O'Rourke Denis: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):The Government says that its legislation on this series of Resource Management Act reforms is designed to make the Resource Management Act easier to use increase its certainty and predictability and reduce unnecessary duplication and cost. At the same time the Government claims that these proposals are designed to deliver natural environmental outcomes New Zealanders want. But that is simply not true. The underlying thrust of the Government’s approach is for greater central government intervention in planning and consent processes. This we think will generate a shift from an effects-based management approach to an activity-directed approach inconsistent with the central provisions of the principal Act. That is not what New Zealanders want. The Government’s whole approach is both unnecessary and retrograde.The evidence is also quite clear to me concerning the length of time within which consent applications must be processed that only a tiny number of resource consent applications are declined overall. Even the Government’s own advice acknowledges that 90 percent of significant infrastructure projects successfully progress through the Resource Management Act now. The overall success rate of infrastructure projects seeking approval shows that they have a very good chance of obtaining consent.Last year 95 percent of consent applications were processed on time. Only 1 percent were appealed to the Environment Court. Virtually all of those cases were settled without the need for an Environment Court hearing. So why are the measures such as the 6-month consenting period for small and medium-sized projects being proposed at all? The need for the 6-month limit for small and medium applications is not justified and may mean applications will not be dealt with properly thus defeating the purpose of the principal Act.These changes are unlikely to deliver the Government’s stated objectives of making the system easier to use increasing its certainty and predictability and reducing unnecessary duplication and cost. New Zealand First would support sensible practical measures to make administration of the Resource Management Act processes more efficient but we cannot see how most of the Government’s proposals will do that. I wish to comment especially on the provisions enabling some projects above a threshold not so far known to go straight to the Environment Court without an initial hearing by a local panel which therefore limits the discretion of local authorities. It is a mistake to make it too easy for applicants to go straight to the Environment Court for at least two good reasons. One reason is the avoidance of local submissions and input. People need a friendly and accommodating hearings process in which they can freely participate without lawyers being necessary.The second reason is that it is not good for the applicant either. Without an initial hearing before a panel to sort out the issues and to isolate the areas where the applicant may need to do further work the application will have less chance of success and less chance of a good final decision. This is especially so for large projects which are difficult to consent. Many applicants in their quest for a speedy and cheap process fail to grasp that submitters in opposition can in fact come up with insights and ideas for conditions of consent and for dealing with issues that the applicant has not properly considered despite all the experts they may have. I speak from long experience having had a leading role in two major projects. One was the Kate Valley landfill project in Canterbury which was inherently difficult to site and consent and the second was the Central Plains Water scheme in Canterbury which was also difficult to site and consent.In both cases there was extraordinary public interest and concern. Both took well over 10 years and $10 million to consent. In both cases the outcome was enhanced—from the point of view both of local submitters and the promoters of the projects themselves—through a very comprehensive local hearings process. The final consents were largely negotiated through this process rather than simply being adjudicated on by the Environment Court. In the end the court needed only to accept and confirm what the negotiations had produced.That sort of process is good for the purposes of the Resource Management Act which has the protection of New Zealand’s environment as the paramount consideration. Economic advantages are also important but are not paramount. As Bill Clinton said what is good for the environment is good for business but the reverse of course is not always true. So the underlying thrust of this bill the Resource Management Reform Bill is bad which is reflected in many of its provisions. New Zealand First cannot support it but we will support Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Papers 281 282 and 283 which are consistent with the way the principal Act is intended to operate and are sensible and worthwhile amendments.