Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4297] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) has been a long time coming. The original Resource Management Act was written by Labour then amended and passed into law by National more than a decade ago. It is important to remember that because in recent years it has become very common for some parties to engage in Resource Management Act bashing. It is important to remember that this bill is a product of both Labour and National Governments in the past 15 years. Perhaps it is timely that United Future has arrived to be able to support this bill coming into the House so that some of the much-needed amendments to the Act can be finally addressed. 
Since that time 15 years ago many problems have emerged in the way that the Act has been implemented and administered. But I think that most people would agree that whatever problems the Act has it is still a vast improvement on the Town and Country Planning Act and the plethora of other legislation that it replaced. However despite the Act’s superiority to the previous state of affairs it has been apparent from at least the mid-1990s when National was in Government that the Act is in need of extensive reform particularly in the way it is administered. The reform process was started in the late 1900s by the then National Government and resulted in Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill being tabled in 1999. Unfortunately the reform process which was slow even to get going has been the victim of highly partisan politics in this Parliament and it has been stalled ever since. The real and increasingly urgent needs of New Zealand families and the business community have taken a backseat to this in-house politicking. 
For this reason today’s first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a real and much-needed breakthrough. We in United Future have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament and today our efforts have reached fruition. We did not get everything we would like to see in this current bill of course; but we do believe that it represents a significant step in the right direction. Of particular importance to us was that we did make sure that the bill includes limited notification provisions and that council decisions not to notify a resource consent application remain appealable to the High Court only and not the Environment Court. 
I am also pleased with the provisions requiring councils to take into account iwi planning documents. The smart thing for councils to do in response to this provision will be to put the details from hapu and iwi planning documents that are reasonable into their district plans. If this happens then everyone will know what hapu and iwi would object to in advance and Maori will know that everyone is aware of their concerns. This provision therefore could lead to increased certainty for everyone involved in the resource consent process and mean the avoidance of many of the Resource Management Act – related costs and delays that are now common. 
One concern I do have is the implications of both the existing and the strengthened and expanded heritage provisions—a major feature of this bill—for private property rights. This is something that will require vigilance and maybe further legislation at some stage in the future but it does not necessarily have to involve amendments to the Resource Management Act. One of our colleagues Gordon Copeland is working on a member’s bill to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so that it specifically includes property rights. This alone could go some way towards addressing the problem I have outlined. I have no problem with—in fact I strongly support—the protection of New Zealand’s beautiful and unique heritage. However when this protection infringes an individual’s or family’s use of its own private property that family should be adequately consulted and if necessary compensated. 
United Future is keen to ensure that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a first step rather than an end point in the Act’s reform process. We have several innovative reform proposals on the table which the Government has agreed to discuss further with us and I look forward to more progress in the near future. As I have mentioned we are particularly interested in protecting the rights of families and property rights in general and we will be working closely with the Government to achieve further practical outcomes in that respect. We also want to remove unnecessary impediments to making much-needed improvements to New Zealand’s infrastructure particularly with regard to roading and electricity developments. We already have a common basis with the Government for continuing the process of reform of the Resource Management Act and that is a belief that reducing the backlog at the Environment Court is the first step towards other meaningful reform in the long term. Once the backlog is addressed—and today’s bill goes some way towards this—it will become clearer what other specific reforms are needed. 
I thank the Minister Marian Hobbs and her advisers for listening to our concerns and working so closely with us and I look forward to continuing and building on our working relationship in the future. It is a relationship that it seems is going to last for a long long time. 
I note that National and ACT have been complaining loudly that the Government is somehow violating parliamentary process by moving to pass the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in its current form. I wish to make it very clear that United Future is committed to correct parliamentary processes and to the observing and upholding of the Standing Orders. It is important for all parties to have the opportunity to debate all legislation thoroughly in this House. If Nick Smith’s concerns are about the lack of time for the Opposition to debate the clauses of this bill when it gets to the Committee stage then that is a matter that can be raised with the chairperson at that time and I am sure that the chairperson as the defender of all parties’ rights will take that into account. 
But I am sure that the taxpayers of New Zealand do not want the Standing Orders used for time-wasting opportunities by the Opposition like the time that Nick Smith moved frivolous amendments during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill last year at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That process lasted for 2 hours of this debating chamber’s time. I have never before seen such a waste of taxpayers’ money as I did on that occasion. I know that I cannot use the “h” word in this House—so I will not—but I am struggling to find any other word to describe the actions of the National Party and the ACT party when they complain about how long this Resource Management Act amendment bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. Now when the amendments it contains are about to finally become law—a law that will benefit businesses residents and iwi in New Zealand and improve the operation of the Act—we find that the National Party is trying all kinds of tricks to delay it. I say that no it is time for this bill with its amendments to the Resource Management Act which have been debated ad infinitum to be passed into law for the benefit of all New Zealanders and in the interests of achieving a greater balance between our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s own country which He has given to us and allowing freedom to pursue our personal family and economic interests in the land.