Delahunty Catherine: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Delahunty Catherine: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6214] 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou. Much as I love urban trees people seem to have got quite obsessed about that issue. I think there is a big picture here which includes urban trees that we need to reassess. It is about the actual future of the sustainability of the entire nation. In 1991 my colleagues and I came down to Wellington from Hauraki-Coromandel to participate in a round-table discussion on the resource management law reform process. We did our best at that time to fight for the protection of our natural resources and heritage. We were very worried that section 5 in Part 2 was too weak in its so-called balancing of the environment versus the economy because the entire Western World—and more—was obsessed with protecting the economy from any real environmental accountability. So we lost the so-called balancing act on water soil and air and these fundamental sources of life are so much more polluted now than they were in 1991. 
The Resource Management Act far from being a major brake on pollution has been fairly weak and at times downright facilitative of inappropriate development but it is way better than nothing the way it is and it does not need some of these changes especially in terms of community participation and decision making around resources. This so-called streamlining of the Act has done nothing to rebalance the power inequities between paid lawyers and experts versus volunteers from hapu and community groups. As a former environmental mediator under the Resource Management Act I have every sympathy for people struggling to get consent to build a garage but that is not what this bill is about or even what the problems are. If we want to improve the Resource Management Act then we should train the councils and the consenting authorities to work with alacrity and respect for communities. We should not pretend that a large wordy and unwieldy proposed reform of the Resource Management Act is fixing that issue. The Resource Management Act as it stands barely holds the line on natural resources and I totally endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons that the degradation of the environment means the degradation of the economy. I also add that the issues of citizen participation are vital and that this bill seriously undermines those rights through increased costs even to participate in hearings. 
My own experience with the Resource Management Act includes 15 years as a lay advocate in the Environment Court and 5 years as a Resource Management Act mediator. I have also had some very interesting days on the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of this bill. At the select committee hearings there were so many submitters who reminded me of my own experience. They came to our committee very well prepared with heartfelt submissions about the need for expanded notification not a reduction in notification. As a new member of Parliament and a very inexperienced member of a select committee I was astonished by the fact that hardly anybody asked them any questions except me because I have literally been those people. I have spent my life trying to communicate about resource management matters with people with power who can hardly be bothered asking any questions. What is more no one else on the select committee when I was there seemed to have actually spent a lot of time being a submitter. These members had never experienced being intimidated by judges and hearings panels let alone having costs awarded against them or their group unlike many members of the Green Party who have lived the resource management issues. Members can call us masochists if they like or public-spirited citizens but we are better equipped to critique the Resource Management Act than many people who have limited experience of being on the submitters’ side of the table. It is a shame that so many submitters were not actually listened to even if they were heard. 
I also rise to express support for a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the Maori Party particularly those of Te Ururoa Flavell in which he talks about the need to change section 8 and strengthen the recognition of tangata whenua rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also want to support the Supplementary Order Papers that refer to the security of cost issue and the role of the Minister of Conservation and many other members have spoken eloquently in the Chamber today about the importance of those issues. Time after time I have been at hearings where people have been at a disadvantage and this law puts them at a greater disadvantage. I cannot understand how we will serve environmental decision-making and resource management decision-making if people are at a greater disadvantage because of the threat of costs. At the select committee a number of people said that very few judges will implement those provisions. That is not the point. The point is that small community groups considering whether to go to the Environment Court do not want to be intimidated by the fact that they could be awarded security for costs. As a member of an organisation that was awarded more than $22000 I know that threat is real.