Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5312] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The return of this bill to the House is a welcome step toward a better process for resource management in New Zealand. It has three important objectives: to reduce compliance costs to provide a better process for national environmental standards and national policy statements and to strengthen protection for historic heritage. Many of the provisions in this bill are long overdue. The process to improve the Resource Management Act was initiated by the former National Government. A range of proposals emerged from that process some of which were dropped by this Government because they would have compromised environmental outcomes reduced opportunities for public participation and threatened a key principle of the Act—that local government is best placed to make the majority of decisions on environmental and resource management matters. The lengthy and sometimes quite theoretical debate that resulted from these proposals hampered progress on other simple but effective measures. 
This bill captures and builds on those simple necessary and constructive changes in a balanced and comprehensive way. I would like to take this opportunity to set out a few facts about the process followed to develop the provisions introduced here. The Government has consulted extensively on the issues in this bill. Over 700 submissions with an average length of seven pages were received on proposals to amend the Act. Nearly 400 further submissions were received on the changes as introduced in the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999 totalling approximately 3400 pages with 215 submitters requesting to be heard in support of their comments. All the issues introduced in this bill were extensively canvassed in those submissions and subsequent discussions. Considering such a large volume of detailed input is no small task. I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee again for its constructive role in those earlier debates and for its efforts on the provisions that are new to this bill. I consider that the few changes made by the committee to the new bill are constructive. I support in particular the committee’s comments that for the purposes of limited notification groups representing relevant aspects of the public interest must still be considered “affected parties” by consent authorities. 
The committee has confirmed as appropriate the new provisions relating to national environment standards and national policy statements. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why those changes are needed and how they are intended to work. The Resource Management Act established a devolved framework for decision making whereby local authorities make most of the decisions on resource management issues. This approach is one I support as decisions on local development matters should be made by those most affected by them. However for over 10 years now local government has tackled implementation of the Act on its own with little guidance from central government on key environmental issues. One way in which central government can assist is through the development of nationally accepted environmental bottom lines. Unfortunately the existing provisions allowing for the development of such tools are cumbersome and unlikely to result in the desired outcomes. The changes introduced in this bill will provide a streamlined process—one that will result in a speedier more effective development of minimum environmental controls. 
I strongly disagree with comments in the National New Zealand First and ACT minority view in the committee’s report about changes to the process for national standards. The new provisions maintain current high levels of public involvement. They ensure that the minimum national environmental controls will not override more stringent local controls. They are designed to produce effective environmental bottom lines but if a community seeks strict controls then it may do so. The development of nationally accepted minimum environmental controls will lead to increased certainty and through this reduce compliance costs. The controls will deliver greater certainty to developers and communities about the environmental outcomes we seek. In doing so they will contribute meaningfully to the purpose of the Act. We expect to develop a package of national environmental standards and potentially one or two national policy statements. We are currently working with local government and other interested parties to prioritise issues that should be addressed in this way. 
The Resource Management Act has now been in place for over 10 years and during that time a significant amount of case law has developed around key parts of the legislation. One such concept the idea of a permitted baseline affects councils’ decisions about whether the effects of an activity are minor or whether a person is adversely affected by a proposal. As currently interpreted this concept means that councils must disregard any adverse effects that are the same as those of activities already permitted. The bill formerly introduced the permitted baseline but clarifies that councils may rather than must take into account the adverse effects of activities on the environment if a plan permits an activity with that effect. Through the committee’s review of the bill it has identified that its permitted baseline tests should be codified for decisions about both whether to notify an application and in regard to a final decision. The committee’s recommendations are designed to provide consistency between those two important parts of the process. The new provisions will deliver increased flexibility to councils allowing them to take into account the effects of other permitted activities where they are appropriate without unnecessarily restricting their powers of discretion or weakening the intent of their plans. The provisions will provide for a more balanced approach to considering consent applications and avoid the potential for plans to develop in an unmanaged way. 
The changes introduced in this bill although individually minor collectively allow for a significant improvement in the operation of the Act. They clarify provisions where necessary build on experience with the Act and provide a better range of tools. Most important they provide a platform for central government to work in partnership with local government to improve further the resource management process. The changes introduced here will result in a significant improvement in the operation of the Act without upsetting the balance between those for or against developments. I would also like to signal here that they will not be the end of amendments to the Resource Management Act. I am confident that these changes will help to deliver a better environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.