Hobbs Marian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hobbs Marian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:10974] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Division in New Zealand can be whipped up not only along racial lines but also along “environment versus business” lines. I find such divisive tactics a waste of time and energy. In fact I find them contrary to our energy conservation strategy. 
The notion of sustainable development is a way of working through such conflict. We can and do need to have economic growth but in such a way that it does not damage the soil air and water necessary for the economic growth of the generations to come. It is this principle that underlines our two major pieces of environmental legislation: the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With those two pieces of legislation the community can develop the rules to ensure sustainable development when it is not “business versus green” but a search through plans and consents for a sustainable solution. 
My first meeting with the Resource Management Law Association was early in 2000 in Dunedin. The legislation had been in place under the previous National Government for 9 years. Members of the association told me that the Environment Court was overloaded and slow and was hindering the workings of the Resource Management Act. It is interesting to note that at that time there were amendments before the House to make the Resource Management Act work in favour of business and that was totally adversarial while the problem of resourcing the Environment Court—an easy solution—was being totally ignored. 
The overloading of the Environment Court was leading to blackmail practices. There was a backlog of 3000 to 4000 cases and there was a delay of 18 to 30 months to have appeals heard. What did we do? We did not bring in adversarial legislation; instead we brought in extra funding we put up an extra judge and commissioners we introduced and funded mediation services we brought in a new case management system and we brought in the production of digital evidence. I was told by several district councils in my trawl around late last year that the greenmail has stopped—that term has nothing to do with the Green Party; it is just the phrase often used. As at the beginning of this year the backlog is now at 1503 cases and the standard as at 1 April will be 6 months to have an appeal heard not 30 months. There are 1503 cases to be heard not 3000. 
In reducing the backlog and in taking away those powers that existed for some people to blackmail we have remained loyal to the principles of the Resource Management Act. We have found a way of not being divisive or adversarial but of solving the problem. I think that that is the way this Government acts. That is how we are builders—builders of hope builders of community—and not people who split and divide. 
We have found a range of difficulties in implementing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act a very complex but very well-intentioned piece of legislation delivered by the National Party’s former Minister for the Environment the Rt Hon Simon Upton. It is brilliant legislation. However prior to 1996 hazardous substances—that is chemicals: things that burn and things that explode—were managed under separate pieces of legislation. Under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act we have to transfer the management of those substances from their different Acts to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The transfer process began in 2001 and revealed—and this is really scary—there were many many thousands some say 200000 hazardous substances in New Zealand that had never been registered and therefore were not subject to any risk assessment or risk management scheme. The job was much bigger than the Environmental Risk Management Authority had been resourced for by the previous Government. 
From 2001 when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came into force businesses raised problems they were having. So what did we do? We announced a strategy to improve the transfer of substances to the new regime. We have a bill before the House now to make the transfer faster and to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority more ability to vary controls on substances such as removing the default control that specifies that people filling their cars with petrol or using household fly sprays must be qualified. There really was a brilliant effort by Simon Upton on that part but he did not realise it was going to apply down at that level. We took that Act and said: “The spirit of the legislation is good. Let us move now to correct that legislation.”—and that is what we have done in answer. We have also substantially increased the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s budget from that which I inherited in 1999. 
These amendments will reduce business compliance costs costs to the Government and the time taken to transfer substances to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act controls while still being honest about the intention of the legislation—that is; the minimising of the risk to health safety and the environment. The amendments are needed urgently by the way to allow 1080 poison to be reassessed and to allow the transfer of some hazardous substances such as petrol to the new regime. So this Government has worked hard to enable the community to work together—not to divide each other but to work together—for a solution that meets the needs of the land of conservationists of businesses and of farmers. 
The community in all its guises must be involved in finding environmental solutions. We think that the preservation of sacred sites such as wahi tapu is only a New Zealand problem. I spent my holidays in Ireland and there they are having a wondrous fight which has spanned several years about building a motorway over an ancient monastic site—a sacred religious site. Worldwide there is conflict on such issues. I think sometimes we need to stand back and realise that these are issues not just in New Zealand; these are issues worldwide. Let us work our way through them rather than setting up either/or or black/white. 
We have some major problems in New Zealand but the solution is engagement not division. I think of something like Lake Taupo. We have a problem there of land use and therefore a problem of a loss of water clarification because of eutrophication caused by nitrates entering the water. The solution is to take the sewage away from the lake or the lakeside and to change the land use. The costs have to be shared—not just borne by the people who live around the lake but by all New Zealanders because the lake is an icon. Here is a political problem: for the next 40 years that lake will get worse even while ratepayers and taxpayers are putting money into the solution. That requires political courage. That is what this Labour Government is about: doing something for the better. I will be dead by the time the lake starts to improve—or I think I will be unless I make a century. 
It is the same problem with the Rotorua lakes. We had some really good issues where we had local members like Steve Chadwick come forward and raise a matter with me and with local people—and we responded. We respond by bringing in people and paying for them to come and find solutions and to work with the regional government and local governments responsible. We have done that with Fiordland’s guardians with dross in Invercargill and with tyres in Hamilton—I could go on. 
Then we come to a problem like the Waitaki River. If we think about the people of Dunedin we know that on one side they have the Clutha which has been taken up for hydroelectric power and on the other side they have the Waitaki. There are two great rivers on either side of them. The people of Dunedin look at that situation and they are really anxious. We had an Environmental Council that did not set up a water allocation plan. I know there are members opposite who say: “Oh don’t take any notice of that. Just roll ahead make the decision and get on with it lady. What are you on about? Get on with it. We need power. Just roll ahead.” Not us! We set up a methodology by which a community can have its say and work its way through. 
It is the same with dirty air in Christchurch. If I want an environmental standard to raise the quality of air I have to find I think an economic solution to solve that problem. This is a Government that works with business with farmers with the Fish and Game Council and with mayors to find solutions that do not compromise economic growth or environmental health. It is not a case of either/or. It does not have to be divisive. It takes time to accomplish that engagement and I know that. 
Labour builds and Labour engages; it does not have to set up division. That is the society that I get misty-eyed about when I fly back home. That is the society that I care about—the society built on number eight fencing wire the society built on engagement the society founded on finding solutions; not a society founded on throwing mud at each other.