Freshwater reform strategy ‘not ideal’ – but Bishop’s comfortable

The Minister for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, is now comfortable with changes to fundamental water quality laws that he previously described as “quick and dirty” and via a process that was “not ideal”.
The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was never intended to include changes to Resource Management Act section 107, which governs when and how consent holders can discharge waste into waterways. 
Industry groups suggested the Government loosen the regulations in section 107 while the amendment bill’s public hearing process was under way in a select committee, and in private letters to ministers. 
Bishop acknowledge inserting legislative changes into a bill when already at a select committee – rather than with full public discourse – was “not ideal”.
He agreed a sense of urgency drove the unorthodox strategy. Opponents regard the move as another decision made with speed by a coalition relying too heavily on urgency.
The industry’s sense of urgency in seeking the s107 changes followed what Bishop called an “unusual” court result earlier this year, which set a precedent that diffuse discharges were in section 107’s scope, and threatened enough commercial operations to put industry bodies on red alert.
Horticulture New Zealand, for example, warned the implications could be “fatal” to veggie growing nationwide.
None of the section 107 debate was originally intended to be included in the bill and when Forest & Bird heard of suggestions by industry groups to add it in, the environmental organisation questioned the Primary Production Select Committee on whether it ought to speak to that suggestion. Forest & Bird was told by the committee chair, ACT Party member and Northland farmer Mark Cameron, that the s107 matter would best be left for another time.
However when the select committee returned its final report, changes to section 107 were included in its recommendations despite the message to Forest & Bird to leave its objections aside.
Sally Gepp, KC, acting on behalf of Forest & Bird, complained to Speaker Gerry Brownlee on October 10 about this process. 
On October 15, the bill had its second reading. Bishop described the five main thrusts of the bill, including changes to intensive winter grazing and the demotion of the Te Mana o Te Wai’s strategy’s hierarchy, before mentioning the changes to s107.
Green MP Steve Abel interrupted to say the change had been lobbied for by industry, to which Bishop retorted “there is widespread support for this change.” 
But Bishop went on to concede that “it’s not ideal to make changes to substantive legislation by way of, essentially, insertion of a select committee process.”
According to the minister, the court ruling had inspired a sense of urgency that demanded such a hasty path, a process he admitted was “quick and dirty”. 
Bishop then back-tracked on this statement: “not quick and dirty, quick and targeted changes to the RMA,” he said. 
On Wednesday, he told Newsroom he regretted having used the word ‘dirty’, and said “I just mean they’re quick wins.” He repeatedly used the phrase “quick and effective” instead, and said his government was comfortable with the process it had taken to amend section 107, despite saying the night before that the process was “not ideal”.
Following Bishop’s “quick and dirty” quip during the second reading, Gepp sent a follow-up letter to Brownlee requesting he urgently address the matter in the House.
She said “it is not only not ideal, it is a breach of standing orders and due process,” and called on Brownlee to “rule on the breach of Standing Orders as a matter of urgency”.
Brownlee responded on Thursday, and ultimately ruled the process was clean. He reasoned the information contained in a call for public submissions for a bill was meant as a guide, not an exhaustive list, and the issues around s107 were relevant enough to the main legislation that changes to it were within the scope of the bill.
Brownlee ruled it was up to the House to accept or reject the committee’s findings, which they have already done.