Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17969] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The inconsistency of the last speech with reality can be gauged from the fact that the member claims that the Resource Management Act is a substantial impediment to New Zealand’s growth at a time when New Zealand has the second-highest growth rate in the OECD under the very Act he criticises. That view is just not credible. There were major problems with the Resource Management Act when Labour came into office. People were gaming the rules and the system and some close-to-blackmail tactics were going down as a consequence of the delays in hearing appeals. When we came into office the average time it took to get a hearing in the Environment Court to appeal a council decision was about 18 months. We have reduced that to 6 months for ordinary cases and 3 months for urgent cases. A lot of the problems unnecessary delays and close-to-blackmail tactics that were becoming a bit prevalent at that time have been remedied through the better provisioning of the Environment Court and then by getting over the backlog of plan references and decreasing delays as a consequence by two-thirds so that they are now only a third as bad as they were and are getting very close to the expected ideal of less than 6 months for an ordinary appeal. 
On the suggestion that we are conferring special rights on iwi it is right that Maori groups have a right to participate in the writing of plans. This legislation makes it clear that that is where their right of access to process exists. It also clarifies that they have no special right of participation in Resource Management Act matters when it comes to consents. Maori will have the same rights any other person has to participate in consent hearings but no greater right. This legislation clarifies the law in that regard. At the moment the law is uncertain. There are cases where applicants think they have to liaise with Maori in respect of a particular consent application when that might not be necessary on the facts. This bill will resolve that ambiguity. 
On the issue of council support for this legislation the Queenstown Lakes District Council—which is in my electorate—has the highest rate of consent applications per head of population in the country because the area is experiencing the highest rate of population growth in Australasia. Some will say that the fact that so many applications have to be made points to failings in the Resource Management Act. I do not think it does; I think it just reflects the fact that this is a time of intense pressure and change that requires consent applications to be made and considered. I note that the council thinks these amendments are practical and it does have day-to-day dealings with the Resource Management Act. I am not saying that the Queenstown Lakes District Council gets it perfectly right. I will say that the council is quite right in respect of the issue Dr Nick Smith raised of owners who rent out a house as commercial visitor accommodation. It would be quite unfair if one could rent out commercial quasi-hotel accommodation in residential housing in Queenstown. 
Peter Brown 
: Come on—it happens all over the country. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Brown says: “Come on.” But the reality at present is that we have at one end of the market in Queenstown deliberate and prolonged use of quasi-residential accommodation as commercial visitor accommodation. I do not think the council is trying to get people who rent out their holiday homes for a short period once a year; it is trying to get and to treat in the same way as all other hotel providers people who are providing hotel accommodation through private residences. So popular is Queenstown as a tourist destination that that is a very profitable thing to do at the moment. 
This legislation will make some sensible improvements to procedures under the Resource Management Act. I am one of those who think that it is the procedures that need to be looked at rather than the principles of the Act. I think the principles of the Act were sound when it was passed and they remain sound now. I agree with Michael Barnett of the chambers of commerce who said that many of the problems relating to the Resource Management Act lie not in the law but in its implementation at council level. Again prior to this Government being elected the Ministry for the Environment had no systems in place to ensure that best practice was copied in the different councils around New Zealand. As a consequence we had inadequate liaison with councils and we had bad practice not being fixed. In defence of councils I note that the Resource Management Act was then relatively new. We were going through the first round of plans under that Act in the transition from the old Town and Country Planning Act so they had a lot to learn. 
I think this legislation is worthy. I am sure the tension between speed of process and not making the first hearing too difficult will be teased out in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is an area that I am interested to look at as I am sure other select committee members will be. We will look at whether the proposals—which I have to say seem sound on the face of it making the Environment Court a court of appeal that focuses on whether the decision of the council was correct rather than on re-litigating the whole contest—represent the best approach. I am happy to see this bill reported to the select committee. I am a member of that committee and I am sure that we will give the bill the attention it deserves.