Hobbs Marian: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17981] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I found that last statement which asked what role central government could play regarding local government a bit rich considering that the National Government for 9 years of this legislation did not fund the support of local government in that area. It did absolutely nothing. I rise to support the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. The speech by Dr Nick Smith was sadly predictable. I had it reported to me. As usual he focused on process not substance. As usual he advocated gutting the Resource Management Act to allow unfettered development. As usual he talked about shutting people out of the process and taking decision making away from local government. Those are the solutions his Government put forward in 1999. We did not proceed with that bill which would have been disastrous for our environment. Instead we focused on solutions that would deliver for the environment for the community for business and for Maori. 
Since that time the National Party has always got terribly embarrassed by that. We did something it never did. We properly resourced the Environment Court. At the first meeting of the Resource Management Law Association I attended in Dunedin people asked me whether I as Minister would listen because National never listened. They needed that number of judges and those sorts of resources. And did we deliver them? We halved the backlog of cases. We ensured that new cases got to hearing within 6 months not the 36 months it took when Nick Smith’s Government left office in 1999. Unlike National we actually work with local councils to help them improve their practice. We have put an extraordinary amount of money in there. Obviously that speaker does not know what he is talking about and never goes online to look at the best-practice website. 
We have also produced the first national environment standards—those on air quality. Did the previous National Government do anything about that? That was in the bill and absolutely nothing was done. The solutions were all ones that were raised by the business compliance cost study. We have had results in that area. In 2004 there was a 39.2 percent decrease in environmental compliance costs compared with 2003. Our solutions are improving the implementation of the Resource Management Act without compromising the environment. The bill carries on that process. 
Environmental law always aims to strike a balance between protecting the environment and allowing development. We are not business unfriendly I say to the previous speaker. We assess that balance and ensure that it is correct in an ongoing process. The bill makes some sensible changes that improve on process under the Resource Management Act. I am sure the previous speaker is very well aware of the issues around transmission and what that costs. 
I have attended meetings up in his area with all those people and with transmission representatives trying to work out a way in which we can allow people to have their say and to work forward to some solutions but not to stop what is absolutely necessary for our power which is power we have put into this bill in order to facilitate the process. As it was under the previous legislation it left it and abandoned it. 
The most telling thing about Nick Smith’s earlier speech was his fascination with amending Part 2. He talks about providing work for lawyers but for God’s sake what would amending Part 2 do to case law? That part sets the environmental bar protecting our environment. The bill does not lower the bar. As I have already said it focuses on practical changes to get improvement and implementation without compromising the environment. 
Make no mistake if this bill had been put forward by National that environmental bar would be lowered. It is money and degradation at all costs. Development can take place anywhere particularly on the Nelson coastline at any time and without public involvement and that is what separates Labour from National. 
The bill ensures the public will have a say in decision making although it provides a range of processes through which that can occur. It has a variety. It is on solution mediation and problem solving and it is sensible as different projects have different requirements and local authorities should have different tools to lead them. 
I also heard members on the other side of the Chamber quote the Law Society. Of course they neglected to quote the Law Society’s latest statements in which they recognised that many of their earlier concerns were overstated or could be dealt with. The Law Society has now joined the mainstream of resource management practitioners in seeing these changes as practical and workable. It is only Opposition members who remain isolated in their outdated views about outlawing public participation and fast tracking development at the cost of the environment. This is a good bill. It is a well argued and well-thought-out bill and I commend it to the House.