Huo Raymond: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12826. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I would like to follow on from my colleague the Hon Maryan Street and my Green colleagues and have a look at clause 13 of the Resource Management Reform Bill which is on investment thresholds. Clause 13 requires consents over an investment threshold to be directly referred to the Environment Court. This level will be set by regulation allowing it to be freely changed by the Minister for the Environment. Based on the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee basically there are two main concerns: one is a lack of definition as to what constitutes an investment threshold and the second is the regulation-making powers of this so-called “Henry VIII” clause. So there are two main concerns.It is unclear why an investment threshold is chosen rather than other measures such as environmental impact. Currently major projects that are not of national significance can go through a direct referral process and avoid the need for a council hearing. This amendment under the current bill is to circumvent the requirement of a council’s permission.I would like to take this opportunity to thank the officials for their great efforts and for their thorough analysis and advice. A significant number of submitters commented on this particular clause and I should say that they had mixed views about the changes to the direct referral process. Basically of the 57 submitters on direct referral only 22.8 percent were in support and if we are taking into consideration those who gave conditional support that probably amounts to 40.3 percent. But overall 22.8 percent of the submitters were in support and 50.9 percent of the submitters were in opposition.Submissions from local government were generally of the view that the proposed changes were an erosion of locally based decision-making and would reduce the ability of councils to make important decisions for local communities. They considered that the clause went against the philosophy and the principle of the primary Act and was a watering down of the role of councils. They considered that the discretion that councils currently have to decide whether to agree to a request for direct referral should be retained.I would like to cite some submissions to support what I just said and in return to support what the submitters wished to express. Basically as I said there are two general concerns. One is a lack of definition as to what constitutes the financial investment threshold and what constitutes exceptional circumstances. Submitters have felt that without this it was difficult to provide a fair and informed response to the proposed change. For instance Southland Regional Council wanted the parameters of a value of investment and exceptional circumstances defined within the Act and this view was held by other district and regional councils. Some submitters felt that non-monetary factors should be recognised in the threshold. For instance Christchurch City Council felt that the financial value of a proposal should not be the sole determinant of whetheran application is directly referred. There may be other reasons as to why a proposal should not be directly referred such as social and amenity considerations. Wellington City Council opposed the constraint on a council’s power to decline a request. It also questioned why costs should be the overriding factor instead of for example the level of effects number of affected parties or consistency with the district plan. I would like to continue with the Tasman District Council which felt strongly that establishing an investment value is arbitrary and not necessarily a good proxy for complexity or potential contention.Rotorua District Council raised in its submission a very important point and I wish to bring that to the attention of the Committee. Rotorua District Council recommended that the threshold be district specific. The threshold in Auckland for example may be quite different from the threshold in Rotorua. Environment and conservation organisations of“New Zealand Incorporated”considered that the Resource Management Act is an effect-based Act and it is not fair to others or to the future to make the choice of a process contingent on the investment. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council considered that it will require additional work for councils in assessing whether an application meets the threshold or in making a determination around exceptional circumstances. Otago Regional Council submitted that there is already a suitable process in the Act in section 357—the objection process—to refer applications directly to the Environment Court. As such the Otago Regional Council opposes the proposed changes and requested that they be rejected. The committee of the Auckland District Law Society stated that it was not aware of any issue where direct referral requests were being refused unreasonably by local authorities anyway.So basically there are two main concerns: one is a lack of definition as to what constitutes an investment threshold and the second is the so-called “Henry VIII” clause—the regulation-making powers. Thank you.