Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5537] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to follow up the issue of Hampton Downs. It is a classic example of the protracted delays that have frustrated development in this country and there is nothing in this bill that overcomes the basic problems or even addresses them. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s worse! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Carter is quite right. The bill actually compounds the problems and makes them considerably worse. Hampton Downs is a very good example. Over a number of years I was involved with Olivene’s proposal at the Meremere power site—a decommissioned station. Olivene was proposing a process of high-temperature incineration involving picking up solid waste from Auckland Tauranga Hamilton and Rotorua then vitrifaction of the ash through to the production of roading material. One would not believe the delays and the frustrations that the company encountered associated with the Resource Management Act in dealing with the Waikato District Council and Environment Waikato. It was utterly unbelievable. There were absolute delays and frustrations at every turn. 
Finally of course Olivene gave up and went off to Australia. The company had been battling for 5 years in this country and I forget how many millions of dollars it cost but in the space of a few months it got approval in Australia and is now building its high-temperature state-of-the-art incinerator in Perth. The company got the approval and everyone there is delighted. 
It could have been generating energy for this country. A lot of people do not realise that solid waste—the stuff we send to our landfills—has an energy value almost level with coal. So we would have recovered the energy solved the problem created an inert substance for roading from the ash by a vitrification process. But the proposal was totally rejected by our planning process. Olivene described it to me as “just like kicking a haystack”. One could go nowhere. 
We have many other examples. I know Claymark Sawmills in Te Puke right in the heart of our “wall of wood” shall we say in the Bay of Plenty. It is adjacent to the volcanic plateau has substantial plantations and has been trying for 6 years to get a process through under the Resource Management Act. It cost the company $2 million before it finally managed to make the progress that was required. This is the difficulty faced by small business all around the country. This is not pub talk; these are hard hard facts. The Government’s own compliance cost report that Minister Swain commissioned identified the part that the Resource Management Act plays in this but this bill does not— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No. 1 issue! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is the No. 1 problem! What was the Speech from the Throne all about? It was about removing the barriers to growth. Does this bill do that? The Government’s own report identified some 50 measures but none of them in this bill before us tonight actually amends the Resource Management Act. 
I would like to come to a very specific point in respect of clause 41(1). The New Zealand petroleum industry made the point to the Opposition select committee because that is the only select committee that heard any evidence in respect of this bill. The Government would not even hear submissions. It did not want to hear all the horror stories and be exposed to them. Opposition members took it upon themselves to hear submissions as we thought it was a critical part of our democracy to hear some submissions on a bill of this significance. We were told by the petroleum industry that it wanted to see an amendment—and it is a very practical amendment that we could have had—to clause 41(1) that would have amended section 92(2) of the principal Act. The simple point is that a consent authority can commission a report on any matter that is raised in relation to an application for consent approval without the applicant’s consent. This is what councils up and down the country are doing. If they are not sure and often there is a bunch of lay people sitting in judgment then that is how they wait it out. They say they want another report. 
All committees tend to do that. If they are not sure they call for a report. So applicants have to stump up for all sorts of costs and half the time they do not even know what these reports are for. They are of very spurious worth but the applicant has to stump up to purchase the report. It is the time value of money but members opposite do not appreciate the time value of money