Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9597] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill has been required for some time and it is very unfortunate for a number of farm owners who have for generations been tenants on their own property that this bill was not passed some time ago. I will refer to the situation in Canterbury in more detail later on. 
I will first of all get to the purpose of the bill. In the Resource Management Act there is a term called a “requiring authority”. This bill raises the threshold that an organisation has to reach before it becomes a requiring authority. A requiring authority is able to have access to and use of private land for the purpose of its project. Many years ago this was the case when our electricity company—we had only one in those days—needed to put pylons and cables through a particular area. That area might have involved private land and that company was able to access the land and put its pylons and cabling on it because the provision of electricity was seen as a public good. I do not have any difficulty with that provision at all; obviously specific negotiations are required. 
However in the time since this original provision which allows this access to and use of private land was introduced new types of organisations have arisen but the Resource Management Act has not been changed in order to ensure that the term “requiring authority” meets that public interest test. In my view it no longer meets that test. So my bill substitutes the term “appropriate” in the Resource Management Act—where the requiring authority is undertaking “appropriate” work in order to get this compulsorily acquired access to and use of land—with “necessary”. It raises the threshold in that manner. It then adds a further requirement before an organisation can become a requiring authority by saying that the project it is undertaking must be in the public interest. So the project will not just have to be appropriate; it will have to be necessary. It will also have to be in the public interest. 
In my view this legislative amendment which is quite a small amendment to section 167 of the Resource Management Act would have the overwhelming support of the public many of whom did not know that private organisations at the moment under the law have the ability to get access to and use of private land. This situation was drawn to my attention when the Central Plains Water scheme was proposed. In 2005 the then Minister for the Environment received a request to consider granting Central Plains Water the status of requiring authority and the advice from the officials and the legal advice obtained was that there was no alternative but to grant Central Plains Water the status of requiring authority. That meant it was able to go on to the private land around the project area and say that it wanted to use the land in the future as part of its water take and storage and then to transfer it on to the irrigation scheme. The people in the Malvern Hills area were gobsmacked: suddenly they were told that their private land was not going to be their land any more and that a new organisation Central Plains Water was going to be able to use part of their land. 
Some of the families in this area have literally been there for generations. The area is more than just where they live it is more than their home; it is a huge part of their history and they want it to be a huge part of their future. There was a lot of legal debate about the Central Plains Water proposal. I am leaving that debate aside because it is only indirectly relevant to this bill. But for members of the farming community in the Malvern Hills area it meant that they were not able to use that bit of land because they were never quite sure for how long it was going to remain theirs. When was Central Plains Water going to move on to their land and use it for its own project? This caused huge distress to the families involved. They set up an organisation called the Malvern Hills Protection Society in order to fight through the legal system the scheme proposed by Central Plains Water. If this legislation is changed in the way that I am proposing tonight then a huge part of their concern about what was happening to their private property will be overcome. 
I pay tribute to the people who are involved in the Malvern Hills Protection Society. This whole chain of events has been very distressing and very stressful for them and the issue is not over yet. Unfortunately I am not proposing that this bill be retrospective; I do not think that is appropriate particularly given the amount of litigation that is involved in the Central Plains Water issue at the moment. This bill is just to ensure that a private organisation or an organisation that was proposing a project that the Minister considered was not necessary and was not in the public interest would not be granted this right to have compulsory access to and use of private land. I understand the Hon Dr Nick Smith has already given this issue some consideration. I was not able to hear directly from him over the last little while about his support but I urge his consideration of support for this bill to go to the select committee process because if it is rejected it gives other organisations a complete green light to go ahead and do to other farmers or other private landowners exactly what Central Plains Water has done to the farmers in the Malvern Hills area. 
This bill addresses the issues that were brought to my attention and to the attention of the public of New Zealand because of the Central Plains Water issue and the intrusion into the private property of the farmers in the Malvern Hills area. It addresses that issue by increasing the threshold for approval as a requiring authority. If the law is changed in the way I am proposing then the Hon Dr Nick Smith should he receive the same proposal that was put to the then Minister in 2005 would have the legal ability to decline that proposal. He would be able to use new considerations and new tools in order to protect the validity of the private landownership. The Minister for the Environment would be required to be satisfied that the applicant seeking approval as a requiring authority actually needed to be a requiring authority. The applicant must not just want the status; it must need the status. The project would have to be a necessary project and it would have to be in the public interest. 
In my view this is a very serious issue. The right to access and use private land should not be given to a private organisation for a for-profit project; it should only be given in the instance of a public interest project—the ones that I outlined at the beginning of my contribution tonight. If there is a public interest project and if the Minister considers that it is necessary for the organisation proposing to undertake the project to be a requiring authority then the Minister can just say yes and the organisation keeps that right. But where the project is not in the public interest and where it is not necessary then the Minister will have the legal tools available to him or her to decline the application to be a requiring authority. 
This is quite a simple change; in my view it is in the best interests of what New Zealanders have traditionally regarded as their right as private landowners. I urge the consideration and support of the House.