Heatley Phil: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Heatley Phil: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22290] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I was as aggrieved as Nick Smith and the majority of members in this House to see Supplementary Order Paper 389 come forward today in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope without any forewarning from the Government not just to us as members of Parliament but of course to the general public whom we are supposed to represent. In it we see 132 clauses that cannot be considered by this House in any depth or by the public and we are appalled at that. Of course it is not the only supplementary order paper brought into this House—rushed in under urgency—this morning. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 388 again in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. I remind members in this House and the public who are listening intently to this debate that the commentary on the bill states—and should members who know what the bill actually does do buckle over in laughter when I read this out we will forgive them—“The bill seeks to improve the operation of the Resource Management Act by addressing problems with delays costs inconsistencies uncertainty and a lack of national leadership regarding the Act’s processes and in decision making. The bill seeks to address these concerns.” A footnote from the National Party is that the bill fails to do that. It fails to address the problems with delays and costs as it states in the commentary or with inconsistencies uncertainty and the lack of Labour Government leadership regarding the Act’s processes and decision making. 
I was appalled at the temporary member for Otago’s reference to energy issues throughout this country when he spoke some 30 minutes ago. The member for Otago who is a temporary member must have his head in the sand. I know that he is diverted by the fact that John Carter and the National Party candidate for Otago are out there door-knocking today in Otago in Queenstown and around there collecting votes—he will be diverted by that. The reality is that his statement that energy generation projects—those begun in the last few years—have improved under the Labour Government is absolute rubbish. All of New Zealand knows there has been a raft of energy generation projects and transmission projects put on the back burner with no decision pending throughout this country over the last few years. Companies such as Meridian Energy Genesis Power and Contact Energy have all put proposals on the table. They have all stumped up with the cash set out their ideas for where they would generate electricity and asked to be shown where they need to make changes. But there has been no certainty for them and there has been no certainty for the public. 
I will give just four examples. Project Aqua in the South Island was a proposal for hydroelectricity generation. There was no certainty on that proposal for the farmers the public and the generation company down in the South Island for many many months because of the elongated and bureaucratic processes of the Resource Management Act. There was the wind generation project in south Auckland which apparently was going to scare a whole lot of horses. Under the Act and this Government for months and months there was no certainty for the public the energy generation company and the horses in south Auckland in respect of that wind generation project and of course it has not commenced. In the electorate that I represent there was a proposal to put in a coal-fired power station at Marsden Point. The good people living at Marsden Point and Whangarei Heads and the energy company Mighty River Power have had no certainty at all of that project going forward because of the elongated and uncertain processes under the Act—absolutely no certainty whatsoever. 
Of course there is also the issue of the transmission lines into Auckland. For the landowners affected this Government has kicked the issue for touch by passing it on to the Electricity Commission which will not make a decision until next June. There is uncertainty for those landowners for Transpower for 1 million Aucklanders who when they get up in the morning like to have a hot shower for the dairy farmers who when they get up in the morning would like to think that the milking machines will work and for all the businesses in downtown Auckland that want to open up their tills. There is no certainty for them for landowners in the north Waikato and south Auckland area and for Transpower. Those are four examples under this Government of electricity industry projects being put on the table with the proposal and the cash but of there being no certainty for those affected or for the generating companies either. So it is a joke that the temporary member for Otago says that things have been going smoothly under this Labour Government when it comes to the Act. 
The National Party is absolutely delighted that it was able to make some major changes and gut the bill that came into the House originally. Originally the bill was tied up in bureaucratic processes that gave people more and more opportunities to object irrespective of whether their objections were vexatious or genuine and we had some effect on pulling back that bureaucracy. But we believe that this bill still just tinkers with the Act. A major overhaul of the Act is required and this bill will not resolve the substantial concerns over costs delays and uncertainty. We need to fix the Act. It needs a major overhaul not tinkering. National has come out very clearly and said that in the first 3 months of taking over the Government offices we will table a serious Resource Management Act bill. In 9 months we will pass that bill having given 6 months’ opportunity to the public to have an effect on the bill that we table. We know that after 13 years most of the country understands the difficulties in the Act and what is required and we will introduce those changes. 
For example we will prevent vexatious and frivolous objectors by doing three things. One is that we will not fund them to be vexatious and frivolous. At the moment the environment fund pays objectors to go to court. There is no cost on them and they can stop projects from going through. The Labour Government funds people to do that. National will get rid of environmental legal aid for vexatious and frivolous objectors. Secondly we will hold them to account. We will allow the court where it has been proven that objectors have been frivolous and vexatious to award costs against them so that they will carry risk when they object to a proposal for no good reason. They will carry costs if it is proven that they have objected for no good reason. We will also introduce standing whereby only someone directly affected by a development proposal can be involved in the process. It is easy to work out who is directly affected. It is simply a test-case scenario whereby someone is affected to a greater degree than any normal citizen. If people are affected in that way they can involve themselves in the process. But if they are sitting in Invercargill and objecting to something in Kaitaia then that will not be allowed. 
This bill only tinkers. National will introduce a bill that seriously overhauls the Resource Management Act and I can hear the country clapping from inside this House.