Property Council of NZ, National Conference 2000, Tauranga

First, I would like to thank the Council for the invitation to attend today.

Secondly I would like to acknowledge the importance of the sector and the size of the interests that the Council represents;

• 20 corporate members
• $14 billion of assets, and
• Contributes significantly, through rates to the functions of Local Government.

Tauranga is certainly an appropriate venue for the Property Council to hold its conference. Tauranga is experiencing high growth and showing some of the effects of rapid growth with its consequent demand on infrastructure and the environment. This obviously leads into the theme of your conference

Prospering from Growth:

I see from your programme that yesterday was focused on growth and where the economy is going. I note that Phil Warren has given you a presentation on Growth Management, something that, you will no doubt agree, is absolutely essential if Auckland is to approach anything like a livable community - or reducing one's expectations slightly, to be even close to a human scale city.

I am particularly pleased to see that the Auckland councils are cooperating in planning for the next 50 years growth for Auckland.

I am acutely aware that there is a huge disparity in the growth patterns around New Zealand and that we have the incredible position of some parts of the country having to plan for a reduction in population whereas others are booming. Disregarding the Invercargills for a while, if we as a nation are to prosper from growth then that growth needs to be well planned and executed.

What do we mean by 'Prosper from Growth'?

Your directors and shareholders probably have a monetary definition of prosper. That is to make greater profits for your companies. After all it is profit which keep businesses in business. I'm sure many of you also seek to incorporate environmental and social objectives alongside those of monetary gain. This I very much support.

In my opinion the definition of the term "prosper" must move much more strongly towards sustainability. This isn't just measured in money terms but also the environment we live in and how our society and our communities actually function.

Although you might not be responsible for those aspects, you all have a part to play in ensuring that growth takes into account the social and environmental dimensions too. After all the communities that you create will be there for a long time and so establishing the right rules at the beginning will in the long run produce a better result.

It is all very well to make a monetary profit from growth but if that growth also destroys the very assets (such as environmental and social) that people value or seek out, then I don't think that this is the growth that we want to see.

My vision for the environment, one that will prosper, starts with a well-informed community and the strong partnership of sustainability that we can build. These include central and local government, iwi, business, environmental organisations and of course communities and the individuals that make up those communities. I will come back to this point later.

I note that my presentation was preceded by introductory comments from a lawyer, and no disrespect to lawyers of course, once I have finished a lawyer will respond to my comments. And of course another capable and skilled lawyer. But this does make me the political meat in a legal sandwich so to speak. And this is one of the issues that I would like to address in relation to the role of the RMA - enabling or constraining.

I hear some people say that they believe the RMA, contrary to the enabling provisions of section 5 - ie "which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being" - is constraining.

But with so many legal resources trained on the process of the RMA is it any wonder that this law and its procedures have become so bound in litigation. Some of the litigation and resulting case law is of high value but much is a result of trying to protect vested interests of all sorts. When one looks through the case law and the investment this involves I become concerned about how much actually relates to environmental matters? I suggest very little.

Rather too much in my view continues to be about property rights, commercial influences and the use of the RMA to advantage one party or the other in a trade or similar debate, using the RMA as another commercial battleground. And here I am referring to the supermarket circus that continues, altruistic shopping centres, petrol stations with very community minded concerns about traffic, etc. All consume valuable resources in the RMA process. However much of this is based upon the process rather than the fundamental tenets of the Act which was to be enabling provided this resulted in good environmental outcomes.

Turning now to the amendments to the Act.

Process

The RMA Amendment Bill as you are all no doubt aware, both through the Property Council and also through your individual companies, is currently before select committee. This Committee is the Local Government and Environment Select Committee chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons co-leader of the Greens.

The Committee is also well represented by many members with extensive experience in local government. This, I think, means that the Committee reflects the diversity of Government as a whole and certainly more closely reflects the interests of the general community. As a result I think you will get a considered approach to the RMA amendments as they deliberate on them over the next month or so.

The Committee has heard all the oral submissions and is currently deliberating on the Bill. I must emphasize that the Bill is large and complex, as the lawyers will attest no doubt. The select committee is expected to report back by the end of October - that is their present target. I am not in a position to tell you what progress has been made or what deliberations have been completed on the various provisions of the Bill. The Bill is very much in the hands of the select committee and we must all wait and see how they go.

However you are all probably aware that I did respond to a letter from the select committee seeking the Government's policy with respect to the Bill. I stated that the Government was unlikely to support the amendments relating to:

• Contestable processing of resource consents applications
• Mandatory use of independent commissioners to hear consents when requested by an applicant or submitter
• Direct referral of consent applications to the Environment Court.
• Transferring archaeological controls from the Historic Places Act 1993 into the RMA, and
• Altering the statutory role to the Historic places Trust.

