Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1488] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which is being promoted by the Minister Nick Smith. I foreshadow to the House that Labour will be voting for the first reading of the bill so that it can go to the select committee and public submissions can be heard. Opposition members have had fewer than 24 hours to consider the detail of this bill so we want to take the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits—or otherwise—outlined by the Minister. We do have concerns about the bill. I acknowledge the briefing offered by the Minister last evening to explain some of the motivations for the legislation and I note that there are some real concerns about the planning and consenting process that need to be looked at in more detail. 
The Resource Management Act is finely balanced legislation. It aims to provide for public involvement in the decision-making process to enable sustainable management of resources and to protect our beautiful natural and physical heritage. We would certainly agree that this legislation in particular must be reviewed and revisited in order to improve the operation of the Act and give greater certainty thereby reducing delays and costs and to ensure consistency of processes within resource consent decision-making. 
Changes introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2005 included greater use of national policy statements and national environmental standards in order to give national direction and consistency across local government. By 2008 work had gained momentum in this area and I look forward to seeing work commissioned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to consider the formation of both national policy and environmental standards. 
The Environment Court was to have regard to the local consent authority’s decision and to focus only on matters of contention rather than to start the entire process all over again. Labour also made changes to allow an applicant or council to ask central government to become involved in the very small number of complex cross-boundary cases where local decision-making may not provide the best results. This could allow for national assistance being provided to councils or national representation in the decision-making process; central government being more able to make submissions on behalf of the Crown; and call-in powers to the Minister for the Environment being enhanced. These were but some of the changes that sought to improve the operation of the Act without compromising the environment. 
It is important to highlight that one of the principles underlying the bill relies on public involvement in the decision-making process. I want to draw on this point as it relates to some of the problems that have been highlighted initially in this bill. It is proposed that frivolous vexatious and anti-competitive objections are addressed. On the surface of it the House may well find itself agreeing with the proposed measures to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour but this does need to be balanced and calibrated with legitimate concerns from members of the public about contentious developments in their community. They may be shut out of the process altogether because of the very same provision to reduce anti-competitive behaviour. We intend to use the select committee process to explore this matter further as I think legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue. 
On balance the provisions seeking greater compliance through increased fines should see greater observance of consent conditions and more accountability for the terms of the consent. I think in particular of discharge into the Waikato River in former times which was leached through non-compliant landfills; a local example near Waharoa where toxic contaminants were discharged into waterways; and contaminated waterways caused by effluence from a local meatworks plant in the King Country. These are just some of the many examples where greater compliance would benefit both the environment and the public interest. 
Another aspect that may be seen as tipping the balance of maintaining public input into the decision-making process is the proposal to recover security of cost increasing filing fees where access to the Environment Court is prevented and reducing appeals that may prevent the public interest from being heard. Again these are matters that again should be explored and heard by the select committee. I note in particular comments made by Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society when he commented on the proposals and said: “Overall there are a number of changes that taken together will weaken proactive planning further limit public involvement in the RMA processes and shift the balance further towards development interests. This is hardly surprising given the development bias in the membership of the TAG.” 
I go on to quote him where he says: “Another concern is the proposal to further limit notification of resource consents. Rights for the public to object have slowly been whittled away … This runs counter to the participatory nature of the RMA and the ability of members of the public to be heard on applications which are likely to have a negative effect on the environment.” Although I note that the findings of the technical advisory group will be tabled today by the Minister the lack of environmental input into the proposed changes raises further questions that we will leave for the time being so that the select committee can consider them. 
I want to comment briefly on the assertion of the Maori Party that there are huge benefits for Maori in keeping sections 6 7 and 8 intact. The simple point is that under a Labour Government those causes would not even be matters of contention. So I look forward to working with the Maori Party to see what aspects of National’s proposed changes would better facilitate Maori input into the decision-making planning and consent process. Unfortunately on the questions of coastal residential developments the protection of wahi tapu affected by major developments bank stabilisation of urupa and marae and breaches of water discharge consents Maori interests are often not considered and are conveniently overlooked. 
There is also the proposal on the issue of notification of resource consent application—again it is a concern raised by the public. Currently there is a discretion for councils to notify applications where there is a minor effect on the environment. This will change and councils will not be required to notify applications with a minor effect on the environment. This raises the threshold as to when applications for resource consents must be publicly notified. Previously councils had to publicly notify where effects were more than minor. The bill states that councils must now notify only where effects beyond the immediate environment are more than minor. This means that small local consents will not necessarily need to be publicly notified. This will have implications I am sure for small communities and public interest. 
The bill also introduces the idea of an affected person and limited notification. An affected person is someone who will suffer more than minor adverse effects. So where the activity will not have any effects beyond the immediate environment it must still be notified on a limited basis to affected persons. I raise that point to foreshadow that we will want to raise those types of issues at the select committee for further investigation. 
The bill introduces the concept of the Environmental Protection Agency. We understand that much of the detail of that will be in round two of the changes to the Resource Management Act. Although that is an idea that at this stage sounds more conducive to facilitating projects of national significance we will not rule out the importance of this particular initiative in terms of how it may better facilitate decision making. 
The proposal to remove the role of the Minister of Conservation does cause concern especially when we consider the role of that Minister to advocate in the public interest on proposed coastal developments. I need only look close to home at Whangamata to find an example and there could be a broad and serious debate on that issue. However we should investigate fully as to whether removing the role of the Minister of Conservation is in the public interest in terms of developments certainly along the coast. 
I reiterate that Labour will work constructively at a select committee level to address the measures that will remove unnecessary delays. We see benefit in stronger compliance mechanisms. We are considering the provisions around resource consent processes especially aspects of non-notification. We raise serious concerns about removing the role of the Minister of Conservation. These and other matters will I am sure be considered more fully at the select committee level and we look forward to the submissions from the public on this matter.