Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4293] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill includes significant changes to the way that the Resource Management Act operates. It has three main objectives: reducing compliance costs simplifying the use of national instruments and strengthening historic heritage provisions. The issues addressed in this bill are not new to the House. The provisions are essentially the same as those reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on the previous amendment bill. The main differences are the reintroduction of limited notification which was removed by the select committee; the removal of appeals of notification decisions to the Environment Court which was put in by the select committee; and minor amendments to the provisions relating to national environment standards and national policy statements. The bill does not raise any new policy issues from those previously considered by the committee. 
I have reintroduced the bill in this form to clarify what is actually being enacted instead of what was in and then went out. There is nothing in this bill that was not previously considered by the select committee and I see the committee’s role as only verifying that this is indeed the case. 
Before going on to outline the main provisions in the bill I need to thank United Future for its help in getting this bill into the House. United Future members shared this Government’s frustration that the useful and important reforms implemented by this bill were not proceeding through this House and have lent their weight to seeing the bill progress. Without their partnership this bill would still be languishing on the Order Paper. The Resource Management Bill has been there since 1999; it was reported back in 2001 and now in 2003 with United Future’s support the legislation 
in that bill is back before the House. 
My partnership with United Future members to address problems with the Resource Management Act does not end once this bill is passed. United Future members have raised other problems with the Resource Management Act and I intend to work with them to achieve positive outcomes such as reducing even further the backlog at the Environment Court and removing unnecessary impediments to major roading and energy proposals. 
The process to amend the Resource Management Act was initiated by the former National Government. The bill that emerged included a range of controversial proposals to reduce compliance costs including contestable resource consent processing and mandatory use of hearings commissioners. Such changes would have compromised environmental outcomes and reduced opportunities for public participation. They would have reduced the role of local government which is counter to a key principle of the Act that local government is best placed to make the majority of decisions on environmental and resource management matters. I am pleased to see that following lengthy consideration of that bill the committee recommended against those measures. 
This bill includes a number of provisions that though individually modest will collectively provide meaningful reductions in compliance costs. Processes for the ordinary tasks associated with resource consents will be improved. There will be a simplified list of matters to take into account when making decisions on resource consent applications. The number of rules in district plans will be reduced as new rules will replace the old as soon as they are beyond challenge unless councils specifically state otherwise. There is also a range of improvements designed to offer certainty to applicants such as clarifying the lodgment date and the effect of requests for further information meaning that time frames to process resource consents will be reduced. All these provisions offer improvements to the Act to allow local authorities to deliver better process without compromising the quality of decision making. 
In response to concerns raised by the business compliance cost panel the Government announced its support for further changes to the Act. One such change is the introduction of limited notification—a new method of processing resource consents for activities with minor effects on the environment. I want to say upfront that these new provisions retain the current presumption in the Act in favour of notification. Limited notification will be applicable only where the resource consent application is for a controlled activity or where the effects of an activity will be minor. As proposals with more than minor environmental effects will continue to be publicly notified I am confident that there will be no additional environmental costs borne by communities. 
This new process provides for reasonable compliance costs while maintaining good environmental outcomes and opportunities for effective involvement by affected parties. It will reduce the cost for applicants by avoiding the cost and time associated with a fully publicly notified consent process when such a process is unwarranted. I also want to make clear that the provisions do not change the definition of who can be an affected party. Residents associations and other community groups will still be considered affected parties and I say that I fully expect local authorities to notify community groups when consent applications bear upon those groups’ reasons for being. 
Limited notification does not undermine the role of plans and decision making. Plans will continue to establish the range of activities that are permitted and the issues that are of particular concern to local communities. Decisions about whether the environmental effects of an application are minor and who is affected will continue to be guided by plans and the extensive case law in this area. The bill formally introduces a concept of a permitted baseline confirming the existing case law established over the years. 
The bill also contains some changes that will directly improve the efficiency of the Environment Court. The backlog of cases in the court is already reducing and these changes will ensure it reduces even more quickly. The original bill as reported back from the committee included a new right to appeal decisions on notification to the Environment Court. This would have been a change from the existing provisions which allow only for judicial review at the High Court. The Government is concerned that the Environment Court is currently overburdened and this would be a significant new work area for it. We have recently invested significant additional resources in the Environment Court to help it clear its backlog but such an amendment would undo much of the progress currently being made. For this reason the bill introduced here preserves the status quo and does not give the Environment Court this new role. 
One of the main criticisms of the Act is that there are inconsistent approaches to similar environmental issues throughout the country. The bill as redrafted provides for a greater range of matters to be addressed through national environment standards and clarifies their scope and effect. It makes clear that where a national environment standard conflicts with a rule in a plan the more stringent of the two prevails. The bill also improves the provisions for making national policy statements by removing unnecessary steps in their development. These changes will enable central government to provide better guidance to local government and more certainty and consistency to business and the community about appropriate environmental bottom lines. We expect to develop a package of national environmental standards and potentially one or two national policy statements. 
To ensure that heritage values are accorded increased importance the bill elevates the protection of historic heritage to a matter of national importance. It also gives increased status to iwi planning documents by requiring local authorities to take them into account when they draft their own policies and plans. Clarifying iwi interests through iwi management plans will provide greater certainty for developers and local authorities. It also puts Maori in a position to participate more effectively in resource management decision-making. 
In conclusion the changes in this bill will ensure that the processes of the Resource Management Act work better without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.