Burns Brendon: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burns Brendon: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1507] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Labour has made clear that it will support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to go to the select committee with some reservations and a case for exploration. It has been made clear already that there has been an ongoing process of change to the resource management legislation in the 17 or 18 years it has been before this Parliament. Steve Chadwick mentioned that it is complex legislation dealing with an evolving world—an evolving and complex set of issues balancing the often competing interests of development and sustainability. 
Labour of course supports in principle any move towards making the Resource Management Act work better but I think that it is important to keep things in some context. About a thousand resource consents are processed every week by councils around the country. Nearly three-quarters of them are met within the statutory time frames. About 4 percent are notified and only about 1 percent are appealed to the Environment Court. Sixty prosecutions or thereabouts result under the Resource Management Act each year. I for one have been a beneficiary of past changes to the Resource Management Act. In 2005 changes were made around notifying consents and reductions to those requirements and I was able very easily to subdivide a property under the changes which I think were introduced by my good friend the Hon Marian Hobbs. 
It is also important that we as parliamentarians concentrate through the select committee process on making sure that we get the detail right and that the change can be enduring. One point I think we have to be very careful about is the wish of the Government on the reinstatement of the powers of the Environment Court to require security for costs. I raise that point through an example that sticks very firmly in my mind from the earlier days of the Resource Management Act which is one that will be well known to the Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith. In late 1994 the first fast ferries commenced their operations in the Marlborough Sounds. It was clear right from the start that considerable environmental damage issues were ensuing. A group of local residents bach owners fishermen iwi and others took a case to the Environment Court seeking to reduce the speed of the ferries. They lost that case. Damages were awarded against them—a small group of local residents fishermen iwi and others—to the tune of $27000. There was also a cost order against Denis Marshall the then Minister of Conservation of about $7000. Some 4 or 5 years later the Marlborough District Council managed to effect changes under the Resource Management Act to introduce the very changes that those small groups supported by the then Minister of Conservation had sought to ameliorate in relation to the impacts of fast ferries; a speed of 18 knots was set both for the safety of people on beaches and a reduction in environmental impacts. So we need to be very careful in the select committee process to make sure that we do not mean that people will not be able to take a position against a resource consent proposal because they are in a small community or small group. 
I acknowledge that the bill’s focus when it comes to what it terms “vexatious and frivolous” objections is focused on trade competition. I think everybody would acknowledge there has been a particular example cited in the House about a supermarket chain in Auckland frustrating the wish of another supermarket chain to quite legitimately open a branch. However I just want to note that it is not always the case that trade competitors necessarily have their own venal interests to protect. Last year I made a submission against one supermarket chain seeking to establish a liquor store within the confines of its supermarket. I would have been delighted to have a supporting submission from the competing supermarket chain. I think that it may possibly have submitted one and I do not think that the submission would necessarily have been solely limited to trade interests. I think the chain genuinely did not want to get into the situation of having to compete and of having to start opening its own supermarket liquor stores if that consent had been granted for liquor. 
However speaking more broadly I tell the House that Labour will support the improvements to the Resource Management Act being made under this bill—presuming of course that these do not come at the expense of the very important principles of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. I believe that the Minister the Hon Nick Smith does indeed want to protect the environment through this bill and he has outlined that there will be no changes to the principles or practices of the Resource Management Act as a result of this legislation. I have to say though that there are one or two worrying signals around that. I noted in the House last week that a meeting in Christchurch prior to Christmas which was attended by three Ministers irrigators dairy interests and people connected to the corporate dairying sector discussed the Resource Management Act and the need for water on the Canterbury Plains. There is a view that this country’s economic problems can be solved by bowling the Resource Management Act and giving the water to those who want it and that nirvana will result. But that does not take account as it must of the fact that we want sustainable economic growth that does not continue to depreciate the quality—already low as it is—of the streams and rivers of Canterbury. We will need to be very careful of those issues as this legislation progresses. 
We acknowledge the Minister and give credit to him for the briefing last evening which was courteous. But this is a huge bill of 160 clauses or thereabouts—over 118 pages—and we have still not seen the technical advisory group’s report. We have a lot of detail to work through to ensure that the bill achieves the objectives that are so nobly outlined by the Minister. 
The Environmental Protection Agency will be created under this bill. It is not yet clear how it will work where exactly it will draw its staff from or the relationship it might have with the Ministry for the Environment. Nor of course is it clear what the cost of creating another Government agency will be when this Government says it has concerns about that issue. The Environmental Protection Agency will play a very important role in terms of such things as the plan changes able to be processed by the agency and by a board of inquiry. Again we will need to see the details. We understand that National is proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency’s roles and functions will for the time being be exercised by the Secretary for the Environment. At this stage we have had indications that the powers will be transferred once the Environmental Risk Management Authority has been “evolved” if you like into the Environmental Protection Agency. Again we await those details. The Minister said in his introduction that he will be working with the select committee to get the detail correct; that of course is very very welcome. 
I think one of the issues that will be of prime consideration for the select committee is the proposal to remove the current presumption in favour of resource consent applications and to amend the criteria for when public notification is required. Obviously as we have noted already about 96 percent of all consents are going through not notified. I am not clear that in fact the proposals will mean a reduction in the number of non-notified and notified consents. That detail will be awaited. Of course the proposal as it stands may limit public participation; we await further detail in respect of that. 
We have noted already in the House I think some concerns in relation to the loss of the Minister of Conservation’s ability to intervene but we will work through that in the select committee process. There are proposals for raising the maximum fines for an offence under the Resource Management Act from $200000 to $600000 for corporate offenders and to $300000 for individuals. Again we will want to work through the details in the select committee process. 
Labour has made it very clear that it wants to see better environmental policy. We will work towards that obviously within the whole framework of environmental policy statements and national environmental standards. We hope that this bill will accelerate and continue the progress that has been made. Thank you.