Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

I move, That the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill has been required for some time, and it is very unfortunate for a number of farm owners who have for generations been tenants on their own property that this bill was not passed some time ago. I will refer to the situation in Canterbury in more detail later on.

I will first of all get to the purpose of the bill. In the Resource Management Act there is a term called a “requiring authority”. This bill raises the threshold that an organisation has to reach before it becomes a requiring authority. A requiring authority is able to have access to, and use of, private land for the purpose of its project. Many years ago, this was the case when our electricity company—we had only one in those days—needed to put pylons and cables through a particular area. That area might have involved private land, and that company was able to access the land and put its pylons and cabling on it because the provision of electricity was seen as a public good. I do not have any difficulty with that provision at all; obviously specific negotiations are required.

However, in the time since this original provision, which allows this access to, and use of, private land, was introduced, new types of organisations have arisen, but the Resource Management Act has not been changed in order to ensure that the term “requiring authority” meets that public interest test. In my view it no longer meets that test. So my bill substitutes the term “appropriate” in the Resource Management Act—where the requiring authority is undertaking “appropriate” work in order to get this compulsorily acquired access to and use of land—with “necessary”. It raises the threshold in that manner. It then adds a further requirement before an organisation can become a requiring authority by saying that the project it is undertaking must be in the public interest. So the project will not just have to be appropriate; it will have to be necessary. It will also have to be in the public interest.

In my view, this legislative amendment, which is quite a small amendment to section 167 of the Resource Management Act, would have the overwhelming support of the public, many of whom did not know that private organisations, at the moment, under the law have the ability to get access to and use of private land. This situation was drawn to my attention when the Central Plains Water scheme was proposed. In 2005 the then Minister for the Environment received a request to consider granting Central Plains Water the status of requiring authority, and the advice from the officials and the legal advice obtained was that there was no alternative but to grant Central Plains Water the status of requiring authority. That meant it was able to go on to the private land around the project area and say that it wanted to use the land in the future as part of its water take and storage, and then to transfer it on to the irrigation scheme. The people in the Malvern Hills area were gobsmacked: suddenly they were told that their private land was not going to be their land any more, and that a new organisation, Central Plains Water, was going to be able to use part of their land.

Some of the families in this area have literally been there for generations. The area is more than just where they live, it is more than their home; it is a huge part of their history, and they want it to be a huge part of their future. There was a lot of legal debate about the Central Plains Water proposal. I am leaving that debate aside because it is only indirectly relevant to this bill. But for members of the farming community in the Malvern Hills area it meant that they were not able to use that bit of land, because they were never quite sure for how long it was going to remain theirs. When was Central Plains Water going to move on to their land and use it for its own project? This caused huge distress to the families involved. They set up an organisation called the Malvern Hills Protection Society in order to fight through the legal system the scheme proposed by Central Plains Water. If this legislation is changed in the way that I am proposing tonight, then a huge part of their concern about what was happening to their private property will be overcome.

I pay tribute to the people who are involved in the Malvern Hills Protection Society. This whole chain of events has been very distressing and very stressful for them, and the issue is not over yet. Unfortunately, I am not proposing that this bill be retrospective; I do not think that is appropriate, particularly given the amount of litigation that is involved in the Central Plains Water issue at the moment. This bill is just to ensure that a private organisation, or an organisation that was proposing a project that the Minister considered was not necessary and was not in the public interest, would not be granted this right to have compulsory access to, and use of, private land. I understand the Hon Dr Nick Smith has already given this issue some consideration. I was not able to hear directly from him over the last little while about his support, but I urge his consideration of support for this bill to go to the select committee process, because if it is rejected it gives other organisations a complete green light to go ahead and do to other farmers or other private landowners exactly what Central Plains Water has done to the farmers in the Malvern Hills area.

This bill addresses the issues that were brought to my attention, and to the attention of the public of New Zealand, because of the Central Plains Water issue and the intrusion into the private property of the farmers in the Malvern Hills area. It addresses that issue by increasing the threshold for approval as a requiring authority. If the law is changed in the way I am proposing, then the Hon Dr Nick Smith, should he receive the same proposal that was put to the then Minister in 2005, would have the legal ability to decline that proposal. He would be able to use new considerations and new tools in order to protect the validity of the private landownership. The Minister for the Environment would be required to be satisfied that the applicant seeking approval as a requiring authority actually needed to be a requiring authority. The applicant must not just want the status; it must need the status. The project would have to be a necessary project and it would have to be in the public interest.

In my view this is a very serious issue. The right to access and use private land should not be given to a private organisation for a for-profit project; it should only be given in the instance of a public interest project—the ones that I outlined at the beginning of my contribution tonight. If there is a public interest project, and if the Minister considers that it is necessary for the organisation proposing to undertake the project to be a requiring authority, then the Minister can just say yes and the organisation keeps that right. But where the project is not in the public interest, and where it is not necessary, then the Minister will have the legal tools available to him or her to decline the application to be a requiring authority.

This is quite a simple change; in my view it is in the best interests of what New Zealanders have traditionally regarded as their right as private landowners. I urge the consideration and support of the House.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this

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.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) Link to this

Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to support this member’s bill, the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. As background I remind members of this House that this particular provision—that is, a designation—is actually etched in the history of Māori land. In 1975 the former Ministry of Works decided to designate the coastal land around the northern peninsula and dedicate it to a public esplanade purpose, overriding the existing property rights of the Māori landowners. Funnily enough, although it will be unknown to members on the other side of the House, that led to the existence of the Ngāti Wai Retention Committee, which then fed into the 1975 Matakite march. So those members who are sneering at this bill should not for a moment think that they can easily ride roughly over property rights.

This evening we are seeing, from a supposedly pro-property right party, a level of distain and a level of neglect. Those members do not care about the existence of the property rights enjoyed at the moment by owners. They are willing to oppose this legislation, even though all it does is to act as a check on the powers of the State to be handed out to a variety of organisations. Let me say that a host of those organisations are no longer New Zealand - owned entities. I point to Telecom, for example. Underlying the foolish opposition that speakers on the Government side of the House are serving up this evening is a negation of property rights, a willingness to see that organisations that are not accountable to New Zealanders have this privileged status offered to them in a very loose and potentially dangerous fashion.

My senior colleague has isolated an example in the South Island where very, very simple but concerned New Zealanders looked to the law to have their property rights upheld. This is an opportunity for the Government to strengthen the process, so that when that privileged status is allocated in the future to any other entity, it has to go through a higher test.

What the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, did not say was that Dr Nick Smith’s reforms of 2009 attempted to look at this issue, but the Government found that it was steamrollered by Transit, by Telecom, by utility companies, and by a host of other interests that are no longer owned by, are totally accountable to, or owe any kind of obligation to New Zealanders. The Government was steamrollered.

A number of us sought to moderate the appetite of the State in handing out that privileged status, because when that status is handed out, ordinary landowners are unable to go about their legal business unless those shadowy organisations are prepared to indulge those existing landowners in carrying out their activities. That is a matter of fact—that is a matter of fact. For those reasons, this legislation, modest though it may be, serves a prodigious public purpose. It upholds the primacy of landowner property rights, which is something that that party over there is prepared to usher in and usher out when it suits its short-term political imperatives. That is why this legislation ought to be supported.

This legislation ought to be upheld because it is not fair for privileged organisations to wander away with this high level of status, which is not available to a host of other organisations that go through the statutory process. When organisations acquire that privileged status, they are able to use excessively the power of the State to squash the rights of current landowners. Shame on members on that side of the House!

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) Link to this

That was a rather dramatic rendition of this bill, the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, that has been put forward by the Hon Ruth Dyson, so I would like to bring a bit of sanity to this debate.

I wish to remind the previous speaker, the Hon Shane Jones, that he was one of the hard-working members of the Local Government and Environment Committee that was able to successfully pass the first round of reforms to the Resource Management Act last year. He is correct; his memory does serve him well in the fact that quite some work was done on designations and the topic was discussed at length. But I think his memory fails him somewhat in terms of where we got to.

We recognise that there are still some challenges in the area of requiring authorities, which will be addressed in the second phase of Resource Management Act reform. We need to make sure that we are able to more efficiently facilitate infrastructure development without compromising environmental outcomes. That is part of what we will be doing in the second phase of work on the Resource Management Act, and that member, Mr Jones, is fully aware of that. He is fully aware of the great work that was done in phase one, and of the fact that it is so important that we cannot deal with one single piece of it in isolation. We need to look at it holistically. In terms of the phase one reform we have undertaken already, we recognise that we do not want to rush the piece of work on requiring authorities. I ask Mr Jones whether he remembers that. We wanted to make sure that we were able to take the issue further and look at it in phase two, which the Local Government and Environment Committee looks forward to doing.

We will not be supporting this member’s bill, but I acknowledge Ruth Dyson for bringing one piece of reform to our attention this evening. I reiterate that improving planning for infrastructure is a key focus of the National Government, and that the Government’s programme that we have outlined for economic recovery is dependent on an ambitious programme for infrastructure investment. That, of course, covers roads—which we have heard about—public transport, broadband, electricity grid upgrades, new renewable generation, and water infrastructure. The Opposition might not realise that some of those things are critical to growing our economy, but at the same time we need to make sure that we do those things in the correct manner.

If I look locally, I see that it is projects like these significant infrastructure projects that have kept the Taupō economy afloat during these hard times, and we can look at whether it has been electricity generators for Mighty River Power, or Contact Energy’s geothermal developments. The East Taupō arterial road and Taupō bypass are also significant projects that we want to keep going. We want to encourage more development into our local economy, because that brings jobs into the Taupō area. It is really important that we get the balance right; that is why a significant amount of work has been done in the first phase of the Resource Management Act reform. We will be looking at this issue of requiring authorities in phase two. That is only a matter of months away; it is not a long time, which is unlike what we saw in the 9 long years of the Labour Government. If this had been such a priority, perhaps that Government would have fixed it back then. But I move on.

In terms of projects to meet the requirements of a necessity test, for example, network utility operators would have to demonstrate that the project was the only viable option. That is not always the case, even if it were considered the best option. So that is why I am sorry but I cannot support the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Tēnā koutou katoa. I am pleased to stand for the Greens this evening in support of the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. A relatively small change is being proposed to what is a very substantial piece of legislation. Nevertheless, it effects a very useful and positive change to the Act as it stands.

It is interesting that the words “appropriate” and “necessary” are once again at the heart of a discussion about provisions within the Resource Management Act, because those who know the history of the legislation will know that the debate was had as long ago as 1990, when the Act was still in its draft form. Clearly, the notion of appropriateness is a very relative term; it is to do with something that might be suitable or proper within a context of a particular situation. Clearly, the word “necessary” indicates something that needs to be done, must be done, and, indeed, is prerequisite.

In 1990 the select committee on the Resource Management Bill considered evidence and reported to Parliament. Submitters had expressed concern that some of the terminology used in the old Town and Country Planning Act was being abandoned in the new legislation. Indeed, the submitters suggested that the committee agree that existing wording should still be used where it was compatible with the policy interest of the legislation. To quote from the select committee at the time: “In some cases the committee recommends returning to existing wording, ‘coastal management’ being one example.” It went on to say that “the committee thought it important to return to the term ‘unnecessary subdivision use and development’ in place of ‘inappropriate subdivision use and development’…”. The question of how different our development patterns might have been—and the outcomes we witness day by day—had the bar been set at “necessary” rather than “appropriate” is now only of academic interest. Nevertheless, it highlights that the bar was perhaps set too low, and that necessity is indeed an appropriate and proper level. This bill provides an opportunity to tighten up on at least one aspect of resource management, in an area where there is now an opportunity to effect some positive change and some improvement.

We note that the technical advisory group’s report to the Minister for the Environment in February 2009 recommended that requiring authorities no longer make decisions on their own designations, but that the relevant council recommendation be the decision on any proposal. The technical advisory group noted that giving authorities power to make decisions on their own behalf may have had some theoretical justification when the authorities were Crown agencies, but given that so many authorities now are increasingly likely to be private entities, that justification is very hard to uphold. The Greens would have been very happy to support that notion and we hope that it comes back later, perhaps in the context of the phase 2 reform.

More specifically in respect of this bill, there are at least two very clear and vivid examples of why reference to “public interest” ought to be inserted into the bill in this context. The first example has been referenced by the proposer of the bill, Ms Dyson, who noted the successful application of Central Plains Water Ltd to become a requiring authority in order to facilitate the taking of water from the Waimakariri and Rākaia Rivers and storage of that water for later use in intensive dairying. It is inconceivable that that application would meet any reasonable test of being in the public interest. To the contrary, the proposed scheme, which is still bogged in litigation—and long may it be—was intended to facilitate the development of intensive dairying in a dry area. Although that might provide some useful or positive economic spin-off, the social, environmental, and economic cost would far outweigh such benefit.

The second example of a very poorly judged approval must be that of Riverstone Holdings, who, remarkably, were given requiring authority status to construct a monorail through conservation land as part of a tourist link from Queenstown to Te Ānau. That venture cannot possibly be in the public interest; it is a purely commercial proposition, and scarcely a railway—which would be appropriate. Clearly, it would not meet a public interest review.

Those examples illustrate why this bill is timely. It is well conceived. It deserves and will enjoy the support of the Greens. Kia ora.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

The Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill raises a few issues for us as the Māori Party. One issue, of course, is the compulsory acquisition of private land, which is an issue made hugely important to Māori and to the Māori Party by the previous Labour Government passing legislation to get its hands on great swathes of the foreshore and seabed, because it could not get it through the court system. That legislation was described by a Government review committee as the single biggest land nationalisation statute enacted in New Zealand history.

According to various sources, there are about 12,500 foreshore and seabed parcels in private ownership, and about 30 percent of land adjacent to the foreshore is privately owned, as well. There are about 2,000 kilometres held by Māori interests and about 4,000 kilometres in non-Māori hands. During the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, one of the three commissioners, Kai Tahu educator Hana O’Regan, said that the issue of private land was a mess, often leading to people being misinformed of their rights. She said recently that “There is a huge dearth of knowledge and a high level of ignorance in coastal communities over what their rights are. We found huge tracts of land that were inaccessible because they are in private land ownership, and it wasn’t Māori ownership.” Hopefully, this bill will be the opportunity to finally investigate why non-Māori private land has historically bypassed the legal scrutiny and examination always visited upon lands held by Māori.

Another area that we question is the definition of the words “necessary”, “appropriate”, and “in the public interest” when referring to projects. For example, is it right to call the Transmission Gully project “necessary” or even “appropriate”, when there are other options and deep questions are yet to be answered?

By the same token, should we define the term “in the public interest” along the same lines as the expectations outlined under the Public Works Act? If we do, then we need to note the numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historic use of public works legislation to dispossess Māori of their land. One such case is Whāingaroa in Raglan. It was taken from the Māori owners during the Second World War for use as an airfield—which was never built—and then handed off to Pākehā afterwards for a golf course. Takaparawhau, or Bastion Point, was taken under various guises, such as defence purposes, and was not given back. Watson Park in Gisborne was taken from Rongowhakaata for the purposes of a cemetery, and was not used for that purpose. Closer to home, lands at Paraparaumu were taken from the original owners under the Public Works Act for the purposes of an airfield at the outbreak of war, but were never returned when the war ended.

