ministers in charge of the environment water and parks also think it is a wonderful law. 
Perhaps this incremental change to the legislation is just what we ought to be doing with any such complex law. I do not think the bill is “fixing” the legislation. I take exception to the Minister saying that the National Government will fix it all up. I tell him that we will be back here in 10 years’ time amending the Resource Management Act because the dynamics of planning and local body politics will keep moving as will the dynamics of the environment and the need for environmental protection. 
I just reiterate that Labour is supporting only the first reading so that the bill can go to the Local Government and Environment Committee the public can make submissions and the committee consider them. The Opposition has concerns about the bill. 
I go back to 1995 when I was a raw new district councillor and was put on the hearings committee. That was 4 years after the enactment of the Resource Management Act. We had no training we had no resources and there was no rule book. We were advised by council staff who were only one step ahead of us and occasionally we called in a lawyer to help us. We called out then and I have been in House when Nick Smith has asked: “Where are you at with national policy statements? Where are you at with national environmental standards?”. Those are the tools that councils really need as well as a means to start to simplify processes in the Resource Management Act. The Opposition is not arguing about that. 
I remind the House that in 2004 the previous Labour Government did not sit on its hands and do nothing about the Act since its introduction in 1991. The Local Government and Environment Committee went through the Act. Jeanette Fitzsimons was the chair and I think Nick Smith was on the committee too. Labour introduced lots of changes to the Resource Management Act for the very same reason we are here today—to make the next incremental change which is right and proper. 
Labour improved the Act and thought we had got it right in terms of consent decision-making at the council level. We looked at things like why there were no pre-hearing meetings where we could get the applicants together and work out their intention. That was a good move. We may not have got that completely right. We brought in lots of aspects that we hoped we would be able to improve. We provided training for committee chairs and they have loved that. I think things have become better and processes are certainly faster. We put in more Environment Court judges. I attribute thanks to Sandra Lee who was very very determined that we would provide legal aid for non-governmental organisations like environmental protection societies which need to be the watchdogs for the environment. 
I am very concerned about this bill as we have heard from Kevin Hackwell the Fish and Game Council and all of those other environmental protection agencies that they do not want to see costs become a barrier to their taking part in making sure that they can protect the environment. It is only right and proper that we are now addressing the issue again. 
I enjoyed hearing that National’s coalition with the Maori Party has ensured that Maori processes in this bill are protected. I think it is about protecting and even improving the legislation. At the select committee we hope we will all protect those aspects in the bill. 
I will talk about some of the rhetoric that Labour members had to face during the election campaign on the Resource Management Act right around the country. There were some key lines: “The Resource Management Act is a dog and we will fix it. We will get the economy moving. We will have a brighter future and we will have a great push for economic growth.” The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill as tabled with 148 clauses is not the silver bullet to get the economy moving. It will be just as difficult to get those processes moving faster because the select committee will be hearing submissions. We will be reporting back and the Minister has not given us much time. He has given us only until June to report back on a very complex bill—148 clauses. 
But during the election there was so much rhetoric and it caught on in the community. Everybody blamed the Resource Management Act. In fact when one did the analysis it was often not the Act; it was actually local government processes and the capacity within territorial authorities to be able to interpret and implement the Act in the way its primary purpose and principles were intended. Those remain fundamentally really sound. 
We support the bill’s referral to the select committee. I am glad I am on the committee and we have great people on it. We will treat the bill very seriously. But I do state that Labour members on the committee would not support any proposal to rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of the environment. That will be the key driver for Labour members to ensure that the environment is not compromised just for the sake of a brighter future and faster growth of the economy in this country. We certainly also would not support any change that would reduce the amount of input and the scrutiny of those non-governmental watchdogs of the environment that we value so much. They must have a part and a role in decision making. 
We say this is a sound bill. I remind the Minister that we have not had any time at all to consider properly the 148 clauses. The bill is quite substantial. With the second part in terms of the technical advisory group I think it would be very valuable to get the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment involved. She has great oversight and that would be of great value. 
I will finish by talking about the powers of the Minister of Conservation. I think there is an emerging model in the UK where the powers of veto are not helpful for the Minister of Conservation in the role of the Resource Management Act especially on restricted coastal activity. I think we need to look at a new model that enhances and includes the Minister of Conservation and is not related just to the power of veto. We are very concerned about the removal of the power of veto as it was one environment protection step in restricted coastal activity. I think we will look at that during the select committee phase as I am concerned that those powers are being taken away. 
We will do our best with this bill on the select committee. I wish we had more time to consider it. I think it is rather rich that we are given 1 day to look at the bill that has been tabled. I think it is good process to see it and have more time. We were denied that. We would have given a very intellectual response and analysis if we had had more time. That has been denied us. We will work hard on the select committee and we will reserve our opinion on this streamlining and fast tracking of the Resource Management Act. I hope that processes are simplified. I think we all agree that we needed to do this next step. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker