Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

Members, the committee is resumed on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. When we were considering the bill before the dinner break, we had concluded the debate on Part 2. We now come to the final debate on clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on title, commencement, and principal Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The title of this bill is the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill, and when this bill started its life, that was indeed what it was about. It was about consenting and other system changes.

A lot of what was in the bill had come from Labour’s Natural and Built Environment Act. Of course this Government repealed it, but then they were bringing some of it back—some sensible things that we haven’t actually talked about very much in this debate—so Labour has been supporting this bill.

I can say—and, hopefully, my colleagues on the Environment Committee will be able to agree with me—that I have spent a lot of time asking advisers and submitters questions about the wording of the bill, and whether different improvements could be made. But what has happened is that it has been derailed, and that is why I think the title needs to change—because of this derailment. That started with changes to farm plans and section 70. We’ve had some discussion on section 70 but nothing on farm plans, because Government members decided to shut down the debate on Part 1 before we got to farm plans.

There are some very real questions here about farm plans, because it appears now that the Minister can determine that an industry group can both certify and audit a farm plan, with no role for a regional council, but it doesn’t seem like a system that is going to be robust or internationally recognised. Then, in the amendments tabled yesterday, the day when we started the committee stage on this bill, there was a huge change in terms of enabling the Minister to stop plans—and we had a brief talk about that yesterday—but also to intervene; this is in section 69A. It involves terrible overreach by central government into our local democracies, and there is, of course, some irony with the Minister in the chair in terms of what was said by the National Government—I mean, before they were a Government—by the National Opposition about bringing back localism. But this is doing exactly the opposite.

What it is doing is saying that everything has to be about short-term economic gains as well, not the improvement of the environment. So, given that, I have some suggested name changes that relate to those important points that I was unable to make in the first part of this debate. One change would be the “Resource Management (Rushing in Changes in an Amendment Paper—Again) Amendment Bill”.

Hon James Meager: Aw, frivolous.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I hear that it is frivolous. But this is a frivolous and dangerous way to make laws, where we once again have important decisions coming to this House with no select committee process and we’re not even able to debate those provisions in the committee.

Another suggested title, which is a substantive one, again—I would argue that all of these are, of course—is the “Resource Management (Enabling Pollution—Again) Amendment Bill”. That is because we are seeing—and we saw this in the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Bill—this Government just say yes to pollution. They say no to improving the environment, but they say yes to pollution, and that is not good for our country. That is not good for our economy in the long term and the medium term.

Another suggestion could be the “Resource Management (End of Localism) Amendment Bill”. Another one could be the “Resource Management (It Was Looking Promising But Then There Were Too Many Changes Relating to Section 70 Farm Plans, Fossil Fuels, and Interventions) Amendment Bill”.

Hon Member: No, that’s too long to be a doable.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m told that that’s too long, so maybe a shorter one that might appeal to the other side is the “Resource Management (Last Minute Overreach) Amendment Bill” or the “Resource Management (Forgot About the Environment and Bases Everything on a Short-term Growth Agenda and Nothing Else) Amendment Bill”.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Oh, it’s a wee bit soon.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate this call, because it is a very serious bill with very serious implications. Thank you. I would like to touch on—[Interruption] Madam Chair, do I just continue?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes, you do.

LAN PHAM: OK, thank you. I would like to touch on the commencement clause, and what I would like to go to with that one is clause 2 of the bill. This is particularly around the commencement of section 342A(4), as inserted by clause 66. Now, this is the one that is about, essentially, removing the ability for people to be insured when it comes to fines under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—essentially, environmental offending. We actually really support this clause and this being put in part of the bill, but I wanted to pick up on, particularly, some of the submissions that we heard during the select committee process. We heard lots of support from local government, generally, for the policy intent, particularly in that it would help achieve the deterrence when it comes to the intent of penalties by ensuring that offenders are truly held accountable for their obligations under the RMA. We absolutely agree with that.

There were some concerns, however, about the timing of this, and particularly when it comes to existing contracts. Now, what this clause does is it gives two years for those contracts, essentially, to be changed or to come into line with this new rule. But I wanted to touch on, particularly, a submission from Taituarā, which is the group of Local Government Professionals. They sought immediate commencement of the proposal as opposed to two years, because they felt that waiting that two years, essentially, encourages environmental offending, with costs falling on property owners, the Crown, and communities.

My recollection at the Environment Committee was that, you know, this two-year period was to allow that time for existing contracts and lawyers and whatnot to amend those contracts. But I am wondering whether there would be consideration that we actually change the scope of that timing—and I’ve got it in my Amendment Paper 294—so that we actually replace the two years in clause 2(5) with one year.

Now, what are the implications for a change like this? Would the Minister consider it, because it does seem like—although it’s a really positive step—potentially too long of a time frame to actually risk more environmental offending where people can just rely on their insurance to cover the bill. Unfortunately, we know that in some areas and sectors this has been quite standard practice. So, really interested in a response to that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to answer that question. In response to the question around the amendment, we won’t be accepting the amendment change to one year. The reality is that they can’t use that insurance in any event. The period of time being two years provides an adequate amount of time for that process, in effect, to play its way through. The proposal of one year would not provide sufficient time to do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate this. I would like to talk about the title, because we have heard last night and this afternoon about the intent of this bill, and we have had some time to discuss it—not a great deal of time, but some time. We have proposed a number of amendments that we think would have made substantial improvements to the intent of this bill, which currently has the title of the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately, because those amendments weren’t adopted, I don’t think that title is particularly accurate.

We have heard of the concerns of freeing up the pollution—the provisions that will enable greater pollution in our waterways. We have heard that there will be an enabling of fossil fuel infrastructure. We have heard that this is an approach that has been taken because of a messy bit of work that was done in October last year. We have also heard from the Government that this is all about growth. I fully recognise that the Government seems to believe that the world is unlimited and we will never hit any limits and we can grow, grow, grow our way to anything.

In line with that, the proposal for the title that I think is more accurate is the “Resource Management (Growth, Growth, Growth of Pollution) Amendment Bill”. I think it’s relatively simple, but it fits with the chant that we hear from the Government on a regular basis, so it’s a bit of a nod to the Government’s frequently used term. If we think about how this will impact on our communities, we need to acknowledge that this is what it will do.

This is how our rural communities will pay for it: they’ll pay with greater nitrate pollution and they’ll pay with cancers, because that’s what’s already happening, and this bill will enable more of that. This will also mean that people who want to swim in our rivers will pay with algal blooms. It’s going to deliver all kinds of benefits—benefits, I guess, to the microbial community, but not to our rural communities. That’s something that I think we’d look for support on from across the Chamber for a more rational title for this bill.

That’s why, Madam Chair, I would appeal to you and to the members across the Chamber and to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that this bill is most appropriately called the “Resource Management (Growth, Growth, Growth of Pollution) Amendment Bill”. It’s very simple and very straightforward—a bit like that Government over there—but we just want to make it something that they can understand and that represents what’s in it, because that’s as basic as we can make it, but accurate at the same time. I thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Lan Pham’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 294 be agreed to.