Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14594] 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does the Government support direct referral to the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991 for major projects; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is there any difference between direct referral which the Minister has just ruled out and the Local Government New Zealand proposal that major projects be referred directly to a special committee or board from which there would be no appeal except on points of law? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There probably could be said to be some difference in that the local government body still has some control over the process; but I want to assert to the member that that policy has not been confirmed. I draw the member’s attention to the guiding principles governing the current Resource Management Act review. They are: we want to achieve good environment outcomes; we want certainty of process but not certainty of outcome; we want certainty of cost; we want local decision-making; we want public participation; and we want central government leadership as with national environment standards. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen about policies and proposals to improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The business commentator Rod Oram noted in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
3 weeks ago that this Government was properly resourcing the Environment Court and assisting local councils fixing the problems caused by the previous National Government. He went on to describe certain proposals to amend the Resource Management Act as “falling short on some basic measures such as being practical wise and well considered”—those being the National Party’s proposals for the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Minister noted the speech made last week by Coordinating Minister Race Relations Mr Trevor Mallard when he stated: “Maori and Pakeha are both indigenous people to New Zealand now.”; if so will she be supporting changes to the Resource Management Act to ensure that both indigenous peoples have the same rights under the Act; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I did notice the quite brilliant speech made by my colleague sitting in front of me Trevor Mallard. I draw to the attention of the member opposite the point that in Wellington we have had a dispute over the city bypass for years. The land being argued about is not Maori land; it involves what has been considered by some to be heritage buildings that were built by Pakeha. That has held up the Resource Management Act for some time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked whether the Government would be amending the Resource Management Act in the wake of the interesting speech—or “brilliant speech” as the Minister said—by Mr Mallard. There was no attempt by the Minister to answer that important point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister addressed the question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Noting the Minister’s admission that there may be no difference is it not true that if there are no appeal rights the special committee or board would have to adopt a formal process with written briefs lawyers and cross-examination making it a very difficult and intimidating process for local communities to take part in which was always the main argument against direct referral to the Environment Court in the first place? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I say to my dear colleague that that is a good try but the policy has not been completed. I stand by the principles that we have in it for public participation and local decision-making. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Speaking hypothetically if the Government were to adopt the proposal of Local Government New Zealand would it not be saying that the fundamental principle of the Resource Management Act—that people in communities should be involved in decisions about their future—should be waived for major projects that the Government wants to see proceed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yet again and not hypothetically but absolutely concretely there will be public participation and local decision-making. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that Local Government New Zealand’s proposal for a whole-of-Government statement of the national interest is a thinly disguised attempt to silence the Department of Conservation if it attempts as required under its Act to advocate for biodiversity values that would be destroyed by a major project and will she give an undertaking to this House that the Department of Conservation’s ability to argue publicly for the national interests of biodiversity will not be compromised? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Department of Conservation’s ability will not be compromised but I have heard around this House for years that transport housing planning and energy should be coordinated to give a whole-of-Government response. Having said that the Department of Conservation’s ability to speak up for biodiversity in this land will not be compromised. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister has endorsed the speech made by the Coordinating Minister Race Relations Trevor Mallard as “quite brilliant” in saying that all New Zealanders including Pakeha are now indigenous can she assure the House that the Resource Management Act will be— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that when the member quotes someone he should quote accurately. The member did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member will carry on with the question. I will judge that at the time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Having endorsed as quite brilliant Coordinating Minister Race Relations Trevor Mallard’s words which I quote exactly that “Maori and Pakeha are both indigenous people to New Zealand now.” can the Minister assure the House that the Resource Management Act will be changed so that the rights of Maori and other New Zealanders are exactly the same; or was Mr Mallard’s speech just crude politics for the purpose of votes rather than anything of substance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of that question is perfectly in order. The Minister cannot answer for another Minister. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: First of all I want to draw that member’s attention to Russell Brown’s very good blog  
Hard News 
 in which he lines up Mr Mallard’s statement with those made by Michael King in  
Being Pakeha 
 and by Allen Curnow 
. 
 To his question about the Resource Management Act I repeat the answer I gave before. The Resource Management Act in practice considers the needs of all those buildings and places that are special to New Zealand be they coastline or be they older houses in the middle of Wellington Central. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm that reference to Maori in the Resource Management Act of 1991 was put there by National as was reference to the Maori people in section 18 of the 1977 Town and Country Planning Act put there by National and what is the word to describe that if it does not start with “h” ? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister aware that a key principle of the Treaty of Waitangi as determined by the courts is a duty to consult; if so will she reject the proposals of Local Government New Zealand that will deny Maori consultation over resource consents unless the council decides they are affected? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I reiterate that the principles underlining the Resource Management Act are for public participation that is inclusive of Maori and for local decision-making.