Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6173] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will make two responses to the contribution from Mr Parker. The first interesting thing in his speech was that he said he accepts that the current tree rules are an overkill and should be changed. He also said in respect of the other area on which he focused his speech that he does not necessarily think that the law as it relates to the Minister of Conservation’s veto is right either. Well is it not interesting? Labour had 9 years in Government to try to fix these bureaucratic problems with the Resource Management Act— 
Hon Members 
: How long? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Labour Government had 9 long years and it did not do it. When National becomes the Government and gets on and fixes some of these problems Labour members get into the exercise of trying to niggle over an area where they say the reforms are inappropriate. 
I will deal firstly with the coastal permit veto that is available to the Minister of Conservation. Let us look firstly at the powers the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister of Conservation has the power to write the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement—the rules that relate to the coast for the whole country. The Minister of Conservation has the power to approve or not approve every regional coastal policy statement. That is the Minister’s second lever. The Minister’s third lever is being able to appoint the people who sit on the decision-making panel. That is the third power the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister’s fourth power is to submit to the hearings committee on any restricted coastal activity. Beyond that the Minister of Conservation also has the power to appeal. The Minister has five powers and members opposite say that the Minister needs the power to veto as well. 
Let me deal with the veto. I have checked the numbers. During my period as the Minister of Conservation there were about 280 applications in relation to restricted coastal activities. People lodge a consent application and a whole lot of evidence is heard at the committee. Often those hearings take weeks if not months. The decision goes off to the Environment Court which potentially hears a whole lot more evidence. When I was the Minister of Conservation in not one single case did I see merit in changing the decision on a consent application but going through the process added on average 6 months to it. 
In fact I say to Mr Parker that since 1991 when the veto was put into law there have been only two cases in which Ministers have used the veto—only two. 
Hon Members 
: So why is it a problem? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members ask a very good question and if they can wait I can give them the answer. Why is it a problem? I will tell members why. It adds approximately 6 months on to the process. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does that matter? It protects the environment. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour members say it does not matter. Actually that is the problem. Members opposite do not seem to understand that time is money. An extra 6 months on the process does matter from our point of view. 
The other reason is an important constitutional point. Members on our side of the Chamber believe that it is proper that Ministers write laws and proper that they make rules and approve plans but it is not proper for Ministers to overrule decisions of the Environment Court. Let us be real here. How much time do members think Ministers spend considering resource consent applications in relation to the coastal environment? The reality is that the Minister will receive on average about two applications a week. On average each of those applications will have spent 5 or 6 weeks before a hearing. 
Hon David Parker 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is true. 
Hon David Parker 
: No it’s not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the truth is that if we take the Whangamata example I say to Mr Parker the reality is that it was a 9-week— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not a typical example at all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Mallard says it is not a good example. Do members know why? It is because the previous Labour Government got caught out. The High Court of New Zealand found that the previous Minister of Conservation Chris Carter broke the law. Chris Carter broke the law. One of the reasons for this provision is that a large number of New Zealanders said that it is not fair. It is not fair. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abuse. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague said it was an abuse but I would go even further than that. Let us read what the High Court said. The High Court said that the powers of the Minister are nothing like what Mr Parker said they are. Mr Parker said that the Minister of Conservation is exercising the powers of the landowner. He said that if the landowner wants the power then he or she can have it but the landowner does not have to have the power if he or she does not want to have it. The High Court decision makes very plain that the Minister’s powers are incredibly narrow. 
Hon David Parker 
: You’ve already said that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us go through it because Mr Parker and Mr Chauvel think they are the great judicial brains of the House and that we mere engineers cannot have a view on such things. I ask members to read the decision of the High Court because it shows that the powers of the Minister to overrule the consent process are so incredibly narrow that frankly they are worthless. If we are serious about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act then the power of the Minister of Conservation to overturn a decision of the Environment Court—which is not provided in any other part of the Resource Management Act nor should it be provided here—is not needed. 
The final point I will make is that removing the ministerial power to veto is what we promised to do. I know that Labour makes promises and does the opposite thing but National said we would remove the ministerial veto and we are delivering on that promise.