Huo Raymond: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHuo Raymond: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12846. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Part 2 of the Resource Management Reform Bill “Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010” includes a number of provisions to fast track the Auckland Unitary Plan process which we support in principle. Minister Amy Adams was correct in saying that it was the Auckland Council that came to the Government and requested that the Government consider a legislative amendment to enable the unitary plan to become operative in a shorter time.I totally agree with what my Green colleague Denise Roche said and with what MrSu’a William Sio just said which was that we find it difficult to follow the logic in provisions that allow the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation rather than the Auckland Council to appoint the hearing commissioner and set their terms of reference. This is undemocratic and it is an insult to the mandate given to the elected city councillors.I would like to focus on the submissions because it is very important for us to reflect on the concerns of those submitters across the board. Overall we have received 97 submissions relating to the Auckland combined plan. Of the 97 submissions only 9.3 percent were in support and 14.4 percent were in support with amendments but overall 66 percent were in opposition. The predominant concern held by submitters was whether the broad scope of the regulation-making power included the ability to override parts of the Resource Management Act and a number of submitters had expressed thatconcern. The provision is outside good legislation principles and may be unconstitutional.Submissions also raised concerns that the provision would generate uncertainty and could open the Government or Minister to lobbying to change the process for preparing the plan midway through the hearing. Several submitters made suggestions as to how to further narrow the scope of the regulation-making power including for instance a recommendation from Vector to insert a new subsection restricting that power to addressing only unforeseen situations or issues that arise during the preparation of the first Auckland combined plan. So it is not about how the National Government introduces legislative changes or about how important or desirable those changes are; it is more about the submitters and how to help the National Government to remedy the situation everybody is in courtesy of the unconstitutional practice.I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee a legal opinion by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. The New Zealand Fish and Game Council made available a copy of the very well-researched legal opinion by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Basically he summarises that firstly “Many of the “process-oriented” proposals will deliver improvements to the current process under the RMA with limited impacts on environmental protection.” That is a very balanced view. Secondly he advises that “The proposed changes to Part 2 will significantly and seriously undermine environmental protection under the RMA. These changes are largely unnecessary and will lead to greater uncertainty and cost in the application and interpretation of the RMA.”More important I think it is very important for everybody to remember that the Resource Management Act underpins all Kiwi values. The changes in the current bill destabilise our social perception of what it means to be a Kiwi and puts at risk an economy progressively built on the foundation of the $14 billion “100% Pure New Zealand” and “clean green” brands. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 285 and 324 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 2 be agreed to.