My colleague Te Ururoa “Mike Tyson” Flavell has put forward the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill, which would require the original owners—Māori or Pākehā—to be given the right of first refusal to purchase land taken but no longer needed for public works.

We will be watching the progress of the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill to ensure that the interest of the public includes the interest of mana whenua, the people of the land taken. We have questions about this bill, but we will support its first reading to enable the issues to be raised and the questions to be asked and, hopefully, answered. Kia ora tātou.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I am very pleased to speak on this bill, the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. I was interested to listen to the language from the MP for West Coast - Tasman, Mr Auchinvole, who said that this bill could increase red tape, and that it could impede progress. But I think that in fact the Government wants to cut some red tape on new water projects in Canterbury. The Prime Minister defined in his statement to Parliament last month that he wants to see real progress on water allocation in Canterbury, so it is little wonder that Mr Auchinvole is defining that this bill may deflect things that are in the public interest, and is suggesting that that might be excessive.

I suggest that what we might well see from this Government, in alignment with the sentiments expressed in voicing opposition to this bill, is a move to breach not just the fundamental property rights that my colleague Shane Jones referred to—which we would expect to be a fundamental principle of the right, and which we are also, I think, expecting to see very shortly from Cabinet as early as next Monday, with announcements on the future allocation and management of water in Canterbury—but also the breach of another fundamental principle, the fundamental principle of taxation without representation. I think that the Government is prepared and poised to remove the democratically elected organisation Environment Canterbury from the management of Canterbury water and instead install a commissioner, perhaps in the form of Jenny Shipley, the former National Prime Minister.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

The National Government promised to review the Resource Management Act as part of National’s pre-election promises in 2008. National promised to review it because we were aware that after 18 years since the Resource Management Act had become law, there was growing criticism about the slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

Our reform was designed to maintain environmental protection, but to improve decision making and reduce costs and delays. Slow, overly bureaucratic processes do absolutely nothing for the environment. The people were very clear. They wanted and needed a better and more efficient system. Within 100 days of taking office, the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

That bill was phase one of a comprehensive reform of the Act. It covered areas such as the removal of frivolous, vexatious, and anti-competitive objections; improving planned development and planned change processes; improving resource-consented processing, which has been needed and was neglected over the last 9 years by Labour; improving workability and compliance; and improving national instruments, which were also neglected under the Labour Government. The bill also created an Environmental Protection Authority. All this is relevant to the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, which we are debating tonight, because during work on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill the whole issue of designations and requiring authorities was considered, and the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, as has been mentioned tonight by Shane Jones, looked long and hard at these issues. The issues are complex and involve several different Acts of Parliament and a series of tests to determine who can become a requiring authority and what projects can be covered by this legislation. However, we do agree with the Hon Ruth Dyson that changes need to be made in this area. Therefore, the area of the Resource Management Act we are looking at—sections 166 to 186 in Part 8, including section 167, which the Hon Ruth Dyson has selected to amend, entitled “Designations and heritage orders”—will be reviewed in phase two of the major reform.

The work to make these changes is well under way. The changes will be comprehensive and will be integrated into the larger reform of the Resource Management Act. This bill, which deals with only one section out of a total of 433 sections and 10 schedules, is a pointless exercise. I understand the principles that the Hon Ruth Dyson is keen to promote, and it may be that they will be included in the final reform. But it would be foolish to send this bill to a select committee when a technical advisory group and the Ministry for the Environment are already working on the issue, and a more holistic reform is already under way.

The member will, of course, be able to have input into the second phase of the resource management reform legislation, and can be involved in the passage of that bill through the House. I invite her to join us on the Local Government and Environment Committee during the passage of the bill. Therefore, National does not support the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill, because it is unnecessary. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) Link to this

I am very pleased to rise and support the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Bill, introduced by the Hon Ruth Dyson, being referred to the select committee. As the member pointed out in her introduction, the bill raises the threshold for an acquiring authority to be able to acquire and, in a sense, violate or take over others’ property rights. Originally very few organisations in existence were able to do this. What we are seeing now is a multiplying of those organisations, and today a number of private organisations can successfully take away the property rights of landowners. Ruth Dyson gave an example in Canterbury where a group of farmers effectively found themselves needing to defend their property rights from entities that they did not even realise were able to take away their land.

