Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Wagner Nicky: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1058] 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress has the Government made in meeting the confidence and supply agreement that “National and ACT agree to promote investment jobs wages employment and prosperity as well as environmental improvement through amendments to the RMA.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We have made good progress with the first phase of Resource Management Act reforms. The technical advisory group was established in early December. Ministers and officials have worked over the holiday period on a package of about 162 amendments to the Resource Management Act. These were approved by Cabinet and the Government caucus. The Parliamentary Counsel Office is beavering away on the drafting of that bill as we speak so that it can be introduced to the House at the earliest opportunity. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Are there provisions in the bill that will improve New Zealand’s environmental management as well as reducing the costs delays and uncertainty of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The environment is as much a loser from the excessive bureaucracy of the Resource Management Act as our economy because if it takes for ever to fix water transport and such other infrastructure it comes at a considerable cost to the environment. The bill will also have specific provisions that help the environment. There will be tougher fines for those who breach consents and the powers of the court to be able to change the conditions of consents will bring about environmental benefits. The bill will also include provisions to strengthen and improve national policy statements and national environment standards. A significant change requires that authorities like telecommunications companies and power companies will no longer be the decision makers on their own applications for designations. Instead these decisions will be made independently. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister explain why neither he nor a single member of any group representing environmental concerns was able to be present at a major forum on the Resource Management Act and water issues held in Christchurch last December when three other senior Ministers from the South Island were present; and does this highlight the lack of priority being given to protecting our environment when the Government is promoting its changes to the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was a very constructive meeting between the Minister of Finance the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister of Agriculture on the very important issue of water storage in Canterbury. I confess to being buried in these Resource Management Act reforms albeit I have to say that the chair of the Canterbury Regional Council Mr Kerry Burke— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Sir Kerry to you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sir Kerry Burke a former Labour MP has issued a press release strongly endorsing the Government’s environmental reforms in respect of the Resource Management Act that is completely out of step with what Labour has had to say about those reforms. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Government considered the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s concerns in her report on the clean-up of the contaminated site at Mapua where the previous Government breached conditions of the consents yet the council was powerless to act under the existing Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. It is wrong that any private person or company can be prosecuted for breach of consents but Government agencies cannot. The amendments we propose will enable councils to issue enforcement orders abatement notices excessive noise directions and prosecutions where Crown agencies breach consents. It is the view of this Government that this law needs to bind the Crown in the same way it binds private individuals. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a document. It is a media report of the Christchurch Resource Management Act water forum and it details that environmental groups were deliberately excluded by Government Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it to be your convention that the tabling of documents will occur at the end of questions rather than—as the member chose to do—midway through them? It was the practice of the previous Speaker to require the tabling of documents to occur at the end of supplementary questions. Is it your intention to continue that practice? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a good point. Although the Standing Orders are I think not precise on that matter for the courtesy of all members in the House it may be a good practice to continue—that leave to table documents is sought at the end—although sometimes it is difficult for members to know when the end of supplementary questions arises. Where members are seeking the call to ask a supplementary question it is clear the end of supplementary questions has not arisen so in the future the member could perhaps attempt to wait until it has. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think part of the problem that arose in that case—and we have had a number of examples of it already today—is that the practice has grown that because you have a list in front of you as we all know people are often not really calling or are barely calling clearly when they stand up. Members stand up open their mouths and hope something happens at that point. Of course they may simply be leaving the House at that stage. I think it would be helpful to remind members that in fact they are not entitled to the call unless they make the call and you Mr Speaker cannot be expected to divine the intentions of people just because they stand up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for a very good point of order. I would urge all members of the House to reflect on that. Members are not entitled to speak unless they are acknowledged and named by the Speaker. I cannot tell that a member is seeking the call unless he or she actually seeks the call. The honourable member has made a very good point and if we could try to adopt that as we move ahead I would certainly appreciate it and it would help the good order of the House. 
David Bennett 
: Noting the very long time frames in getting approval for major roading projects like the Wellington City bypass and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B (ALPURT B) under the existing Resource Management Act how will these reforms streamline the process so we can get on and build the infrastructure New Zealand so desperately needs? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is absolutely right to highlight fiascos like the Wellington City bypass which took 15 years and ALPURT B which took over a decade. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear the Labour spokesperson on transport demanding that we build new roads at the same time as members opposite oppose any reform of the Resource Management Act—the Act that prevents us from being able to build the roads. The reforms that we will advance will provide for a new national consenting process with an environmental protection authority and an enhanced board of inquiry that will ensure that there are tight appeals and that we get decisions in a timely way so this new Government can get on and build the infrastructure New Zealand needs. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Are there measures in this reform package to address the sort of supermarket circus we see going on in Auckland where families are missing out on cheaper groceries because the Resource Management Act is being used as a tool to block competing supermarkets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there are very specific provisions to try to prevent the Act from being used for trade competition purposes. The changes curtail such behaviour by prohibiting objections based on the effects of trade competition removing standing for trade competitors and allowing damages—not just legal costs—where the courts find that an objection was trade motivated. We will also have provisions to deal with astroturfing. This is where business competitors create artificial grassroots organisations to oppose a development. The bill will require disclosure where trade competitors are funding community objections. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister noted the case in Wellington where one of the councillors lodged an Environment Court appeal under the Resource Management Act against his own council’s decision; and does the Minister think this is appropriate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not think it is at all appropriate. Effectively a councillor who did not win the argument around the council table is now trying to relitigate the issue in the Environment Court. It is a good example of why we need to constrain appeal rights from being used in ways for which they are not intended. The argument to me appears to be far more about local politics than about the environment.