As I mentioned I am now letting the select committee get on with its job and I await their report back to Parliament. Accordingly I don't intend to go into detail here about the specifics of the Bill, other than to touch on a few points which I envisage are of concern to you, particularly time delays. Also there are a number of measures that I as Minister want to see progressed and the Amendment Bill can help in a number of areas. Other aspects are going to require different sorts of investments and I will come to those:

Delays, Consent time frames and the Environment Court.

According to the Annual Survey of Local Authorities, clearly the majority of applications for resource consents are processed on time (82%). However the statistics for those which are notified is not as good (55%). I am hoping some of these issues can be addressed through the amendments to the Act. However I am also keen to ensure that appropriate public participation to the consent process is retained. Again all parties can help in this process, including fully considered applications with appropriate levels of consultation undertaken and documented.

The Environment Court is I suspect another one of your major concerns as it is repeatedly raised as a barrier to good environmental management by all.
I know there are concerns with the increasing backlog of cases before the Court. I know these delays impose real costs on business, local government and the community.

I am advised that part of the problem is the large number of references or appeals on proposed plans before the Court, although many of these are settled without the need for a full hearing. I am also advised that the Court has already taken a number of steps to try and address the problem, including case management, regular callovers of cases and greater use of the lay commissioners.

I am not convinced that further resources and more judges is necessarily the only answer. It may be more use of mediation and less adversarial settlements should be part of the solution.

Length of time to make plans Operative

I am concerned to hear of the significant delays in making plans operative. The whole plan making process appears to be much longer and drawn out than was ever envisaged. I know these delays also impose real costs on all concerned.

However some of these delays have arisen from first generation plans. I understand that many Councils believe that second generation plans should be more efficiently produced because we are all much more familiar with the process and should have a much better understanding of the Act itself.

Some of the other areas that I am keen to see advanced are:

Understanding and Skills in Working with the Act

I am sure you have heard my predecessor state that you can't legislate for good practice and this is one area that we both are in complete agreement. Having a good understanding about the processes of the RMA and its operation is an ongoing education job. It's not about amending the RMA to force a particular action. Certainly there are proposed changes that will assist in implementing best practice, such as further defining the time frame requirements of the Act and other process improvements, but largely good practice is a matter of education.

I am committed to ensuring that there is better education of all users and implementers of the RMA. This has been happening and I want it to continue with a broader audience. This means that the local government councillors, local government staff, consultants, business, communities and citizens should all be aware and informed about the operation of the Act.

There are a number of training exercises underway targeted at ensuring all those that have a role to play in administering the Act are doing their job well. For example the NZPI have just run a series of workshops for councillors on hearings procedures under the RMA.

Also the Ministry has begun a national training programme on the section 32 cost benefit test of the RMA for practitioners. All these initiatives add to the process of having an educated set of users of the act. This has huge benefits including:

• Consistent processes
• Efficient processes
• Better plans
• Better hearings
• Better decisions

Perhaps this is something your Council could usefully pick up for members. After all if the RMA is such an important aspect of your business should the expert advice rest inside or outside your companies. Are your staff suitably skilled to participate as effectively as they might?

Clear Direction

There is a need for clear national guidance on some issues to help provide guidance and consistency to local government, business and the community. These may take the form of national policy statements and national environmental standards, as well as guidelines from the Ministry for the Environment. Biodiversity and historic heritage appear to be front-runners for national policy statements. And it appears that the demands for such national policy statements are growing.

Environmental Outcomes

There has been a lot of focus in the last few years on process - delays, costs, etc. Clearly processes need to be efficient. But, the key focus must be environmental outcomes. That is why we have the Resource Management Act. We need to be sure we are heading (in the right direction) towards sustainable management of resources and that the rules and controls we have in place are necessary. This means monitoring of the environment, compliance with consents, and performance of plans is critical. Again the Amendments to the Act may assist this, but Council's and others must make a strong commitment to monitoring, compliance and performance.

Conclusion

Reviews of legislation like this are infrequent. We have to make any changes worthwhile or this legislation will be a handbrake on the business community.

I would suggest that the power rests in your own hands with the RMA. There will be some who see the RMA as a barrier and others who see the RMA as an opportunity. Others, and hopefully this will increasingly be the majority, will see the RMA as a given. You will work within the requirements of the Act and the plans developed under it. I think these can be seen as a set of community aspirations that you should be working with as you work and undertake developments within the respective communities.

After all it is you who take the dreams from paper to reality and I would hope that you can engage in the broader dreams of the community to have a truly sustainable environment to work and play in.

Thank you.