I think the New Zealand public would be surprised to know of the number of organisations that can successfully take away people’s property rights today. This is a very simple bill that aims to protect those property rights that are a core and central part of our own rights as New Zealanders. If those farmers were watching this broadcast on television tonight, they would be surprised to see that the party that they thought would be defending their interests is not supporting this bill that would enable their property rights to be protected; and that the ACT Party, which makes so much of property rights and the defensibility of property rights, is also willing not to support this bill, but is willing to enable those entities out there to take their property more or less at will.

This bill omits the word “appropriate”, as Ruth Dyson said, and substitutes for it the word “necessary”. It states that the approval of the applicant as a requiring authority—therefore, being able to take another’s land or property rights—is “necessary” for the purposes of carrying out the project, not simply “appropriate”. That is a very simple change of law, but nevertheless a very important one. The second part of the criteria is that “the project, work, or network utility operation is in the public interest;”. As my colleague Brendon Burns said, it is in the wider interest, not in the narrow interest of those who would simply like to take somebody’s property rights.

This legislation tightens up an anomaly in the Resource Management Act that needs to be tightened. It is very simple, it should be referred to the select committee, and it could be passed very simply. People such as those we have talked about in the central plains could have their property rights adequately protected.

How does the bill address the issues in front of us? It increases the threshold for the approval of a requiring authority. A requiring authority could not simply slide in and take property, as it can at the moment. It strengthens the Ministry for the Environment and it will be required to be satisfied that the applicant seeking approval as a requiring authority actually needs to be a requiring authority. Again, it is a simple but very fundamental clause. It will no longer be appropriate for the applicant simply to be a requiring authority; the applicant for requiring authority status will need to have that out of necessity. The applicant has to need the ability to issue the notices of requirement for the designations to carry out its work. In short, this is good legislation that deserves to be passed through to select committee to be discussed, and to be passed into law to protect the property rights of those people who would otherwise lack that protection. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this

The Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill speaks volumes about the difference between the Opposition and the Government in approaching the Resource Management Act. All this bill does is change three words. How many members of this House really believe that the complex issues about improving the Resource Management Act, an Act that comes to over 600 pages, can be solved by changing three words? It is quite a commentary of where Labour was for its 9 years in Government. Despite all the problems with the Resource Management Act, during its 9 years it did so little that the three words Ruth Dyson wants to change in this bill really sum up Labour’s pathetic contribution to the challenges facing this nation on the effective management of our natural resources and the effective delivery of infrastructure.

The part I found most galling in this debate was hearing Labour’s spokesperson on water issues deride the deterioration of water quality in Canterbury. I ask the member opposite, Brendon Burns, to tell me one single thing that that Labour Ministers did in their 9 long years in Government that made a difference to water management and quality.

Even more extraordinary is the very specific issue that is dealt with in this bill: the requiring authority status that was given to Central Plains Water. I ask members what Labour said in Government when Central Plains Water acquired that power granted by David Benson-Pope. I would be happy to show members opposite the correspondence. Firstly, the Labour Government’s view at that time was that the Act was fine, that it worked well, and that requiring authority status for Central Plains Water was entirely appropriate. Nowhere did Labour ever initiate any review of these provisions that it is now crying foul about.

It is the view of this Government that we should have a fresh look at the requiring authority designations and the way in which they work under the Resource Management Act. That is why this Government established, as part of the second phase of our Resource Management Act reforms, an expert advisory group not just to look at three words, for goodness’ sake, but to take a comprehensive look at the way those mechanisms work. I have no confidence that changing these three words, which is nothing more than a political branding statement and not any practical solution to these issues, will answer those substantive questions.

