Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6182] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak after that entertaining interlude. There is a saying in Maoridom: “When one totara falls another one stands.” But in the Opposition when one totara falls another building is built. After hearing Cam Calder I say that his speech was very entertaining. We know now why it took such a long time for him to have another speech. 
I want to go back to a speech made by a colleague of the member the member for Taupo Louise Upston. She talked about getting the balance right. If getting the balance right means we have a top-heavy model weighted in favour of developers at the expense of public participation in the Resource Management Act she can have it. I know that there are a great many more people in the Taupo community who have very real concerns about the way in which the changes to the Resource Management Act are weighted in favour more of developers and less of the community public participation and certainly iwi and hapu input into decision making. 
I listened to the Minister’s previous contribution and I say that one thing is for sure: under the previous Labour Government when it came to the Resource Management Act the ability of the public to have input into the consent and planning process was never under threat. It was never under threat and there was no misunderstanding about it. But what good ideas did we get from National members in their 9 long years in Opposition? Their ideas were to gut the Resource Management Act of any public participation in the resource management process limit notification and make it really hard for appeals to happen. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the track that this country which we are proud to call a clean green nation wants to go down. I suspect not because many submissions were heard during the first tranche of Resource Management Act amendments and many submitters supported the retention of a high level of public input into decisions made in their local community. 
We talk about limited public notification and minor adverse effects. Minor adverse effects are a matter of perspective and a lot of smaller communities said that a lot of things that were happening in their backyard were of real concern to them and the only way they could have a say was through greater input into the public process. When we talk about limited notification in fact a lot of submissions said that people were very concerned about that move. Indeed only 5 percent of consents are notified so why change something that is not broken and why limit the ability and the opportunity of communities—good thinking citizens who are concerned about preserving the quality of life in their communities—to have a say on what is happening in their backyard? 
A fine example was raised with regard to minor modifications and housing improvements. But let us go to the other end of the spectrum where earthworks are happening that are significant to many communities. There are major earthworks where trees were being cut down on the corner of Grey Street in Hamilton by a developer who had no regard whatsoever to the interests of the community and who would have rather stumped up with the $50000 fine than preserve the quality of life and the green space within that part of the Hamilton City community. There are real issues for Maori landowners who under a minor works umbrella have seen that in order for a lines company to clear space under say fallen lines they have actually had another major road ploughed through the middle of their land. That is not minor; those landowners consider it to be very major. When we talk about minor adverse effects and when we talk about raising the threshold of notification we have to look at a range of examples and not just at the one pointed to by members of the Government. We say that there are works happening under the label of minor adverse effects that need to be notified and that the public should have a say on because from the perspective of the local community people are concerned about the impact on their quality of life and about what is happening in their community. 
Again I say to the Minister that many many submissions on the issue of limited public notification said that there was really no need to change it—only 5 percent of consents are notified at present. What is the real intention here? It comes on the back of not listening to submissions on Auckland governance on the back of not listening to a public referendum where a lot of people have spoken and on the back of ramming through a number of amendments. Clearly the public sentiment has been to ask why we should change some of those things that do not need to be changed. The Minister really needs to provide greater clarity because on the surface of it the way in which these types of amendments are moving are weighted more in favour of developers’ interests rather than public input and public participation in the decision-making process. Again I say that the Minister has taken a number of calls on the bill and it is important to clarify those things just so that there is no misunderstanding about what the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments might foreshadow. 
On the issue of Whangamata one can hardly say that all the issues around it were an everyday type of scenario. But I want to provide my perspective because it was this issue that in many respects provided probably one of the most difficult ranges of interests and they were not all given equal weight in the consideration of that application. It was the interests that were promoted by Hauraki iwi Ngati Hako and Ngati Hei and endorsed by the Hauraki Maori Trust Board around really simple things such as that if there were to be a marina in that space it would significantly impact on our customary fishing interests specifically the gathering of pipi in our pipi beds. It was very simple. But the weight of those interests against big development interests with a lot of money behind them was lost in the white water so to speak. There was never really a sense from local hapu that the severity of their concerns about major impacts—protecting the pipi beds protecting the natural habitat and concerns for the moko skink in that area—was ever taken into account. 
On the question of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation those powers have rarely been used. Why get rid of them? They should be retained for the public interest and more important for the interests that exist amongst hapu with regard to some of the issues that are never really given much weight in the Environment Court because hapu do not have the resources to have the technical support to provide the level of intensity in their argument within the Environment Court context. I want to support and endorse the contribution made by my colleague Steve Chadwick on the issue of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation. She makes the good point that now since the Foreshore and Seabed Act in Whangamata the car park space in a strict sense would be considered as foreshore and seabed area. If we take out the role of the Minister of Conservation who protects the public interest there? If customary interests are yet to be determined who then fills that space? Where customary interests have not been determined I do not think it is the Minister for the Environment. In fact it should be the Attorney-General. In my mind there needs to be further thinking about how the gap that has been created should be rightly filled by the best person or position. I would say it should be the Attorney-General with regard to the foreshore and seabed space to ensure that the opportunity for the customary interests of hapu to be claimed can be held and the space can be preserved in the meantime for the rest of the public. That is the best way. We cannot assume I say to the Minister with respect that the Minister for the Environment is the best Minister to preside over decisions on questions of that nature. 
On that front again I would argue strongly that this role has not been used very often and there are obviously very specific limitations on the way in which the Minister of Conservation can make decisions. The court said that the process appears to have let the former Minister down on the Whangamata issue. However let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us have another look at the implications of the issues of the space that we are talking about especially when it comes to the foreshore and seabed. I think the Minister needs to revisit the question of who fills that gap. With respect I do not think it should be the Minister for the Environment in a carte blanche way. In fact I would petition the Minister strongly to do an assessment and scoping of the various lands that are captured in that domain and ask for advice to ensure that the Attorney-General be considered as the most relevant person to fill the space if it is not the Minister of Conservation.