Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill is about putting some integrity back into the process of the Resource Management Act. New Zealanders were appalled in March when the Minister of Conservation overturned the decision of the Environment Court in respect of the Whangamata marina. It had never happened before. It was unjust, it was unfair, and as so many commentators noted—and even Dover Samuels—this decision brought the whole resource consent process into disrepute.

Let me get on the record some of the background to the Whangamata marina. This consent was lodged 14 years ago. What does it say about resource consents that it takes 14 years to be able to get a yes or no answer, and the society still does not have a final decision? The Thames-Coromandel District Council approved it, Environment Waikato approved it, and the Department of Conservation signed an agreement and approved it. The case was appealed to the Environment Court. For 28 days every aspect of the Whangamata marina was scrutinised in great detail. On 31 October last year the Environment Court delivered its decision, that it should proceed. That is when the mischief began.

The Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, then engaged in some of the worst political shenanigans we have ever seen in relation to the Resource Management Act, which saw the overturning of that Environment Court decision. We now know, from the paper trail, just what sorts of shenanigans were going on. Chris Carter told his mate Bob Harvey that he wanted to turn the consent down, and he said in his email: “Can you get some mates to send me emails so I can justify it.”? After he turned it down, sure enough the Minister got up in the House and said: “Look, I’ve had 127 emails in favour of my decision and 14 against, so I am justified.”. And somehow that is justice! Somehow it is fair that that sort of shenanigan overturns all those 12 years of legal process.

A week ago we saw the decision of the High Court of New Zealand in which Judge Fogarty found—no surprise—that another Government Minister had broken the law. Not once, not twice, but three times, Chris Carter broke the law in respect of the Whangamata marina. Breaking the law has become something of an art form in this disgraceful Government. We have seen it with the Prime Minister’s motorcade, with the Public Finance Act, and with the pledge card. The Government broke the law in respect of the Electoral Act during the election—it has made it an art form. And we have seen, even in Parliament today, a Minister of the Crown, Phillip Field, involved in appalling conduct in respect of immigration—again, breaking the law.

It has become almost habitual for Ministers in this Government to be breaking the law. This bill offers the opportunity to put that injustice right. This bill will see the Whangamata Marina Society—

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the second bill that this member has introduced into the House today and, for the second time, this member—who has been here for 16 years now, I think—has not indicated to the House which select committee he might like to refer the bill to at the end of the first reading. He did that with the first bill, and we did not make a big fuss about it—he ended up indicating which select committee at the end of his speech. He has done this again with this bill. He is a member who, on a previous occasion, stopped the Hon Phil Goff from sending a bill to a select committee on this very point, so I am just trying to decide whether Labour will be as petty as this man has been in the past. It is the second time he has done this.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that the requirement in the Standing Order is that in the course of the speech I refer to which select committee the bill is going to.

💬 Darren Hughes: At the beginning.

No; it simply says that I must indicate that in the course of the speech. That point is, absolutely, in my speech notes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): All right. Please continue.

This is just another typical Labour interruption. For the member’s record, so he does not get into the petty tactic of interrupting my speech again, I will be referring this bill—no surprise—to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which deals with Resource Management Act issues.

💬 Darren Hughes: Get it right—start at the beginning.

The Speaker has just ruled that it is perfectly proper to indicate that at any point during the speech.

💬 Darren Hughes: At the beginning.

No; it simply says to indicate at any stage.

Now, of course, this bill does not deal with getting justice in respect of Whangamata alone. It proposes the repeal of the veto for all coastal resource consents. This is sound policy that stands well on its merits, even if we had a Minister of integrity. I came to the conclusion during my period as Minister of Conservation, when I dealt with nearly 150 such consents—

💬 Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am surprised that the member was not interrupted for accusing another Minister of not having integrity. That is well outside the Standing Orders. It is unparliamentary language. The member tonight, during the course of the debate, has interrupted other members on that point. He simply cannot say what he just said about the Minister of Conservation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member cannot accuse another member of not having integrity—he knows that.

