Parker David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5316] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 First of all I will take up the challenge that the Hon Nick Smith laid down which was to show what business compliance recommendations are in this bill. One of the most significant recommendations is that of limited notification of resource consent applications. The Resource Management Act is about balancing interests. It is about balancing the interests of people who want to use natural resources—people who want to take water and use it for irrigation want to discharge pollutants into land want to build houses or commercial buildings where there are currently none or want to build dams for electricity purposes—against the interests of those who say they have a right to be involved in the process say that those decisions as proposed are wrong and want the ability to have an input and say: “If we tweak it this way it will have less environmental impact.” Those who suggest that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally flawed legislation are quite wrong. It is good legislation. The new procedures that are introduced in this bill have previously had 700 submissions in the select committee process that ended in 2001. 
The 70-page bill that is before us now introduces only a small number of changes which are listed in the select committee’s report. Limited notification of resource consent applications has been reintroduced and we can thank United Future for its cooperation in advancing that important step. There is the introduction of a more flexible approach to assessment of baseline effects. Another change is that the Environment Court is not the body to consider disputes as to whether something should be notified and that has been done because there are workload pressures in the court which are causing a backlog. If there are disputes about limited notification they will go to the High Court. There has been the development of improved provisions for the creation of national environmental standards. That has been a gaping hole in the implementation of the existing Resource Management Act and the bill will improve that situation. Also there is a transitional provision relating to the aquaculture moratorium. It is interesting to note that the heritage provisions are the same as recommended by the former Local Government and Environment Committee in 2001. 
I want to deal a little bit with Nick Smith’s comments that the Resource Management Act is responsible for the power shortage that we may have this winter. It is not. It is ludicrous to make the suggestion that that is what is behind our current problems. In my area in Otago we are faced with the challenges of the proposed Project Aqua which is the biggest of the various solutions that are proposed to deal with power shortages. It is notable that the resource management consents have not even been filed yet. There is no way that the Act or its processes are behind delays in that project. The consent applications have not even been filed. 
The suggestion made by the Hon Nick Smith and various ACT party people that we should cut across resource management procedures think big and force through big development projects like Project Aqua is reminiscent of Mr Muldoon and “think big”. The last time that happened was in respect of the Clyde Dam. That is also in my electorate. Let us not forget that the Government’s taking over of the planning process caused many years of delay in the commissioning of the dam and resulted in a costly power project whereby the cost of each unit of energy was 14c. Even today Project Aqua if it proceeds will have a unit cost of 4c to 5c. So the cost of poor planning was an economic cost which trebled the cost of electricity. In addition the scars on the local population down there a population that I represent are still very raw. There is a great deal of bitterness in the community that 20 years ago their rights were cut across. Indeed it has taken decades to get justice for the serious adverse environmental and economic effects that that scheme has caused individuals. It is only in this last year—some 20 years after that project and 30 or 40 years after the Roxburgh Dam was put in further downstream—that those injustices have for the first time been able to be aired through Resource Management Act processes which protect citizens. 
This bill will improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act. We will hear complaints from some people who will say that the limited notification provision does not go far enough. Others will say it already gives councils too many powers to not fully notify issues. In my submission those positions are both a little extreme. With the introduction of limited notification I think that we have plotted the correct middle course. Some of the statistics that are quoted about how few applications are already notified have to be read with care. A lot of those applications that are not notified are for things like a building alternation when it falls within the statistics but if it is a building that falls within the district plan it does not need to be notified. I commend this legislation to the House and I hope that others support it.