Peters Jim: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5317] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The Resource Management Act has been with us for over a decade and as the Minister has already stated it has been the subject of precedent decisions and many many hours—almost years—of planning by local authorities over the past decade virtually without help from Government apart from the national coastal strategy. Almost at the end of the decade in 1999 the Resource Management Amendment Bill was introduced. One of the queries I have to raise immediately is why this bill sat from May 2001 for almost 2 years somewhere in the bowels of this place waiting to come back to the House with four supposed improvements. 
What happened in that time? Well something happened with regard to legislation. We passed the Climate Change Response Act recently and last year the Local Government Act. Other Acts also have impacted upon the Resource Management Act. Yet not one recognition of the changes in legislation implemented since May 2001 is seen in this bill before us today. That suggests to me either a lazy Government a lazy Minister or more likely a Ministry for the Environment beset by some of the issues that beset anybody who looks at this Act as it is today and at the amendment bill before us. 
One of the issues that is quite correct in the assumption already stated in this House is that of uncertainty weighed against the evident need for certainty. That certainly extends right down to every New Zealander who is involved in development of any sort. Whether one is building one’s first house a boat pontoon a school a factory or whatever it is a central factor of life that one has to undergo the rigours of the Resource Management Act and this amendment bill in the future. So as a newcomer to the House the most surprising thing to me was that a Minister could come to this House in March present a bill and assume that because three out of the 11 members of the original committee had heard the exhaustive and substantial submissions on the bill it should be sufficient for the present Local Government and Environment Committee to look at the bill and after all consideration make a judgment on it. I am not quite sure whether that is a new democratic stance the minority Government has in mind but it was certainly not in the mind of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu who stated this: “If the Government passes the amendment to the Resource Management Act 1993 it will derogate from the public’s right to participate in decision making. The RMA is New Zealand’s most significant environmental legislation and any opportunity for public participation in this area should be strengthened not weakened.” Exclusion means “weak” not “strong”. In this case there was a deliberate act on the part of the Minister and the Government to exclude all submissions. Even written submissions were not to be considered by the committee. 
I turn to those people who are most concerned about these matters—the people who are involved in the administration of the Act every day—namely the councils. One mayor who wrote to the Minister for the Environment said: “I am writing regarding your press statement that the above bill should be passed urgently with only the briefest time for it to be considered by the Local Government and Environment select committee. I must concur with New Zealand First on this issue. The Resource Management Act is a far-reaching and complex piece of legislation impacting on every New Zealander. Much has been said and written regarding the bill and its shortcomings. I would also suggest that there are a large number of very positive features of the current Act. To this end I believe that a review of this Act is one of the fundamental issues facing Government. It should not be rushed. Any rush to enact changes is likely to lead to confusion or ill-considered approaches.” That is the point that one mayor made and it is the point that New Zealand First makes as well. We should have taken the time to discuss the bill properly and we should have got it right. 
The fact that the Minister can come to the House and mention in her second-reading speech that after 2 years four minimal suggestions have been made in the bill and that it is right and proper that the bill should come to the House without the select committee having heard any further submissions is just not sound governance and practice. However having been here last year for the debate on the Local Government Act when we had the same extraordinary experience I say that it is becoming almost par for the course with that Government. 
We have heard about the limited notification of resource consent applications. We have heard the Minister say that that was significant and I have seen her press statements. However when a group of concerned members of this House met people over the last fortnight that was not their experience and it is not mine either. I earnestly believe that this limited notification provision alone is an illusion—whether or not it is deliberate. The illusion concerns the fact that last year in this House in sections 77 and 78 of the Local Government Act we passed these kinds of thoughts. First in section 77(1): “A local authority must in the course of the decision-making process”—which could be a local hearing—“(a) seek to identify all reasonably practical options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and (b) assess …” so and so. Under section 78(1) of that Act local council officers acting under authority or delegation must in the course of decision-making in relation to a matter “give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or to have interest in the matter.” 
That states very very clearly indeed that limited notification which has been much trumpeted as a remarkable change is nothing more than a slight and I concur with those people who met us in saying just that. But they had not looked at section 78 of the Local Government Act. I venture to say that this year that section which relates to the notification or non-notification of resource consent could be and will be construed as placing a stronger obligation on local authority officers to approach persons who are likely to be affected by resource consent applications and to give consideration to their views and preferences. 
What does that say about the much-trumpeted limited notification which has somehow been conveyed to the business community—after all that community has to have a few sops; it has not had many from this Government—that it will help to speed up the process. That is wrong. It will not speed up the process because if one looks at the Local Government Act one sees that a higher standard and greater threshold of understanding is required by local authority officers when they go about making any decision at any time. 
However I go to another matter. The Minister said this bill will bring certainty and she pointed out that the historic heritage features were there in the bill presented by the select committee in May 2001. If ever there was a major area of uncertainty it is the elevation of that whole provision relating to historic heritage apart from one term which has now been taken out of the principal Act—another issue to be considered—and has instead been placed in the major part of the bill as a matter of national importance. If it were so would a concerned Minister who wanted to give clarity of interpretation and intention not put that in the actual interpretation clause? No—not one word covers the cultural landscape or the meaning of wahi tapu. And why not? It is an area that has been much covered with regard to local government over a decade now and is understood. This bill has elevated it so why therefore is there not a legal definition? Why is there not an interpretation? Not one of those new features is there at all. Time was the only issue that precluded that from happening. We had understandings and meanings from the Historic Places Trust but not one of those appear in this bill. 
In conclusion I say that the much-trumpeted minor changes are indeed very minor apart from this clause which is major. It really is a matter of thrust and intention that a Government that has fallen out of favour with the business community is no longer concerned about development—whether great or small. This bill is not the suitable amendment to a major Act that it ought to be.