The term I used was that this bill makes sense regardless of whether the Minister has integrity.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think the implication is exactly the same thing. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. But let us get it on the record that the High Court of New Zealand has said that the Minister broke the law three times—not once, not twice, but three times.

💬 Darren Hughes: What did the High Court say about this man?

I say to that member that he should start to explain why Chris Carter broke the law. Is that acceptable—

💬 Darren Hughes: Tell them what the High Court judge said about this man. The High Court judge didn’t believe him.

That useless member from up on the Kapiti coast will not explain to the House why it is acceptable for Chris Carter to break the law not once, not twice, but three times. Mr Hughes is getting a bit sensitive because he knows that this rotten Labour Government, which keeps breaking the law on every front, keeps getting caught out. I say to the House that it is perfectly appropriate that we remove from the law the ministerial veto. In the 150 consents that I dealt with during my time as Minister, not once did I interfere in the decisions of the Environment Court. I came to the conclusion that all it would do was to add many extra months of delay—all it would do was to add to the cost and uncertainty of the resource consent process. We should be looking for every opportunity to remove unnecessary delays in the resource consent process, and that is what this bill is all about.

The first reason for removing the veto is that as we now know from the High Court, the power is actually incredibly narrow. The Minister cannot reconsider the evidence. The Minister cannot re-conduct a hearing. The Minister’s powers are actually so constrained that it makes a nonsense of the existing law. The second reason that the veto needs to go is that the Minister already has ample powers to protect our coastal environment. Let me explain the powers the Minister already has. The Minister of Conservation writes and approves the national Coastal Policy Statement. He approves every regional coastal policy statement. He appoints a member to the hearings committee that hears the consents. He has the right to submit; he also has the right to appeal. Surely, with the Minister having five levers to pull in respect of any coastal consent, it should mean that he does not also need a veto.

Our opponents have said of this bill that National put the provision of the ministerial veto into the law in 1991. That ignores two facts. The first, of course, is that it actually was Labour’s original Resource Management Bill. But also in 1991 there was no national Coastal Policy Statement to constrain councils or the court. There were no regional coastal plans, so in 1991 it was reasonable, when there were no checks, to have a ministerial veto. But now that those checks are in place it is appropriate that this power goes, and that it is the conclusion that National came to in 1998 when it developed its Resource Management Act reform package.

I say this in conclusion. This is a sound bill that will give justice to the Whangamata Marina Society. What happened to its members is an outrage. The expenditure of $1.5 million and 14 years of waiting for a consent were undone by the dodgy dealings of a Minister—dealings that have now been found by a court of law, the High Court, to be unlawful. This is a bill that will restore integrity to the resource consent process. It is a bill that will reduce delays and costs in the Resource Management Act. It is a bill that will provide a cleaner, fairer process for all those who are involved in the resource consent process. This is a bill that goes to the core of the constitutional separation of powers. It is proper for Ministers to write plans; it is not proper for Ministers to veto decisions of the court, and it is outrageous when it is done in the dodgy way that Chris Carter embarrassed our entire nation with in his decision on the Whangamata marina.

I say to this Government that it should apologise for what Mr Carter did and support this bill, so that no other citizen or group is put through the nonsense that those poor members of the Whangamata Marina Society got from Chris Carter and this Government.

I rise to take a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill, or a “Waste of Time Bill”. The bill proposed by the member for Nelson is unnecessary, reactionary, and a waste of valuable parliamentary time. The bill proposed is just one more example of his continued opposition to the Resource Management Act and its mechanisms for environmental sustainability, community participation, and quality of life for all New Zealanders. The member for Nelson is constitutionally incapable of understanding or appreciating the human value of those things, not to mention the dollar value of sustainable environmental practices and of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Therefore, the idea of a balanced approach to development is an anathema to him.

The list of lies and misleading statements about the Resource Management Act made by Opposition members makes long and sorry reading. Just a couple of months ago, Maurice Williamson stated National’s real desire: to tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act. Dr Smith has bleated on about the need for changes to the Resource Management Act that have already been made by the Government, but that he pretends have not happened.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.