Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4299] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 We in ACT—along with the business community of New Zealand and any landowner or property owner—say that the Resource Management Act has become the single biggest block to investment and wealth creation in this country. I certainly find that deeply regrettable. Indeed the Government’s own compliance cost assessment came to that same conclusion. Regarding the response the Government has delivered here today in Parliament not only is the content perverse but the process—the way the bill is being rushed through—is indeed very perverse. 
The point has already been made but I will reiterate it. It was May 2001 when the amendment was introduced and I would like to reflect on the work that Simon Upton did. I supported the 12 significant changes that Simon Upton proposed in a review process that went on for about 18 months to 2 years. There was wide consultation. All those changes I believe were necessary. However they were not sufficient. I would put them in the category of tinkering because I think more substantial changes were needed than those that were proposed. Then with the change of Government in 1999 that bill was referred to the new environment select committee chaired by the Greens’ Jeanette Fitzsimons and essentially everything was overturned. Then the Government left the bill languishing for 100 weeks on the Order Paper. 
It is a substantial bill. It comprises 18 parts and what we have here is a bill introduced yesterday tabled and having its first debate here today and now the Government wants to rush it through the select committee process in about 3 weeks. It says by way of background that the bill is virtually identical to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee—virtually identical; those are the words. But the bill comprises only two parts. The Government has condensed what were 18 parts down to two parts and just by chance there are 16 subparts. That means that there are only two debates. 
I know that United Future members are new to Parliament but surely they are not that green. Surely they are not that naive. They have rolled over on their bellies with their legs in the air and said: “Tickle my tummy.” They have been taken for a bunch of suckers—absolute suckers. For his whole time in Parliament Peter Dunne has championed the Resource Management Act. He has been the great “man in the middle” who knows all about the Act saying that nothing will get passed his scrutiny. I remember him proclaiming that he had managed to reintroduce “standing”. Well he has not and his party does not even understand what standing means—as we used to have it under the old Town and Country Planning Act. Let me assure United Future members that they do not have standing. If you sold out because you thought you had standing then you were hoodwinked and taken for suckers. You were sold a pup. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not use the word “you”. He is bringing me into the debate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I beg your pardon Mr Assistant Speaker. United Future members were taken for suckers. They were clearly hoodwinked and it seems right—even to this point—that they do not even know what has happened to them. That is rather sad in many respects. 
If it wanted to make changes the appropriate process for the Government would have been to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. What is the Government’s dilemma? Why has it left the bill languishing for 100 weeks? We know why. It is because the Government cannot get the Greens and United Future all of one mind to pass the bill through this Parliament. That is why it does not want to have 18 debates for the 18 clear parts because some of them would be supported by the Greens but others would be opposed and United Future might oppose some and vote for others. Rather than having to try to manage that the Government has just condensed the bill down to two parts. That is a perversion of process and I believe it is deeply regrettable. 
When the whole Resource Management Act process started out in the mid-1980s it was meant to streamline our environment laws. It was part of deregulation and meant to be a much-reduced process—a one-stop shop. It was the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. But something happened on the way to the forum. The whole process has been subverted and captured and we have welded on to it all these nebulous concepts of social engineering community goodwill consultation and metaphysical beliefs. That is why the Resource Management Act has become a nightmare for anyone who has to work with it. 
The administration of the Resource Management Act will be carried out by local government and regrettably the Local Government Act which was rushed through by this Government late last year will greatly compound the nightmare. We have abandoned representative democracy in this country in the name of participatory democracy. Now we have all this woolly-woofter endless consultation and endless process—somehow thinking that we will get a better decision if we consult with and empower everyone rather than having representative democracy. The two Acts working together—the new extension of the Resource Management Act working alongside the Local Government Act—will be a nightmare an absolute quagmire of woolly-woofter humbug and process. It is all about process rather than outcome. 
I indicated earlier that while I believe that Simon Upton’s amendments were necessary they were not sufficient. They were minor tinkerings to the extent that three major changes need to be made to the Resource Management Act. Firstly we have to introduce standing as we used to have in the Town and Country Planning Act—in other words the “Twigs and Tweet Society” of Gore cannot object to a resource consent application in Whangarei. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: They do not do that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: They certainly do. Nor should someone in Hamilton object to something in Christchurch. That is outrageous. So why not have standing? In other words unless someone is clearly affected by the application it is essentially none of his or her business. 
The second key point is compensation. I reckon we all value major— 
Jill Pettis 
: Some of us care about the whole of the country. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh absolutely. If society says that that bit of coastline or that river valley or that mountain top is of such significance that the public sector needs to take it that is socialism by stealth unless we pay compensation to the property owner. Where the public good requires the confiscation of private property then full compensation should be paid. We cannot have a law that allows a sneaky socialisation by stealth. We must respect property rights in this country and unfortunately the Resource Management Act is increasingly becoming a vehicle for socialisation by stealth. That is why the socialists over there love it. The more tied-up processing consultation they can have and the more they can confiscate and restrict property rights the better. So it all goes into this big package of consultation and public committees where they will all discuss it and talk it out and somehow the Government thinks it will create wealth in this country with that format. Let me assure the Government that it will not. 
The third and final change must be to turn the bill back to the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. We should not have nebulous cultural things like taniwha and hobgoblins or whatever appended to this legislation. It is hogwash to put into resource management law things like kaitiakitanga that are not even defined in the Act but that somehow confer guardianship on one particular group in society. Those are the sorts of problems we are getting in this country and increasingly it is becoming a vehicle for extortion. There are numerous examples where it is now an established process for extortion. It is losing its credibility fast and ACT will certainly be opposing this legislation. 
The Resource Management Act was already deeply in trouble. There was an opportunity to try to turn it back and get the trend on the right path. Unfortunately this bill continues down the wrong path.