Baldock Larry: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22308] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make some comments first of all on the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled. There has been much comment on the size of it and how preposterous that is. I expected that when we were going through the select committee process we would have to deal with a fairly sizable Supplementary Order Paper because of the speed with which we had had to work. In fact right until the last moment we deliberated in the Local Government and Environment Committee we knew that it was impossible for the drafters and officials to have got everything right and that there would be a number of technical changes. 
The bulk of the Supplementary Order Paper is simply technical amendments to make sure that everything is right. However United Future and I do not support the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only yesterday. I do not see any reason why other members of the House could not have perhaps had more time to view and examine it. Nevertheless the size of the Supplementary Order Paper is not an indication of major policy changes within the bill. We do welcome some of those changes though because they are not exactly new issues. They were debated during the select committee process. 
I was really pleased to see that in the Supplementary Order Paper we were taking on board some more submitters’ recommendations to the committee and I think further improving the bill and responding to submitters’ requests. One was the consideration of existing investment in applications. The bill already deals with that consideration where there are competing consents on a renewal basis and this is simply extending the case where there are no other competing interests. Of course local authorities should take into account someone’s investment when that person seeks to renew—in a sense although we never have renewals—a consent. That is something business would welcome. Where people have invested a great deal in infrastructure they should have that taken into consideration when they seek to have their consent renewed. 
The select committee also discussed the matter of the definition of “infrastructure”. Some very good submissions were made on that matter. I was quite impressed by the submission—I forget the name of the organisation the gentleman was from—that talked about quarries and their importance. That actually opened my eyes to how important quarries are in our communities. One can live in a place drive around and not know where all the aggregate comes from until someone brings it to one’s attention. The submitter showed us that making sure there is adequate provision for aggregate is important for our road construction building and so on. Unfortunately that will not be included but I think the submitter made a very good case for it. 
But I am pleased to see that the Minister and the officials have agreed to include infrastructure associated with electricity generation in this definition of “infrastructure”. I am sure David Parker will also be smiling as we have had a great deal of discussion about this. Recent announcements by Todd Energy in Auckland about its desire to perhaps build some smaller power plants there which may lead to dealing with the pylon and national grid problems makes this amendment even more worthwhile. I think regional councils should be looking at not only how power can be transmitted into our regions but also where possible where we can generate that power within the regions and therefore avoid reliance on our national grid. So we welcome those particular amendments and believe they will also add to the bill. 
One of the things we discussed in the select committee that was also amended slightly was the original proposal to give councils the power to require attendance at pre-hearing meetings. This comes out of a great deal of frustration for applicants and I think for local authorities when objectors and submitters may agree to attend a pre-hearing meeting and they then fail to turn up. They do it once do it again and then do it again. Everybody else takes the time to turn up to try to deal with issues but some people particularly if they are frivolous or vexatious objectors abuse the system. So we thought it would be a good idea to require them to attend. But as we started to examine what that would mean we realised we would have to have some amendments. 
We finally arrived at allowing the councils to have the flexibility to require or invite people to attend because in many cases what may be seen as a bit of a draconian power to require people to attend may not be the way forward. So I think we have arrived at a reasonable compromise to give local authorities that flexibility and we have to trust in their wisdom to be able to exercise it. In most cases they will simply invite people to attend. 
We felt that because additional costs could be placed upon an applicant with the pre-hearing meeting it was wise for local authorities to have an applicant’s consent before taking that measure. I think that will improve the operation of the Resource Management Act. 
Another issue that we dealt with was accreditation requirements and it was probably the most well received proposal in the bill right from the word go. Everyone thought that it should be compulsory for over 50 percent of those sitting on consent hearing processes at the local body level to be at least minimally qualified to handle those responsibilities. That process has been going on voluntarily and it is already making an improvement to the operation of the Act. So there was no need to change it per se but we were concerned about what would happen if fewer than 50 percent of a council’s councillors or of those sitting on appeal hearings or consent hearings were minimally qualified. We were concerned that it could mean applicants would suffer from having their consents nullified. I think it was wise to make it clear that factor would not impinge upon applicants but would reflect upon the council itself and once the person’s consent had been granted that consent would remain. 
Another issue we covered and discussed at some length was the transfer of discharge permits—a very good idea in order to maximise the benefit of discharge permits that had been issued and to make it possible for people who are not using their discharge permits to the full to be able to transfer it to someone else. However we did recognise the possibility that it might lead to the further abuse of the environment because if someone is not fully using his or her discharge permit and someone else comes along and uses it to the max we have not gained a net benefit for the environment. The amendments proposed to section 137 are intended to deal with that matter so that at the end of the process the environment is the beneficiary. Now the provision will not be a financial windfall for someone who has held a discharge consent for a long period of time and never really used it and who suddenly has almost a property right that he or she can go out and trade to someone else while the environment is left worse off. 
I welcome these amendments and I think we are progressing in this debate and in this passage of the bill towards a very good resource management amendment that will—unlike the member opposite—be recognised by most throughout the country as a vast improvement to the Resource Management Act. That was the overwhelming message we had from submitters as we went around the country and we have listened to them.