Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9126. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to theMinister for the Environment: How will the second round of proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 as they are currently expressed maintain the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The changes as proposed maintain protection of the environment in a number of ways including ensuring the overall purpose of the Resource Management Act in section 5 remains—promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources including safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air water soil and ecosystems. The proposals also provide that environmental matters of national importance in section 6 are all being maintained and we have also retained the directive wording of “preserve” and “protect” despite technical advice to remove these words. Where the proposals include the removal of second order matters in section 7 this is only where it has been demonstrated that they are adequately provided for in other parts of the Act. In addition the changes proposed in the second phase of the Resource Management Act go further than simply maintaining protections and include for the first time introducing national bottom lines for the quality of our waterways—for the first time in New Zealand’s history thanks to this National-led Government which prioritises action in this space something that the Labour-Greens Government never did.Hon Maryan Street: What is the import of deleting the words “the maintenance and enhancement of public access” to waterways from the current Part 2 of the Act which as the Minister knows outlines the purpose and principles of the Act and their replacement with the words “the value of public access” to these waterways and how does she see that as maintaining the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: The proposals provide that the decision makers must recognise and provide for the value of public access to and along the coastal marine area wetlands lakes and rivers. That is what we put out for consultation. We are satisfied that that adequately and properly provides for those matters and we are looking forward to receiving feedback on it.Hon Maryan Street: What is the import of the deletion from the current Part 2 of the Act of these words “the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values:” “intrinsic values of ecosystems:” “maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment:” and “the protection of the habitat of trout and salmon:” and how does she see these deletions as maintaining the protection of the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned in the answer to the primary question where we are suggesting that matters currently in section 7 which is second order considerations in Part 2 of the Act are removed it is only on the basis of independent technical expert evidence we have had that outlines that in each case they are adequately and properly provided for in other parts of the Act. In particular I refer to the member’s comment around amenity values. We note that they are already an explicit component of the environment as defined which must be sustainably managed under section 5. In respect of the habitat of trout and salmon I would draw her attention to the fact that the proposal now goes further than simply protecting the habitats of trout and salmon and provides for the protection of aquatic habitats generally including the protection of trout and salmon. We are improving protection.Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister believe that the report of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment from whom I have been quoting in the last two supplementary questions has any warning bells attaching to it for her; and if so what changes does she intend to make to the proposals in order for them not to become simply a charter for big business to exploit the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have read the submissions from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on both the resource management and the water proposals and I note that in some instances she concurs that the changes are much needed and in other areas she raises concern. But I do note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment suggests that economic development is not a relevant consideration under the Resource Management Act. It is the view of this Government that economic development jobs and cheaper housing are all absolutely valid considerations for our planning infrastructure and it is our view that New Zealanders do want things like the provision of jobs and cheaper housing to be relevant considerations under our planning legislation.