Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5629] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. It pleases me greatly to see this bill reach the point of becoming legislation. For those who work in resource management the changes introduced here are long overdue. Most are simple constructive changes that build upon the extensive experience of those working with the Act. Collectively these changes will result in a significant improvement in the way that the Act works. 
Most commentators readily accept that it is not the principles of the Resource Management Act that are flawed; concerns are instead about uncertainty and overly restrictive process requirements. The provisions introduced here will help to overcome those problems. They will develop increased certainty as in the clarifying of when the provisions of proposed plans will take effect. 
Changes to the provisions for national environment standards in particular signify an important change in the Government’s approach to resource management. For too long local government has struggled on its own to develop simple effective and consistent environmental controls. The new provisions make it easier for central government to become involved in this process. Using those tools we will now be more able to work closely with local government to achieve improved environmental outcomes. In the last weeks we have been working closely with the regional councils to draw up an agreed priority list as to which national environment standards to proceed with. Importantly the provisions will not override the role of local government but do allow for central government to offer more help when that is appropriate. 
The limited notification provisions are designed to reduce compliance costs and improve the processing of resource consents with minor effects on the environment. On this issue I note I have received most mail—hundreds of letters in fact. I read in this month’s  
Orchardist 
 magazine a good summary of how the limited notification provisions might apply to fruitgrowers: “If a grower needs consent to put a minor extension on a building to get approval permission is needed from all those likely to be affected such as the neighbours. 
“Under the present system if all the neighbours give their permission the consent is not likely to be publicly notified. But if one neighbour objects to the grower’s proposal the council would have no choice but to fully notify the consent. 
“With limited notification while the grower would still need to get approval for expanding the business submissions/objections wouldn’t need to be invited from people other than those directly affected such as the neighbours. This will reduce the costs to applicants as full notification including advertising in a newspaper can be an expensive task.” 
This Government recognises that alongside amendments to the legislation significant gains can also be made by working with those parties involved to improve practice. The Ministry for the Environment is working with local government business and the community to improve resource management decision-making and with the Department for Courts to improve facilities and support for the Environment Court. The Environment Court has reduced its backlog and will continue that reduction. As a consequence the threat of going to the Environment Court will be removed as a weapon of blackmail. The Ministry for the Environment is working with representatives from a wide range of groups including the New Zealand Contractors Federation Business New Zealand and Local Government New Zealand to ensure better consistency in resource consent processing council charging and hearing processes. Amendments to the law are only one way to improve the Act and we must not neglect support for the Environment Court. 
Getting the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) to this point has been no small challenge. I would like to extend my thanks to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and to the chair in particular for her and their significant efforts on the bill in both its forms—particularly when they saw some of their decisions on the first bill overturned as a result of the business compliance cost panel’s recommendations. 
Yes getting this bill to the third reading has involved refinements—for example the removal of three terms introduced by the select committee in the definition of historic heritage. I listened to the concerns raised courteously by my colleague Larry Baldock. I went back to the two ministries concerned and to some of the members of the select committee who had inserted those words in the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill. I judged last Wednesday that the essence of our ensuring that historic heritage was elevated to a matter of national importance—as asked for in the letter from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—was not weakened by the removal of those words which would have taken the courts some time to define. 
Section 6 as introduced in the original Act in 1991 reads as follows: “Matters of national importance—In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons ... shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment … (b) The protection of outstanding natural features … (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and … indigenous fauna: (d) The maintenance … of access to … marine area lakes and rivers: (e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” These words have been in the Act since its introduction in 1991. I cannot recall anyone ever having asked me to take those particular words out. 
This bill in clause 4 adds to section 6 paragraph (f): “the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision use and development.” It was the definition of historic heritage that caused problems for Mr Baldock. He wanted the removal of the words “spiritual” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” from the definition. I judged that the words that had been added were not necessary to expedite the issue raised by the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. For example a sacred site can be covered by “cultural” or “historic” or both together or even by “sites of significance to Maori including wahi tapu …” which is in the current definition of historic heritage. Therefore the Government supported Mr Baldock’s reasonable amendment. 
The Government remains committed to achieving a healthy environment for all New Zealanders now and in the future. We will continue to work alongside those implementing the Act in the courts and in the councils in order to achieve improved environmental outcomes. I make this commitment to the House: if members thought this was the end to the amendments to the Resource Management Act I can report that probably two more sets of amendments are to be developed this year. I commend the bill to the House.