Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6205] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to the point the Hon Nick Smith made. We are not saying that Ministers should reverse the decision of the Environment Court— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes you are. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No we are not. The Minister’s decision to veto is a different decision. It is not the same decision as the Environment Court’s; it is a different decision. The Environment Court’s decision as the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith has already acknowledged is severely constrained as to its breadth. The Minister’s decision is not the same decision as the decision of the Environment Court. But there are some situations in which the Crown through the relevant Minister in this case the Minister of Conservation should have the right to veto developments in coastal space. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Veto the court? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No not veto the court; veto the right to develop coastal space. It is a different thing. Lots of things are permissible on my land under the Resource Management Act that I as an owner none the less say I do not want and will veto. That is the same position the Minister of Conservation is in within a limited jurisdiction— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That is not correct. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is. It is a limited but real power of the Minister of Conservation to sometimes say “No I don’t think this is in the public interest.” That is the responsibility of Government but this Government is saying “No that’s all too hard. We never wanted to be involved in those decisions. We don’t think there is ever a case for the Crown as the guardian of these areas to say no.” The Government is going to devolve that decision to someone else and not have to take responsibility for it. That is what the Minister is doing; he is abrogating his responsibilities. 
I will turn to another issue. We have a 45-page Supplementary Order Paper here for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and we are not really sure what some of it means. A 45-page Supplementary Order Paper was dumped on us with no tracked version to show the effect of it on either the Act or the bill. We have had substantial criticisms about the legislation—not from people whom the Minister might like to criticise as being lightweight but people like former judge Peter Skelton. I did a lot of work in the environmental field in the 1980s. I can say that Judge Skelton who is now retired was the best judge I ever appeared before. He is widely respected. He is now—or was until recently—an adjunct professor of planning law so he went on to a distinguished academic career. 
Peter Skelton turned up to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said that the bill was poorly drafted. I do not totally blame the Minister for its poor drafting because I think there are some institutional problems that lie behind it which also vexed the previous Government and are yet to be sorted. Peter Skelton criticised the drafting of the bill and said that it did not achieve its policy purpose because it was so complex so otiose and so poorly drafted that even things that it was supposed to achieve are sometimes not being achieved. 
He was not alone in that view; a few other people were of that view too. Through the intervention that was led in part by Shane Jones one of my colleagues the select committee with the approval of the Government—and I thank Government members for that—agreed that it should harness the efforts of a group of experts including retired judge Peter Skelton to try to sort out some of those problems. They did sort out some of those problems but they have not had a chance any more than we have to have a look at these 45 pages of new drafting. So how can we have any confidence as we deal with the bill under urgency that we are not actually making things more complex and creating more problems rather than fewer? 
I will give one particular example. We have had the very important change of wording in the notification provisions brought to the Chamber just today in a Supplementary Order Paper. There is a fundamental change of onus from consent authorities stating that there may be environmental effects as a result of an activity to environmental effects having to be proven to exist or to be likely. The effects have to be probable rather than possible. That is a big change in the legal test. We have not had any advice from the group of experts as to whether the Supplementary Order Paper is properly drafted even if that is the policy intent. 
I will mention another thing. New section 95D as inserted by clause 68 of the bill states that when assessing whether the adverse effects are minor one “must disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy the land in on or over which the activity will occur; or any land adjacent to that land;”. I spoke to my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons who is very learned in these matters—and I do not think I am a complete prat on these matters. I cannot find in the legislation the other provision that is meant to go with that one and that deals separately with the effects on the land itself and the adjacent land. I am told by Jeanette Fitzsimons that she thinks that somewhere there is an alternative provision that deals exactly with that point and that deals with the effects on the land on which the activity will occur or the adjacent land. 
The difficulty we have in the Opposition is not just the difficulty of finding our way through this complex amendment bill; we now have 45 pages of amendments including amendments to this particular clause which is fundamental to notification and therefore fundamental to whether people learn through notification about an application that might affect them or the environment and we do not know whether they have a right to participate in the process. 
The test to be applied by the councils is being changed and there is a lack of clarity as to what happens if one is an owner of land adjacent to where there is activity. If a person is an owner of more distant land it is clear what the test is now. We might not agree with the test and we might think it has been forced upon us late in the process through a Supplementary Order Paper under urgency but in respect of adjacent land we are less clear. So I ask the Minister to clarify that situation. He may well be able to do so with advice from officials. The provision may be unaltered from the original Act. That may well be the answer but it is very difficult for us to know and I think it is unreasonable for us to have to deal with these matters on the floor of the Chamber when the 45-page list of amendments ought to be referred back to the select committee so that the select committee including members of the Opposition can get the benefit of hearing from advisory experts like retired judge Peter Skelton and so we can make sure we are getting the legislation right. 
The Resource Management Act is the cornerstone of environmental legislation in New Zealand and we ought not to be amending it on a wing and a prayer. We know from the Minister that he is driven by the promise he made to have this legislation in the House within 100 days and passed within 6 months. I say to the Minister that we will forgive his not meeting that deadline. It is more important to get the legislation right than it is to preserve the Minister’s dignity about the promise he made for it to be passed within 6 months. 
I remind the Minister of the comments he made in respect of the emissions trading legislation. He put exactly the same accusations to the previous Labour Government—and we were not proceeding under urgency the Supplementary Order Paper was smaller and we had provided tracked changes to the bill in order to show the effects on it of the amendments. None of those protections is available to this Parliament today and I think it is an abuse of our processes that the Minister is proceeding in this way.