Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22283] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In 2002 New Zealand First claimed that the time was appropriate to thoroughly review the Resource Management Act. The backdrop to that of course was the work done in 1998-99 in the bill that is before the House. That review was not done. Our view then as it is now was that it was an appropriate time to see whether Part II of the principal Act “Purpose and Principles” was still valid and whether the 1980s thinking embodied in the Geoffrey Palmer concepts was still appropriate. Today we remain firmly of the opinion that sustainable management with its attendant goals and values ought to have been reviewed. Sustainable development now enshrined in the masthead of the  
New Zealand Environment 
 magazine needs to be aspired to. 
There is growing scientific understanding of the environmental costs and risks associated with the use of our resources. We understand much better the inherent tension in the impact of the ethical and value judgments in the Act and how they may not or do not accord with the property owners’ values and their right to develop and use natural and physical resources. We see and have seen the Resource Management Act as an enabling Act. My experience of the Act is that it has largely been so. It is an Act that allows New Zealanders to strive and thereby thrive. But others unfortunately see it too often as a limiting and restraining factor and look to avoid and mitigate rather than to use the express intention of the Act. 
When we looked at the legislation before us in 2004 we looked at the fact that it does need to have defined and clarified processes but obstacles and frustrations have become part of those processes and we need to ensure all affected parties have unhindered access to the consent process. That was the basis on which New Zealand First went into discussions last year. New Zealand First members were on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
The committee did well in its work in picking up a bill from the Associate Minister for the Environment that was ill formed and lacked clear direction in regard to what the Minister intended and throughout that time including the hearing of submissions the committee worked really hard. I pay tribute to the chairperson of the committee who has just spoken for her work and her ability to resolve some of the inherent difficulties that the committee saw in the bill as introduced. 
Therefore it is with considerable alarm that we see today a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper. I thought that for the first time the Government had got it right unlike the earlier bills we had discussed such as the Local Government Bill 2002 which passed through the House without anyone outside the House having a chance to consider them. I thought that the month between the committee’s final examination and deliberation ought to have been the time to have come back to the House to see whether the Government had had a change of mind. Four weeks and some days later on the very last day of the session we are asked to consider the impact on the bill of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The very slim explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states that it “refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee.” really begs the question of why the select committee was not part of that process. Why was it not the considered opinion of all parties in this House trying to develop a sounder bill than what was given to us? The explanatory note finishes: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” It really is something of a disgrace that a Government in its dying last days is endeavouring to persuade the country and the House that that is reasonable and fair practice. It is not and New Zealand First protests against the Minister’s intention. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill after hearing numerous submissions and made a number of amendments and changes to the bill. A former member of this House the honourable Rob Storey made an interesting comment. He told us in Hamilton that he sat for 4 years on the committee that gave birth to this legislation. He conceded that the bill was not perfect and that amendments would be needed as faults would develop but in his mind this bill as introduced gave him great cause for concern. 
 Despite the excellent work done by the select committee New Zealand First is of the same mind today as when the bill first came to the House. 
The select committee examined the broad sweep of ministerial powers—some new. It looked at the development of national environmental standards. The restatement of regional and district plans and policy statements were all examined. It gave extensive thought to local authority hearing processes for plans and resource consents and how these could be speeded up and in the course of that gave more flexibility to pre-hearing meetings which have always been available under the Act but have not been used as they could have been. The committee heard the concerns of applicants and councils regarding the requests for further information provision. That is a real issue for them. The provision was redefined and now gives new powers to hearing panels and provides for accredited commissioners. In other words the bill gives some foretaste of the known wish of district and regional bodies to have a higher level of skill in regard to hearings and indeed the whole resource management process. In particular we heard interesting comments from the Environment Court and they were taken into account in the considered mind of the committee. 
New Zealand First is still concerned about ministerial call-in of applications. Under the previous regime the Hon Simon Upton did it once. The insertion of another option as a major feature of this bill introduces some uncertainty as to the Government’s real intentions in the future—should the people of this country be so unwise as to put them back in office. The new provision was somewhat defined by the committee in regard to a potential board of inquiry. We spent some time ensuring that the skill knowledge and expertise needed must be part of a defined rationale from the Minister. 
When I look back at the policy that the New Zealand First caucus looked at last year seeking a faster speedier fairer process I wonder why I would not support this bill. In developing our policy we were conscious of the immense amount of work done by councils in formulating and formatting the present state of planning. We were conscious of the millions and millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money and others spent to put together plans. More important we were conscious of the number of local people who throughout the course of that planning period of the past 11 to 12 years had been a core and essential part of district and regional plans. Alongside that of course we have the definitive and abundant almost too many judgments and decisions handed down by various courts of the land about many aspects of planning and consents. 
So against that backdrop New Zealand First measured its response to this bill. We contend very strongly that despite the excellent work done by the select committee the final impact of this bill is just a modern version of the “command and control” approach to environmental decision-making. Territorial and regional authorities will be forced to accept overriding statements from central government either in national policy statements or in environmental standards and not in accordance with the matters that the Labour Party has talked so much about in the past with regard to consultation but imposed directed mandatory statements from on high. 
That is not in keeping with the whole history of this bill and the Act. It is not in keeping with the whole history of participation within the democratic process and an approach to public law that have been the hallmarks. Was there a need for change and has that change been properly expressed? The answer is partially. Are the people out there such as farmers community groups local authorities industry lawyers and the community who wanted change satisfied? Yes but this is not the change sought. 
New Zealand First strongly believes that in 2005 this bill should be primarily concerned with promoting the sustainable development of our resources which is about understanding people’s needs and the capacity of this country to further use and better use our natural and physical resources. New Zealand First as part of an incoming Government or with ability to be part of a Government’s future programme will later this year move to further review the Resource Management Act to better effect and fit the common good.