Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9048] 
10.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her statement in the House yesterday in relation to the proposed Waikato opencast coal mine that “If Forest and Bird had a local group I would have expected it to be consulted” in light of the fact that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has branches in Waikato Franklin and Thames-Coromandel? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. I understand the chair of the Environment Waikato subcommittee hearing the resource consent application has said that the local branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society should be involved in future consents and that the applicant is happy to involve them. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the Minister said yesterday: “It is not for me to agree whether they have major or minor effects. That is the job of the local authority.” did she mean that she and her department have no role in overseeing whether councils are carrying out their role as the Resource Management Act intended? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Ministry for the Environment does give advice on its website along with explaining and sharing case law on what is “major” and what is “minor”. But I make the point that the decision about whether something is minor is complex and is not decided on size alone as we had described in the House yesterday. For example a small piggery on flat land next to a wetland could have a much more significant environmental effect than a large extension to an existing coal mine. 
David Parker 
: What local organisations with environmental interests were asked to comment about Solid Energy New Zealand’s application to expand its operation at Rotowaro and what were their responses? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Waikato branch of the New Zealand Fish and Game Council was asked for comment as was the local office of the Department of Conservation. Both consented to the application. The New Zealand Fish and Game Council had no concerns because the expansion uses existing treatment facilities and will not affect surface wetlands. The Department of Conservation similarly consented because of the limited adverse effects on their interests in freshwater fisheries and vegetation clearance. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that even if a judicial review by the High Court was to find this notification decision to be wrong in law it cannot reverse it or provide any redress; if so will she reinstate the amendment introduced by the Hon Simon Upton in 1999 to allow reviews and reversal of notification decisions by the Environment Court; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As the member well knows the Environment Court is under considerable pressure. As I have explained before for the Resource Management Act to be able to work well the load on the Environment Court has to be reduced and we are doing that by reducing the backlog. Once that backlog is reduced I will reconsider those questions. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If this case sets a precedent for the definition of minor effects because an opencast coal mine excavating the equivalent of two Mount Victorias down to sea level has not been notified can she suggest any kind of resource consent application that would have to be notified in the future? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think I reiterated before that major or minor is not decided on size alone—a lot of things are not decided on size alone including effectiveness. I make the point again that a small piggery beside a wetland could have a much more major effect than the extension of an existing mine.