Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Auchinvole Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:652;Page:1390] 
3.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What advice has he received regarding the need to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There is a very strong consensus across the public and private sectors that reform of the Resource Management Act is long overdue. The advice of the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Conservation the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Transport the New Zealand Transport Agency Te Puni Kokiri and Treasury was that they all supported substantive reform. Local Government New Zealand and numerous councils have also strongly advocated for change. There has been a similar chorus from private sector organisations representing the farming forestry fishing manufacturing construction and tourism industries. Comments from environmental organisations such as the Environmental Defence Society have also acknowledged the need for reform. Many of these groups noted their frustration that the previous Government refused to heed such advice. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the time it takes for councils to write or change their resource management plans? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. The latest report is from October 2008. It identified that 17 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act five councils still do not have an operative plan. It further showed that the average time to complete the planning process under the existing law is 8.2 years. I know that this is the average and that the current law requires a complete plan review 10 years after the plans become operative. The process for plan amendments is similarly cumbersome: the average time is just over 3 years. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister really believe that community participation in the resource consent process causes unnecessary delays; if not what guarantee can the Minister give community groups that their participation in the decision-making process will not be limited by the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is being quite up front and is saying that there needs to be a careful balance between community participation and efficient decision-making. When it takes over 8 years for a council to make a plan this Government makes no apologies for saying that that is too slow and that those processes need to be changed. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is the Minister aware of examples of where the health of the environment has been seriously compromised by the cumbersome planning processes of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am. Most MPs would acknowledge that freshwater management has been poor particularly in Canterbury where it has been under very significant pressure. Environment Canterbury first issued a draft regional policy plan on water in 1994 but got stuck in multiple rounds of public consultation until the plan was notified in 2004. This plan has triggered more than 8000 submissions. Those hearings are not due to be completed until the end of this year and the plan is then expected to face multiple appeals. The earliest likely time the water plan will become operative is 2013—20 years after the process began. I am bewildered that the Opposition MPs who are calling for an improvement in water management practice oppose the very measures that will enable us to make those improvements. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I timed that answer; it was 1 minute long. 
Hon Members 
: Hurrah! 
Hon Annette King 
: It was against the Standing Orders and it is not acceptable to this side of the House that Government members clap when they break the Standing Orders. A short answer is required under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a perfectly valid point and senior members in the Government know they should not be making noise during a point of order. The honourable Minister has been giving fairly lengthy answers but they have been very informative—I will acknowledge that—and have given the House significant information. But I ask that he be a little briefer. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I timed that point of order and your response; it was 1 minute and 10 seconds. If the Opposition members are keen to progress matters they should sit down and listen to the answers for a change. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That comment is a bit rich. You might have noticed Mr Speaker that since the change in Government question time takes a lot less time than it used to. One half of the reason for that is that Mr Hide is no longer raising points of order. The other half is no longer with us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Everyone including me understands the importance of brevity for the House to get on. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Can the Minister assure me and the House that his reforms will address the problem faced by my constituents in the Buller District where a protest group acted irresponsibly in trying to block a council decision had costs awarded against it by the Environment Court and simply wound up its incorporated society leaving a bill of thousands of dollars for ratepayers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The member highlights a very real problem that has also cost the ratepayers in the Western Bay of Plenty $300000 and the ratepayers in Otago more than $250000. I note that Opposition parties have cried foul over the proposal to allow the Environment Court to require security of costs saying that this undermines the fundamental right to object and appeal. These parties seem to have no regard for the ratepayers who actually end up having to pay the bill. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister aware of the recent Environment Court decision regarding the Waitakere Ranges and the Waitakere City Council whereby the Environment Court ensured that there were much fewer subdivisions in the Waitakere Ranges hence protecting them for the people of Auckland and protecting the environment; that that was only possible because people could appeal the district plan to the Environment Court; and that the Minister is taking away the right to take that kind of appeal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The reality of changing appeal rights is that it cuts both ways. It is true that some appeals that environmental groups might want to pursue will be constrained. But equally so too will be appeals from developers who want to proceed. I note that the mayor of Waitakere City Bob Harvey an ex-president of the Labour Party who is very passionate about the protection of the Waitakere Ranges has strongly endorsed the Government’s reform package because he thinks that it will work better for areas like the Waitakere Ranges. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister realise that in that case the Environment Court overruled the Waitakere City Council plan because the council wanted to have a certain number of subdivisions and the Environment Court said that it had to have fewer and that therefore it is not surprising that the mayor might support the kinds of changes the Minister is making? Surely both sides of this House want to protect the environment and protect the Waitakere Ranges—does that not mean giving community groups the right to challenge district plans when they undermine environmental values? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Nick Smith if you can make sense of that question. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to seek your advice on your comment. I understand that you have been a very fair Speaker and everyone across the House recognises that. You do a very good job but I found that comment from you unnecessary. It undermines your role as the manager of good behaviour in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for her genuine point. I accept that I was perhaps unfair but I was making the point that the member should be asking a question not making a small speech. Dr Norman made a significant speech there that would make it extremely difficult for a Minister to give a sensible answer. A point of order was raised before about the length of the Hon Nick Smith’s answers which I agree were a bit long but he was informative and clear in what he was saying. Questions also need to be brief and to the point and that question went way too long; I was almost at the point of standing and sitting the member down simply because the question went on and on. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s intent in the reforms is to reduce the times and delays of the resource consenting process and not to change the overall balance between development and the environment. For that reason we are not making any changes to the key tests that are provided for in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.