The last point I would like to make is this: if there was anything that developed during the course of Labour’s 9 years, it was a crisis around infrastructure. It does not matter if it was roading infrastructure, water infrastructure, or electricity infrastructure—which is the problem of my colleague Gerry Brownlee—in every one of those areas, including telecommunications and the problems with broadband, the previous Government failed. Members opposite need to understand that if they are going to change these legal tests, they need to think through what that means for getting broadband for New Zealanders in every corner of the country, including rural communities. Have members opposite thought about what these provisions mean for keeping the lights on in New Zealand? Have members opposite thought about what this bill means in terms of providing the transmission network that we need for our system? I did not hear a single word from members opposite about those issues.

Members on this side of the House say that this is not a job that can be done with three cheap words. It needs a comprehensive approach, and that is what this Government is taking. The members opposite had 9 years, but they did nothing. Members on this side of the House want to do the job properly. That is why we have a technical advisory group working in the infrastructure area. It is providing comprehensive advice, and that is the correct way to deal with these complex issues.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

I begin by thanking the members who have contributed so far in this debate on the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill. I express my regret that from my rough calculations it does not look like this bill will have the numbers to get to a select committee, where I am sure it would have enjoyed the pleasure of further debate.

I say to the National members who contributed to the debate, particularly the ones from Canterbury, that people who have been involved in the Central Plains Water scheme’s intrusion on to private land will be very disappointed that Nicky Wagner, being fully aware of the consequences the Central Plains Water scheme has on private land in the Malvern Hills area, chose not to support the local farming community. That community is outraged that their private land is no longer theirs because the law does not allow the Minister for the Environment to do anything other than agree to the scheme. The Hon Dr Nick Smith should know better because he has had exactly the same advice. If the Central Plains Water scheme was given to Dr Smith to give requiring authority status, he would have no option but to approve it, as the Minister in 2005 had no option but to approve it. That should be changed. We should not have the private land rights of individuals intruded on for anything other than a project that is necessary and in the public interest. In my view, that is a simple change that National should be grown-up enough to allow to go to a select committee.

The bill acknowledges that the current law does not give the Minister for the Environment the range of tools that he or she should have. Therefore, in the event that a project application comes before them, the bill provides that the Minister, when he or she is asked to give requiring authority status to an organisation for a project, would be able to say no if it was not in the public interest for that project to have access and use of private land. I do not know many New Zealanders who would say anything other than that is fair. That is what this very small change would do. It would be fair to people like the farmers from Malvern Hills, who for generations have lived on that piece of land. They consider it theirs, it is part of their history, but it will not be part of their future, because the law allows organisations to use part of the farmers’ land for their projects. In this case, farmers lose part of their land if the project goes ahead.

My sole point in proposing this legislation was to give the Minister for the Environment another tool so it would increase the threshold that an organisation would have to reach before the Minister would give it approval as a requiring authority. First of all, the Minster would have to be satisfied that granting an organisation requiring-authority status was necessary, and that it was not just convenient and useful for that organisation. A higher standard would be required. It would have to be necessary. It would no longer have to just be appropriate for the applicant to be a requiring authority—that is all that the law allows at the moment—it would have to be necessary. The Minister would require the application to be necessary. That is another important increase in the threshold. The Minister for the Environment would also have to be satisfied that there was public interest for the project, so it is something that the organisation needs to have requiring authority status for—necessary, rather than just appropriate, and also needed.

The concerns that have been generated around many parts of the country over the last couple of decades, but particularly around the Malvern Hills area and the Central Plains Water scheme, would be removed. Ordinary New Zealanders who have worked hard to buy land or who have inherited it from their parents and grandparents would be once again given the security of knowing that that land is genuinely theirs. It is as it says in the title, but it would be theirs in reality.

I urge National members to reconsider before the vote is taken on this bill. I acknowledge and thank the other parties that have given this bill consideration and have agreed for it to go to a select committee.