Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9608] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin by thanking the members who have contributed so far in this debate on the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. I express my regret that from my rough calculations it does not look like this bill will have the numbers to get to a select committee where I am sure it would have enjoyed the pleasure of further debate. 
I say to the National members who contributed to the debate particularly the ones from Canterbury that people who have been involved in the Central Plains Water scheme’s intrusion on to private land will be very disappointed that Nicky Wagner being fully aware of the consequences the Central Plains Water scheme has on private land in the Malvern Hills area chose not to support the local farming community. That community is outraged that their private land is no longer theirs because the law does not allow the Minister for the Environment to do anything other than agree to the scheme. The Hon Dr Nick Smith should know better because he has had exactly the same advice. If the Central Plains Water scheme was given to Dr Smith to give requiring authority status he would have no option but to approve it as the Minister in 2005 had no option but to approve it. That should be changed. We should not have the private land rights of individuals intruded on for anything other than a project that is necessary and in the public interest. In my view that is a simple change that National should be grown-up enough to allow to go to a select committee. 
The bill acknowledges that the current law does not give the Minister for the Environment the range of tools that he or she should have. Therefore in the event that a project application comes before them the bill provides that the Minister when he or she is asked to give requiring authority status to an organisation for a project would be able to say no if it was not in the public interest for that project to have access and use of private land. I do not know many New Zealanders who would say anything other than that is fair. That is what this very small change would do. It would be fair to people like the farmers from Malvern Hills who for generations have lived on that piece of land. They consider it theirs it is part of their history but it will not be part of their future because the law allows organisations to use part of the farmers’ land for their projects. In this case farmers lose part of their land if the project goes ahead. 
My sole point in proposing this legislation was to give the Minister for the Environment another tool so it would increase the threshold that an organisation would have to reach before the Minister would give it approval as a requiring authority. First of all the Minster would have to be satisfied that granting an organisation requiring-authority status was necessary and that it was not just convenient and useful for that organisation. A higher standard would be required. It would have to be necessary. It would no longer have to just be appropriate for the applicant to be a requiring authority—that is all that the law allows at the moment—it would have to be necessary. The Minister would require the application to be necessary. That is another important increase in the threshold. The Minister for the Environment would also have to be satisfied that there was public interest for the project so it is something that the organisation needs to have requiring authority status for—necessary rather than just appropriate and also needed. 
The concerns that have been generated around many parts of the country over the last couple of decades but particularly around the Malvern Hills area and the Central Plains Water scheme would be removed. Ordinary New Zealanders who have worked hard to buy land or who have inherited it from their parents and grandparents would be once again given the security of knowing that that land is genuinely theirs. It is as it says in the title but it would be theirs in reality. 
I urge National members to reconsider before the vote is taken on this bill. I acknowledge and thank the other parties that have given this bill consideration and have agreed for it to go to a select committee.