Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6179] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister in the chair Dr Nick Smith on taking so many calls on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to put his perspective to us and to help clarify some situations but I am concerned about the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consents for restricted coastal activities. I was Minister of Conservation for only a year but in that year I recognised that the public of New Zealand felt a sense of security because of that role of the Minister of Conservation. That role is repealed by clause 20. I think a feel-good factor was there about the Minister of Conservation being the activist and the protector on behalf of New Zealanders as a last resort. It gave New Zealanders a lot of confidence that the Minister would exercise that role; it was not used with gay abandon as the Minister for the Environment said it was. There were only two cases in which the role was exercised but I believe it is absolutely critical to have it there. 
I ask Dr Smith what we heard from Local Government and Environment Committee responses to the repeal made by clause 20. Eighty-three percent of submissions felt opposed to it. I think that says a lot about New Zealand. As well 76 percent opposed changes made by clause 83. I think this shows that New Zealanders do not feel comfortable with this change. Just having those powers there was a means of protection for all New Zealanders that they were comfortable with. 
I picked up another issue when I was the Minister of Conservation and that was the overlapping issues with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Many were still disaffected particularly in the Whangamata marina case about protection aspects of land that were subjected to a Treaty claim. I think we need to look at that issue very closely. One cannot look at the Resource Management Act just on its own take away the powers of the Minister of Conservation and think that solves the problem. It will leave a legacy for iwi with cases that they are really unsure about. Within some common-sense applications regional councils are over-exercising their powers without oversight of the Minister of Conservation but under the jurisdiction of another Minister—the Minister for the Environment. That really worries me. I think that power of veto was wonderful. It was not abused; it was exercised with due constraint. We may have got it wrong on the Whangamata decision but in the end the working through showed that the issue there was process. We always said that the process needed to be clarified. When this bill was first put before us in some rushed state we said we should look at the UK model where the Minister of Conservation is involved at the front end of the process for restricted coastal activities. That model works. But the Government is simply taking away the powers of the Minister of Conservation. I think it is a very sad day for us all in New Zealand. 
The Minister in the chair also mentioned national policy statements and the Coastal Policy Statement. One piece of work that I was particularly proud of was the work that Judge Shonagh Kenderdine got moving on the Coastal Policy Statement. I can remember when the Minister in the chair was the National spokesperson on the environment. He asked me several times in the House what had happened to the national policy statements. Well I ask Dr Smith what has happened to the Coastal Policy Statement. We quite rightly said that the report should come to an incoming Government but that was in November. What has happened to the report from Judge Shonagh Kenderdine which she prepared with very learned people who went around the country working on the Coastal Policy Statement? Where is that report? Why is that thinking not factored— 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s coming. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: It is coming? Here we are considering simplifying the Resource Management Act and we do not even have a major implicating instrument which is either a national policy statement or the Coastal Policy Statement. I think that is very dangerous. We obviously have to wait until phase two of the reforms and that is where the process itself really concerns me. 
We all said in our opening speeches that the Government wants to simplify and streamline the bill. We did not have problems with that. There are many aspects in the bill and the previous speaker was particularly bitter about the fact that we worked on so much of this and got it right. But we agree with the Greens and Jeanette Fitzsimons that we have unduly complicated and confused the processes. I think the powers of the Minister of Conservation are now absolutely complicated and confused. The Minister in the chair talked about five steps in which the Minister of Conservation has a role in terms of restricted coastal activity. What does that simplify? Is that what the Minister has done in terms of simplifying? I say to Dr Smith that other models could have made it so much simpler. I think he has made the role of the Minister of Conservation unduly complex and it will confuse applicants when it comes to activities that protect the coastal margin. We know that in New Zealand if we do not show due process and care for the coastal margin especially with the impact of climate change and also with development pressures moving along the coastal margin these restricted activities will become more and more fragile and will require greater protection. I believe that the role of the Minister of Conservation in relation to restricted coastal activity should have stayed in the Act. 
I remain very concerned about the overlapping implications on the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This bill gives us no assurance that the processes will be clarified streamlined or simplified. As a Minister I saw that that was particularly an issue for Hauraki. I think it is wrong to remove that power of veto of the Minister and say that five steps will assure the public of New Zealand that the coastal margin with restricted coastal activities will be protected environmentally. It makes it unduly complex. Overlapping regional councils all coming together to work on one plan is great but the Minister of Conservation is informed only at the end of the stage not right at the beginning. I think that is a big mistake.