Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9599] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I listened to the previous speaker the Hon Ruth Dyson with interest because the approval of requiring authorities is a subject that has occupied an amount of time and discussion particularly during consideration of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill which passed through the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was heavily involved along with all the other members of the committee in the implementation of that legislation. The first phase reforms were considered carefully and we worked hard to get them right. Now thanks to those changes we have reduced a previously bureaucratic maze into something far more manageable that instead of impeding progress will allow progress to take place. That I would suggest was always the intention of the original Resource Management Act. 
I have two concerns about the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. One is that it is being done as an amendment and in isolation to other changes. Straight away one of the concerns I have is that it could eventually be a step backwards rather than forwards. I am sure that the intention of the bill’s proposer is that it be a step forwards so let me explain. Under the Resource Management Act requiring authorities are given the ability to have areas of land designated for network utilities or large public works. A requiring authority can be a Minister of the Crown a local or regional authority or a network utility operator approved by the Minister for the Environment. Currently to become a requiring authority a test of appropriateness is applied to applicants. An applicant may wish to carry out a project work or a network utility operation. The work that the applicant wishes to carry out is covered by this test. 
My understanding is that one of the two main purposes of the Hon Ruth Dyson’s bill is to change the requirement for a project to be “necessary” rather than “appropriate”. Clearly this could create a major roadblock for many projects. For a project to meet the requirements of a necessity test the network utility operators would have to demonstrate that the project is the only viable option. Therein lies a problem because that is not always the case. Even if an option may be considered the best option it may not be the only viable option. So this requirement would affect many regionally and nationally significant infrastructure projects. These are some of the discussions we had when we looked at this initially. This Government wants to progress projects not introduce legislation that in effect will hold them up. This bill could easily increase red tape for no demonstrable gain. It would in fact have negative consequences and would fail to achieve the laudable objective that no doubt inspired the member. 
Let us now look at the second test. Currently this test is applied in relation to whether the applicant is likely to carry out the responsibilities of a requiring authority including financial responsibilities satisfactorily. This test also asks whether the applicant will have proper regard to the interests of those affected and to the interests of the environment. The second major purpose of the Hon Ruth Dyson’s amendment bill is to require that as set out in clause 5(2)(aa) “the project work or network utility operation be in the public interest;”. None of what I am saying is intended to take away the reality that this is a difficult situation for any major works operation to deal with. But I would suggest that again the business of things having to be in the public interest seems excessive. From my analysis the current situation covers the necessary requirements. Adding another criterion of the project work or network utility operation having a “public interest” will rapidly be problematic. How does one define what the public interest is at any particular point in time and how long will it stay in exactly that position? It is another example of wanting to centralise things unnecessarily. 
It is not I contend the Government’s job to determine public interest and it is something that will be difficult to measure definitively. It could be a field day for litigants. Essentially if we go down the path of forcing projects to be necessary rather than appropriate combined with a requirement that they be in the public interest—the subjectivity of which would be a nightmare to achieve consensus on—then the number of projects would be radically reduced. We would be impeding progress and increasing extra unnecessary criteria which would increase the time delays we are trying to eliminate in reforms that this Government is undertaking. We will potentially miss out on the benefits a project may provide locally and those are jobs services and the potential for economic growth. 
It must also be noted that in the second phase of the Resource Management Act reforms to be instigated this year—and again this is not to lessen the intention of the proposer—work will be done on the designation provisions of the Resource Management Act. This is not just a matter of sour grapes and saying amendments are being done anyway but given that work is already being done in conjunction with tandem changes to the Act there is no reason to contemplate such an amendment at this stage and to make an amendment in isolation. Indeed I think that if we were to do that we would risk unintended consequences occurring and that is something the Resource Management Act can certainly do without at the moment. 
In conclusion I see no reason whatsoever to introduce this legislation at the moment. Therefore I find it hard to support the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill and the Government will not be doing so. The changes are strict and let alone being without the commensurate benefits for such strictness they will have a negative effect in my view on local economies. They will prevent the best viable options for projects that do not fit within the narrow criterion of being necessary from going ahead and the bill is simply not good legislation. Thank you.