Copeland Gordon: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2315] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating Jeanette Fitzsimons on being successful in the ballot. It is always a buzz when one’s bill is drawn particularly in this new MMP environment where a bill coming out of the ballot has the very real possibility of becoming the law of the land if we get the various alliances right under our MMP system. It is an example of MMP at work if one likes and it is a great environment to be in. 
I guess I have looked at this bill from the big picture point of view rather than getting down to the minutiae. After all this is a first reading and it is good to look at the big picture. The first question I have asked myself is whether the Resource Management Act as it stands is rather too restrictive or not restrictive enough. Quite clearly in my view the answer has to be that it is presently too restrictive. When the House was debating the previous amendment to the Resource Management Act in 2005 I remember the Hon David Benson-Pope saying that it represented a work in progress and that the Government would be prepared to revisit it as various problems emerged. 
Looking at that big picture I have to say that I believe the Act is still too restrictive. That view is reinforced by the fact that I recently had to obtain a resource consent here in Wellington to build a fence of 5.25 metres on my boundary. The resource application was as if I was building a block of flats. I had to pay 540 bucks upfront and so far my fence is only half built. One of the things that we are therefore being overprescriptive about is not giving enough scope in the Resource Management Act for people to apply common sense. Without going into details members should believe me when I say that anyone who had come along and looked at it could have made the decision in 5 seconds that it was fine in terms of the Resource Management Act. I mean I could have paid the city council $80 to look at what I wanted to do and where and it would have found it was fine. But we are stuck with this very very tightly regulated regime. 
Other members of my family have had similar experiences as have my friends. There are literally thousands and thousands of Kiwis who have had experiences with the Resource Management Act and found the process far far too prescriptive and sort of nanny State. There needs to be a bit more room for common sense. 
The second problem I see and I think it is quite a serious problem for New Zealanders is that we are increasingly becoming risk-averse. We are trying to create some sort of idealised society where nobody takes any risks any longer. My worry is that if we keep going down that track eventually we will smother and even extinguish that get-up-and-go can-do entrepreneurial number eight wire creative spirit which is the very thing that made our nation great in the first place. 
I could give many many examples. However I shall take members through one example related to coastal permits. It is possible that the bill may result in a local authority denying somebody the right to build say a bach on a coastal section on the basis that as a result of climate change in a few years’ time part of that section might be washed away. Let us say it could be in 15 years’ time or an indefinite period; no one could say exactly when it would be. In one sense that seems reasonable so let us not allow a person to build there. However it is possible that the individual may say: “But actually if I get 15 years of fantastic holidays with my family in this bach that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.” I think we should let people make those kinds of decisions without becoming too prescriptive. 
United Future will support the first reading and referral to the select committee. I say to the people of New Zealand: “Please come along to the committee and have your say.” We need to hear those views and that is why New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee. But I signal that our support cannot be guaranteed beyond that stage. We will carefully follow the process in the committee and when that is complete we will decide about our future support of the bill.