Street Maryan: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12840. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Resource Management Reform Bill. There are two parts of this bill that Labour has been particularly concerned about. One we have addressed and addressed unsuccessfully in Part 1 of the bill and that was around protection of trees. The second part that concerns us is actually the swipe at local democracy that is contained in Part 2 which is the bit under discussion at the moment and which covers Auckland transitional provisions. Before I get on to clause 125 which I want to deal with in some detail I want to firstaddress clause 124 which talks about transitional regulations. Transitional regulations are always problematic and it is my great hope that one day the National members of the Regulations Review Committee will allow us to do an inquiry into transitional regulations because they are the place where the devil lies. In other words they do contain the detail of a bill. We are all familiar with that expression that the devil is in the detail.Transitional provisions do allow Governments to put in by regulation something that does not come before this House for scrutiny. This was one of our concerns originally. It caused us to draw attention to this in the Local Government and Environment Committee minority report in the commentary at the beginning of the amended Resource Management Reform Bill as it now sits in front of the Committee. In that minority report we said that we originally had concerns over this bill because it vested in the Minister the power to make regulations that could conceivably pervert the original intention of the Resource Management Act in one of these “Henry VIII” provisions. But that power was amended by the Local Government and Environment Committee so some change was achieved by the select committee. In particular clause 124 inserts subsection (6A) in section 5 which states: “In addition the Minister for the Environment must not recommend the making of regulations under subsection (4) unless he or she has first consulted the Auckland Council and the hearings panel (if it exists then) on the proposed regulations.” That is an improvement but we are still left puzzled as to why legislation to turn other transitional provisions into primary legislation such as the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) which was introduced to the House for its first reading on 5 June of this year before this report—the report on the Resource Management Reform Bill—had even been submitted to the House. So that legislation I have just referred to—the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)—should be blended with the work in this bill in order to ensure that unnecessary amendment is not required later.My particular concerns lie with clause 125 which is very substantial. Clause 125 goes on for page after page after page because it inserts a new Part 4. So while we debate today Parts 1 2 and 3 of the bill this is in Part 2 the addition or the insertion of a new Part 4. This is where some of our concerns become obvious because they are about the role of the Auckland Council—a democratically elected body—to have some say in the process for development of the first combined plan for Auckland Council. Of course the Auckland Council has had a very robust and quite profound public consultation process over the development of its plan. That is to be commended.What I want to do is speak in favour of Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 281. Quite simply and yet quite profoundly she seeks to insert the words “and Auckland Council” into every part of this clause which is clause 125 section 115 but also the new section 155 of the Resource Management Act where the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation have powers. She has recommended in the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 281 that at every point where the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for the Environment have powers the Auckland Council be included in those powers and that there be some sharing of power in the decisions that pertain to both of these clauses.So first of all in clause 125 section 115 there is the ability for Auckland Council to forward all relevant information to a specialist hearings panel appointed by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation. This is the first moment in this part of the bill where Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper seeks to insert “and Auckland Council” so that a specialist hearings panel would be appointed by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation and the Auckland Council. This Supplementary Order Paper really begins to find its feet beyond thatmention when we get to clause 125 section 155 which is all about the setting up of a hearings panel. It seems to me at every point to be absolutely not just a matter of right for the people of Auckland but a matter of common sense that a body as large as the Auckland Council representing a population as large as that ought to be involved in the appointment of hearings panels that are going to determine whether an application is able to go ahead. So at every point in that section and in section 157 as well and in section 162 which involves consultation the member Eugenie Sage simply seeks to reinforce democracy. Her Supplementary Order Paper has our support in that regard.Finally I would also like to talk to the member Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper 283. This is the one that talks about the scope of the hearings panel. Currently in the bill as it is it says that the hearings panel is not limited to making recommendations only within the scope of the submissions made on any proposed plan but it may also make recommendations on any other matters relating to the proposed plan identified by the panel or any other person during the hearing. So in other words people can come and present a hearings panel with ideas that have never been considered previously and there is the ability of the hearings panel to consider things that are outside the scope of the plan. So this could be taken to mean any number of things—for example let us add a residential development block here when we are actually talking about a park or a green area. This really opens a floodgate and that is closed if we can see our way clear to supporting the member’s Supplementary Order Paper 283 which requires that the hearings panel considers only things that are within scope and not outside of it. That is a common sense and legitimate amendment to make. The bill as it stands in that respect—