Norman Russel William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Norman Russel William: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6240] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is National’s down payment on its opening attack on the environment movement. There were 850 submissions made by the environment movement all around our country against this bill. Hundreds and hundreds of the small community groups that do the real work to protect our environment submitted against this bill and came out against it. It is one of the great aspects of my job that I get to go around New Zealand and meet the real guardians the kaitiaki of our country—iwi hapu and environment non-governmental organisations. They are the people who end up in the courts and in front of consent panels all the time actually protecting our environment. They have come out against this bill because they know what it is trying to do. What National is doing with this bill with the support of Labour is voting for a bill that tilts the balance against the environment movement. For example by supporting this bill National intends to restrict notification. Environment groups and locals will not know what is going on in their neighbourhood—it is very hard for them to know. That is combined with the changes to section 274 that restrict the ability of groups to join other people’s cases. 
In the first instance National with Labour’s and ACT’s support is voting for a bill that says that people will not be told what is going on in their neighbourhood so they will not have the opportunity to object. Then when they find out later what has happened and it ends up in the Environment Court this bill will make it harder for groups to join Environment Court cases. On the one hand people will not be told about it. There will be special laws—the changes to the notification provisions—that prevent people knowing what is going on. Later when people do find out about it and want to get involved in the Environment Court case people will not be able to because of the restrictions involvement in Environment Court cases. So National and Labour are voting for a bill that completely restricts community participation in decision making under the Resource Management Act. 
Community and public participation is one of the founding principles of the Resource Management Act. The Act exists to protect the environment and facilitate community participation in the decisions that are made in communities. National is completely overt about the bill restricting community participation. Those Labour members say they support community participation but even after an enormously long time complaining about the bill they are voting for a bill that restricts community participation. National and Labour say they want to restrict community participation in the decisions around environmental management. 
National is doing that because this is part of its anti-environmental agenda. National knows that the people who actually protect our environment are those terrible and troublesome groups those iwi hapu and environmental non-governmental organisations that end up in the Environment Court all the time clogging up the system and causing terrible problems to National Party’s mates the developers. Those groups end up in the Environment Court because they are trying to protect the New Zealand environment. It is those groups that do the hard work; little Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society branches small environmental groups up and down our country do the hard work to protect our environment. This bill is designed to get them out of the process. That is why this bill exists and that is why National is restricting notification. It is why the bill includes security for costs. 
Let us remember that the Environment Court already has the ability to strike out frivolous and vexatious cases. But no that is not enough! We will have security for costs put in as well just to make sure that people are discouraged from getting into the Environment Court. Combine this with the dramatic increase in filing fees that the National Government has introduced. That is another barrier to people using the Resource Management Act process to protect the environment and that is exactly why this bill exists. When we put it all together we see that it now costs $500 to get through the front door of the Environment Court. People may be faced with security for costs so that will put them off. People may not even have known about the proposal to start with because National and Labour are restricting notification. If people have missed out on filing a case in the beginning it is much harder to join the case later because the changes to section 274 make it much harder for groups to join cases later. All the way through step after step National Labour and ACT are joining together to make it harder for ordinary community groups to protect the environment that underpins our entire economy. 
Another way they are doing this and it has not been talked about much is when plans have legal effect. One of the things that councils do is change plans in order to protect the environment. Under this bill the time at which the plan has legal effect is delayed to further back in the process. It is not when the plan is notified; it is after submissions have been resolved. That means that it creates a loophole between when the plan is notified and when it has legal effect during which one can drive a bulldozer through the hole so that one can see what it is they are trying to protect and so one can destroy it. This is the classic case of what will happen with the trees. Councils will notify that they plan to schedule individual trees but that notification of scheduling individual trees will have no legal effect under this new bill. So the landowners will know that their trees are being scheduled and those trees will have no legal protection until after submissions are resolved so during that window they will be able to chop down all those trees that are scheduled. That is why they have set this thing up. 
The other part of this bill is the direct referral. The direct referral has some benefits but the system that has been set up is so incredibly complicated that it is hard to see that it will reduce red tape. Numerous routes have been set up to get direct referral. Whether this reduces red tape is very very unclear. I think that is one of the most amazing things about the so-called tree protection rules: it is very unclear whether they will reduce red tape at all. In fact they might multiply red tape. If councils do as the Minister says they should go around and try to schedule thousands and thousands of trees then it will add red tape it will add cost and it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. If councils do not do that then the trees can be chopped down and of course that is what will happen. 
The other part of this bill that I think is incredibly significant is the role of the Minister of Conservation. Normally when there is a resource consent process in order for a development to happen people need two types of consent: the consent of the landowner—the person who owns the land—and the consent of the consenting authority whether it is the local council or whatever. These two types of consent are needed. So if I want to do a development on my property I need the consent of the landowner and I also need the consent of the council. What about when that land is the coast of New Zealand which is supposedly controlled by the public of New Zealand? It supposedly belongs to the people of New Zealand. We had a very long debate in our country about this. Should the people of New Zealand have the right to say no? If a developer wants to come along and do a development on coastal land should the public of New Zealand have the right to say no? Under this bill that the Government is pushing through under urgency the right of the public to say no has been taken away. The public no longer have the right to veto it and to say no. 
We still have the resource consent process and so we should. But the other consent that is normally necessary which is the consent of the landowner has been taken away. In the coastal environment the landowner is the public of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand have had their right to say no to development in the coastal environment removed. They have effectively had their right to say whether something should go ahead on their land—it is their land it is owned by the public of New Zealand—taken away. They no longer have the right say no. I think that that is ridiculous. 
People often forget why the Resource Management Act is there. An enormous amount of rubbish is spoken about the Resource Management Act but it is there to protect the environment and to enable community participation. This bill will reduce protection of the environment. This bill will reduce community participation in decision making. I am not surprised that National is pushing this view because it is so anti-environment. I am surprised that Labour is voting for this bill because Labour members reckon they are pro-environment. Labour says a lot about sustainability but here it is voting for this bill. Once again it is left to the Greens and as I understand it the Maori Party to stand up for community participation and democracy and protecting the environment.