Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (1) – Part 1
Articles,  Blog

Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – Committee stage (1) – Part 1


those are of that opinion will say I the Conte helping you might say no I will report this bill with amendment presently members we now turn to the resource legislation amendment bill the bill is in five parts members will be aware that part 1 amends the Resource Management Act 1991 which is the main piece of the legislation governing the use of natural resources in this country the amendments in part 1 a substantial and form the majority of the bills text there are significant interest in allowing these proposals to be debated for this reason i anticipate the debate on part one is likely to be considerable and will take longer than normal david parker mr. chairman we have we have today at long last learned what has been the price for the Maori Party capitulation to to vote for this appalling piece of legislation that further complicates the RMA does little if anything to cure the housing crisis and I think brings this house into disrepute sir this piece of legislation is opposed by everyone in this house labour the Greens New Zealand first United Future act the only in ones and support of national with two votes from the Maori Party the Maori Party was said to have been voting for this in all future stages and its form as it came back from select committee it was evident that the draconian ministerial powers that are conferred by this legislation which have been likened by amongst others Sir Geoffrey Palmer to being on the spectrum of the National Development Act and the regulation making power on the under the old economics realization 1948 abused decades later by Muldoon so those regulation making powers allow the minister to buy ministerial action override rules and plans which the minister says in his opinion over let other pieces of legislation rather than amending those other pieces of a legislation and saying their codes which would be a proper way for the minister to achieve that purpose the minister has granted himself ministerial powers under this bill to buy regulation strikeout rules in plans which the minister thinks should not be there because they conflict by ray conflict with other regimes and the most controversial example of there has been in respect of GM rules and plans now sir the Labour Party position on this which has been consistent throughout this is that rules relating to GM safety the safety or the release decision should be taken by the Environmental Protection Authority under the hazardous substances and new organisms Act has no that medical decisions and respect of clinical uses of GMOs should be for clinicians not councils but that there is an economic decision that can still be taken by a council as to whether they think it is in the economic interests of their district to hear for example GM crops that is the current law as found by the courts following attempts to strike out rules to that effect in a plan up north the minister doesn’t like those and so his stated objective and respect of these ministerial powers was to get rid of that sort of regulation that sort of rule by overriding it by regulation we ran a campaign and cooperated with others running a campaign in the Hawke’s Bay Area we successfully brought to the public attention the inconsistent statements that were coming from the Maori Party and the National Party on this issue and in response we now see a supplementary order paper from the Maori Party limiting in a minor way better than no limitation but in a minor way that ministerial override power so that it can’t apply to GM rules and plans now I’m very interested to hear from calls from the National Party and from the minister on this because I’ve heard the minister rail against that very issue saying that was the reason that we needed this ministerial override power in the first place we had pool foster Bell amongst of of people saying it was ridiculous to have rules relating to the use of GM crops in one area not another so I wanted to hear from the minister as to whether he now supports the proposition that you should be able to have different rules in different areas because he’s now if I’m to understand supporting the Maori Party sop to that effect can I congratulate sir those in the regions who’ve run I think a very successful campaign right you know including Lawrence you’re from pure Hawke’s Bay the National Party candidate former mayor or current mere of Hastings sir so that is one area of unprincipled oh I see young the member for tookie-tookie smiling up the back there he’s welcome to take a call to explain the government’s current position on this which is you know contortionist to say the least sir aye sir I would like mr. Chairman I intend I intend calling the mirror again for a second call but I a method to draw me as a teacher I wouldn’t normally draw members attention to the fact that our supplementary order papers are on the table but members who went round and collected supplementary order papers before about five to four may have missed a significant supplementary order paper and I want to warn members who who who did that there is another one on the floor in on the table of the house and currently being debated mr. Chairman I actually come into the house for this debate and I note that there is a a supplementary order paper from the minister in respect of this issue which runs to about nine pages that I certainly have had time to digest so peps for a later call so the next the show wants to talk about is in respective sub-divisional consents the government through this bill is preventing people preventing both notifications of public notification of applications for sub-divisional consents and appeal rights down both of those measures were criticized roundly at select committee by local government by developers by environmental NGOs and by lawyers everyone said the right of public participation should not be foregone and respective sub-divisional applications just because the government’s got out of control housing crisis in Auckland the sub the applicants included the likes of fulton hogan they said that they think people should have a right of participation than it’s going too far to exclude them they also noted a and others that if there is no right of appeal against a consent for a sub divisional application councils are without constraint as to lots of and sometimes silly conditions being imposed on the subdivision sir the reverse sensitivity objections from the likes of the major owners of infrastructure include examples given by both quarries and airports now we need our airports I don’t know that the minister’s noticed that but you know most people who flow between cities will go between cities fly out of our airports every house in New Zealand that’s built needs aggregate for the concrete that’s in it and for the chip on the roads that lead to their house and yet those Chloe’s and airports face a less certain future because they’ve got no right to participate in a sub divisional application that impacts upon their interests so they quarry comes along and they say we’ve been here for 30 years subdivision put a next to us and ten years time the people that are in that subdivision will be complaining there’s too much noise or dust from the quarry we don’t think you should be able to carry on that activity that’s one of the effects of the sir if you think that the these concerns are ephemeral or not practical I would refer the the minister to as an amendment in 2013 which came into effect on the third of March 2015 this was another botched attempt by the National Party to amend the RMA and what it did is it added to the things that an applicant for a resource consent has to list now everyone who applies for a consent to do something in New Zealand or a no plan has to include an assessment of the environmental effects which is sensible but then what national did in this recent amendment as says they’ve also got to now include an assessment of the impact of the application against the objectives and policies of the blend this was another layer of bureaucracy added on applicants which is choked up the planning system and added to cost it’s it’s largely chucked in the in the bin because the council’s do their own assessment and then it’s that assessment that’s argued about by the applicant and the objectives so these are ad hoc amendments that we’re having to the RMA which are adding to its length and complexity do nothing to achieve the purpose which the minister says is to simplify and make more efficient the RMA sir I want to say something also about about the extent to which the minister can use rules that purport to be about form and standard definition to change the content of blends that is still not properly constrained in this bill the minister can use those powers which we agree sensible and respect of standard proof plan formats and if and definitions he can use those rule making plans and sorry those those powers under this act to do more than just there in ways that go to the substance of plans and that’s not right order either and I want the minister to justify that again their intrusion which is another example of the chain the balance of power between councils and central government with central government saying once again they know best and that they are going to override other councils so you can see Sir that I’ve just about taken two calls here I’ve addressed only so far three of many many deficits in this bill sir it runs to 250 pages and on the form that’s reported back from Select Committee and because the government’s chosen to have this as one part covering every amendment to every part of the RMA it’s very difficult for us to bring all of these issues to the attention of the house make a fight you know clear mr. speaker

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *