The government is riding roughshod over parliamentary process and public opinion to weaken environmental protection, Dunedin MP Rachel Brooking says. Her comments were sparked by this week’s Parliamentary Select Committee’s report which backs the Natural Environment and Planning Bills, which seek to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA), and endorses and strengthens government changes to it. Speaking to the Otago Daily Times, Ms Brooking said she was “immensely frustrated” that the committee, which she sits on, had failed to respond to an outpouring of written public submissions objecting to parts of the Bills. Instead, the committee’s final report had made things “worse”. “I am very disappointed with the select committee process,” Ms Brooking said. "People have taken the time to give considered submissions that look to fix elements of the legislation to make it workable and they have been ignored. It is also frustrating that I have spent hundreds of hours on this, all largely ignored as well. "There has been no movement from government members [on the committee] to any compromises that would have worked with opposition members. This is reflected in the voting records and the report,” she said. Contentious aspects of the Bills flagged by multiple submitters include the removal of requirements that development occurs within environmental limits, significant decision-making powers given to ministers and compensation for any landowners required by a council to protect biodiversity. Throughout the select committee’s report, there are references to “majority” decisions. Block votes were cast by five out of nine MPs on the committee. Those five members belong to the National and Act New Zealand parties, rendering ineffectual the votes of the four Labour and Green Party MPs. To achieve long-term stability in legislation there was a need to achieve broad agreement between National and Labour, Ms Brooking said, but the more recent committee consideration of the two Bills had “gone in the opposite direction”. Things that were unpalatable for Labour and Greens had been “made worse” and the dial shifted “dramatically”. Ms Brooking also expressed objection to the government’s announcement on Monday — just after the select committee released its report — that existing and planned Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements would not transfer to the new laws. Environmental Defence Society chairman Gary Taylor said the decision-making was “disappointing after all the effort put into [our submission]”. The government was making a “mistake” by rushing through the legislation prior to government being dissolved ahead of the general election in November. The process was in stark contrast to the way the Resource Management Act had been passed in 1991, he said. In 1990, the then Labour government ran out of time, but the incoming National environment minister Simon Upton “polished” the Bill and bipartisan support was gained. Mr Upton, who is now Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, has this week written to MPs expressing his concern about the two Bills and calling for them to be reconsidered by the select committee. He described the Bills as having a “principal thrust to enable development and resource use”. The RMA had, for many businesses and people, meant “slow, litigious and costly” processes, but by comparison the new Bills gave “sweeping” ministerial discretion that needed a “careful and comprehensive review both as to environmental impact and process”. "With broad and unchecked ministerial discretion, there is a greater risk that direction will flip-flop as political tides ebb and flow,” he said. The replacement of the RMA had consumed more than seven years of officials time, but the Bills “do not come close to providing the basis for a broad and enduring consensus across society”, he said. [Missing Credit]Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton has already raised concerns in a letter to all MPs, asking that the Bills be reconsidered by the Select Committee. PHOTO: FLICKR Ms Brooking said returning the Bills to the select committee would only work if the committee was prepared to approaching the proposed legislation with an “attitude of wanting longevity”. University of Otago public law expert Prof Andrew Geddis said the select committee report indicated that “this government and various members of the government have a very strong, ideological, legislative programme which they are clearly not prepared to compromise on with opposition parties”. The approach was different to previous governments in recent times and could risk law stability. “Even when Labour had an absolute majority, there was an understanding that legislation passed with cross-house support was more likely to be effective in the long term. The current government has broken that view of how law-making takes place . . . it is a real shift in approach. It is a form of government based on a simplistic idea that if a government has a majority of votes then it ought to be able to do what it wants and its majority trumps just about any other kind of constraint on law-making power.” [Missing Credit]Professor Andrew Geddis says the Select Committee report is representative of a shift in how laws are being made in New Zealand under the current Government. Photo: ODT files Act New Zealand MP and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court said this week that the select committee had made “practical changes that make the new planning system easier to use while protecting the environment”. They had given farmers and other primary producers “more certainty” and simplified wildlife approvals to “cut unnecessary bureaucracy”, so projects get under way sooner. mary.williams@odt.co.nz
