Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6150] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to talk on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to place on record my view that the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. It is obviously important that we protect the environment and protect neighbours against industrial intrusions in residential zones. That is achieved through the Resource Management Act. 
The Act is cornerstone legislation. When it was passed by the previous National Government back in the 1990s having been designed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the prior Labour Government it was world-breaking legislation. It has stood the test of time. It is now 18 years old. It was passed in 1991; it is now 2009 so it is 18-year-old legislation. Although it is in need of a bit of an update and some housekeeping which this amendment bill largely achieves the underlying principles of having environmental legislation that regulates activity according to its effect on the environment remains sound. That is the underlying principle here; we ought to be preserving the environment so that subsequent generations inherit an environment that can sustain them in the same way as the environment has sustained us during our lives. 
The principles of the Resource Management Act remain sound. There was a lot of talk by the National Party before the election. One would have thought the Resource Management Act was why New Zealand had some sort of poor growth rate. The reality was that during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government New Zealand had a higher growth rate on average than Japan the United States and Europe and an average that was on a par with Australia which is one of the strongest economies in the world. So the idea that somehow the Resource Management Act was an enormous handbrake on economic activity is something that this side of the House has never accepted. I think history will show that after the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is passed New Zealand’s growth rate is not all of a sudden going to jump as a consequence. 
There has been a lot of exaggerated rhetoric from the Government as to the importance of the bill in economic terms. Having said that I think the bill makes some wise changes. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee with the agreement of the Government has changed an issue that I spoke of in the first reading debate which was the limitation on the ability to participate in appeals against plan changes. The fundamental rules that we reply upon in our cities towns and provinces relate to the rules that are effectively in the delegated legislation that is promulgated under the Resource Management Act. That delegated legislation is the district plans and regional plans that are produced by district and regional authorities. 
As originally promoted the bill severely limited the rights of citizens to appeal against changes to plans. In fact there were going to be limitations to appeal only on matters of law which would have excluded the ability of people to appeal when they had a matter of substance a matter of fact that they wanted to challenge. That would have been the most egregious change to the Resource Management Act and it would have severely undermined the effectiveness of the Act to properly protect the environment. So I congratulate the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith because I think he has made a wise decision to keep appeal rights in respect of plans. 
There are a couple of negative points that I must mention. The first relates to coastal permits. This was another of those dog-whistling issues where the Government said that it was somehow improper that the Minister of Conservation retained the right to veto coastal permits. These are developments that are proposed in the coastal area. If there is a development on private land the private landowner can effectively veto it by saying that it will not happen on his or her land. In respect of public lands there is no private owner so we are reliant on an arm of the Government to exercise that right on behalf of us all. The Government is standing in the shoes of the citizens of New Zealand to control what happens in that coastal space. 
The provision that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto proposed developments in the coastal area is but another example of the landowner or the seabed owner in this case—or the person who has custody of it even if he or she does not own it; given the foreshore and seabed debate I should be careful that I do not talk about ownership here—controlling what happens there. The person who is effectively the proxy controller on behalf of us all in respect of that space is the Crown and the person within the Crown who exercises that right of control is the Minister of Conservation. So it is quite proper that the Minister of Conservation has the ability to veto proposed developments in the coastal space. 
That ability to veto is not unconstrained. Principles of law have to be applied by the Minister of Conservation when exercising the discretion of whether to veto a proposed development. We have seen cases in recent years where the decision of the Minister of Conservation was overturned by the courts because the courts found that the Minister had improperly exercised that discretion. That does not mean that the rule that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto certain developments should be completely done away with. In fact that court decision shows that there were proper limits on that right of veto anyway and that there was no need for more intervention from Parliament to remove that right of veto. 
I for one think that it is sad that we are saying that the Crown no longer exercises its right to control what happens in that public space because I expect the Crown to look after that public space. I expect the Crown to let me veto what happens on my land but I expect the Crown to make similar decisions on behalf of the people of New Zealand in respect of the public space in for example the coastal marine area. 
I will raise another issue which is the fact that under urgency we are considering this bill and we also have Supplementary Order Paper 39 which is 45 pages long. I hope that Dr Nick Smith has the decency to smile in respect of this issue because that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the size and complexity of the bill is two or three times the size of the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the emissions trading scheme that we considered last year. I do not know whether Dr Smith can remember as far back as that but if he cares to reflect on the  
Hansard 
 he will note that he was here criticising that Supplementary Order Paper as being a constitutional outrage. 
A couple of comparisons should be made. For a start the proportionate length of the Supplementary Order Paper here is far far longer. The second point to be made is that when we produced the Supplementary Order Paper to the emissions trading scheme legislation we made it intelligible for people by producing a redline version with struck-out provisions in redline highlighting the changes that were made in the bill whereas with the bill now before the House we are effectively blind as to what the effects of this legion of drafting corrections to the bill are. We are told that there are no policy changes and that they are matters of technical drafting. Well I have to say that if these are not policy matters but are matters of technical drafting then it points to pretty slack and sloppy practice on the part of the Government. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He was going to change all that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is right; Dr Smith said that would never happen on his watch. Not only is it happening to a greater degree under this National Government but also it is whacking the bill through under urgency. We did not pass the emissions trading scheme under urgency. We used the normal processes of this House and to aid members we showed them that the amendments were merely technical and not policy changes. We produced a tracked changes version of the bill to show how those amendments were to be incorporated. We do not have the advantage of that good process on this occasion. 
I also mention a concern about notification rules. The Resource Management Act changed the old status quo under the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the Town and Country Planning Act one used to have to prove what was called status in legal terms before one could turn up and exercise one’s rights to participate in planning processes. The Resource Management Act changed that and essentially gave people who thought they were interested parties the right to turn up and have their say. The Government not only is trying to constrain that through the reintroduction of rights in respect of security for costs and there are arguments for and against that but also is going further. The Government is saying that in terms of the notification process that precedes the ability of people to know whether something is happening and therefore to take an interest in it it is changing the onus. It is changing the rule under the Resource Management Act that stated that on the balance of doubt notify. If there is any doubt one should notify.