Williams Andrew: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Resource Management Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7340. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am taking a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Resource Management Reform Bill 2012. Can I just say that in this particular instance it is very clear that New Zealand First is the central party of politics in this country—and we will be taking the central middle ground—in that we see arguments on both sides. But in this instance we are prepared to support this bill through its first reading in order for the Resource Management Act to get a fair airing and a fair hearing and for it to be reviewed in a proper manner. 
I think we would all agree—and I do not think anyone would really dispute it—that there have been some issues around New Zealand on occasion where the Resource Management Act has been brought into disrepute and there have been major problems as a result and where a review of the Act certainly would see some improvements being made to it. I can recall being involved for instance in the Pak ’N Save Wairau Road supermarket instance which had gone on for something like 18 years and where one party one of the major supermarket operators took on the other supermarket operator—there had been only two in the country—and very much used the Resource Management Act to stop the Pak ’N Save supermarket going ahead. The supermarket operator was very much seen as a vexatious litigant and used all sorts of things like traffic issues and other issues—even though its own supermarket was 5 kilometres away and had no bearing on the new Pak ’N Save whatsoever—and all sorts of spurious arguments under the Resource Management Act to stop the competitor setting up. 
There were many other examples. I sat as a Resource Management Act commissioner for 9 years and we had similar problems when the Birkenhead Library was demolished prior to getting resource consent and then spent 2 or 3 years finally getting a resource consent to replace the library with another library which seemed an odd situation. Likewise getting the consent for the Albany Senior High School was a major undertaking and again there were some very spurious arguments around that. At the end of the day they were met but they did delay for several years the high school being built and added a huge amount of expense. At the end of the day the community really wanted to find a way through it but again it was very very awkward. 
I can also remember with the Auckland Regional Council when the North Shore City Council submitted consents for 64 water catchment areas on the North Shore. There were 64 different water catchments on the North Shore and we were given only a 6-year consent. Even though it had cost $2 million for the application and it had taken our staff of the council more than a year to prepare the consent we were then provided initially with only a 6-year consent. We said that when we were spending that sort of ratepayers’ money—$2 million—and getting only a 6-year certainty of the resource consent then that was very very poor use of public money. We managed to convince the Auckland Regional Council to extend that period out considerably longer than that. 
These are the sorts of things that go on throughout New Zealand. They were only my personal experiences from the North Shore and within Auckland but if you multiply that out around the country it is a very very expensive process that can cost communities a great deal of money. We often refer to the Resource Management Act as the “rich man’s Act” and many people refer to it as the “rich man’s Act” because it usually meant that the party that had the deepest pockets that could employ the most expensive consultants and that could stretch it out the longest would often try to win the argument simply by investing more and more money into the particular problem. What we did find in many instances was that of course communities suffered because often it was community groups conservation groups—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or whatever—that under the Resource Management Act were being put to a huge amount of expense to try to take on some various situations that were very very costly for communities. 
Again I can recall the Long Bay development plan which took a number of years. The locals had to raise many many hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the development at Long Bay. Again it seemed that the whole process was an incredibly long and litigious one which perhaps had it been able to be sped up and had heads been able to be knocked together a little bit more speedily it would have saved everybody a huge amount of grief and money. 
Having said that we also agree that the Auckland Plan is a major concern to Auckland. It is necessary to get the Auckland Plan in place and there are merits in speeding up that process so that Auckland can get on with one plan. We are supportive of that but we certainly do have some concerns. We would hope that the hearings that are held by appointed commissioners are held in a full and frank manner and certainly with good intent. We certainly would not want the plan to be controlled from Wellington for a controlled outcome. We certainly want to ensure that Auckland gets the best results from that. From speaking with different Auckland Council members most of them are very supportive of the idea of getting this bill through so that they can get on with the Auckland Plan. If Auckland is to succeed in its economic growth then it certainly does need that to do so. 
Likewise when you read in this bill that there is a need to consider regional economic impact and opportunity costs and costs and benefits as a result of this bill again there are opportunities in communities around New Zealand. If the Resource Management Act can be fine-tuned and can be improved in some areas then it certainly could help economic and regional development around the country by doing so. However having said that as I said at the beginning we are the central party of New Zealand politics which sees both the good and the bad and we do have some concerns about the proposal that the hearing applications for water conservation orders under the Resource Management Act will not be subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. That is somewhat concerning to us because we do feel that anything to do with water water rights or applications for water should be a very transparent and open public process. The public have a right to know what is being heard and the finding of that and the background to any hearings. So we will be raising that particular aspect with the Government because we believe that it should be open and transparent and that there should not be smoke and mirrors when it comes to those sorts of issues. 
But overall we will support this bill through. We will raise some issues with the Government in terms of the Resource Management Act. It is an important piece of legislation for New Zealand. It is a piece of legislation that does safeguard our environment and safeguard our communities to a great extent. But it has become at times very unwieldy and expensive and perhaps has been an undue cost on many communities in New Zealand that are trying to move ahead. That having been said if we can find some middle ground if we can find some areas where it can be modified to everyone’s satisfaction including those who are very very strong in terms of conservation and the environment if we can find ways through to improve it overall then I think most New Zealanders would support that. Thank you.