Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5631] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Anybody who thinks this bill will reduce the costs the uncertainties and the delays of the Resource Management Act can only be in fairyland. That Minister who has held that portfolio now for 3½ years and who had all the hard yards around this area of difficult law done by Simon Upton bears huge responsibility for the delays in the Environment Court the delays in essential roads and the delays in essential power stations that are critical to the growth of this nation. This bill has been about poor policy and poor process. I want to take the House particularly through the fiasco over that issue of cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual values—concepts that were proposed to be put into section 6 the most critical section of the Resource Management Act—and the way in which the Minister and the Prime Minister in one of the more amusing accounts I have heard said that that was never a conscious decision. 
I ask the Minister whether when she wrote to the select committee in March 2000 it was a conscious decision to write and say that the heritage provisions should be strengthened. Was it a conscious decision when the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister for the Environment and said that she wanted the heritage definition strengthened? Was it a conscious decision of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to write a report for the committee in 2001 specifically using those terms of ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual values? If it was not conscious then what sort of Mickey Mouse process are we operating in terms of the writing of law? 
Then when members of the select committee from this Opposition side of the House said the process was dopey what did the five Labour members like David Benson-Pope and Ann Hartley do? They voted for it. Is it possible—[ 
Interruption 
]—that people vote for things unconsciously as my colleague Shane Ardern says? He was there. They seemed conscious to me although I have to say that sometimes with Government members it is difficult to determine who is conscious and who is not. 
I ask the Minister for the Environment—when she spoke to the Resource Management Law Association after the business compliance cost panel’s report that she referred to was reported —why she said she fully supported the bill as reported back from the select committee. There were letters from Business New Zealand Industry New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association—multiple letters were written to members of the select committee saying at that stage 2 years ago that those provisions would create huge uncertainties. And the Minister pretends that she did not know anything about it—garbage! That assertion does not stand up credibly. 
Then we had the Minister pull the dirtiest trick I have seen in the parliamentary process in 30 years. Rather than carrying on with the bill as it was rather than even having a debate on the 400 submissions received or rather than allowing an intelligent debate in this House on the report-back committee on those issues this Minister brings in a new bill. The new bill had a specific device to limit parliamentary debate. 
It is little wonder she is unconscious about what she is doing when she is pulling off those sorts of dirty tricks. That process of introducing a new bill that was identical to the old one was done solely for the purpose of minimising debate in this Parliament. I say to that Minister that if she did not pull dirty tricks like that in this Parliament perhaps she would not have to get up in this House and explain her way out of a hole as to how legislation in her name did not have her approval. 
I will quote what the Minister said in her press release. She said: “These words created unnecessary uncertainty.” Well why the heck did she include them in a bill in her name? The bill went to the Cabinet committee and was ticked off. I have a question for the Minister. How many other provisions in this bill did she approve of unconsciously? If this provision was unconsciously approved and will create unnecessary uncertainty how many other provisions have sneaked past her? What sort of other incompetence are we introducing on to the statute book of our country with that sort of Mickey Mouse law process? 
Even 2 days before the final reading of the Committee stage when we asked questions about the energy crisis and about what effect cultural and ancestral landscapes would have on new powers the Minister vigorously defended them and said that we were scaremongering. If we were scaremongering how come the provisions have disappeared? 
Then United Future put out a press release that said: “We have acted with complete integrity and it is a pity the other parties have not.” I have a question for Mr Baldock. Why did he vote for those provisions in the select committee? If he acts with integrity and if he has the guts to put out press releases questioning the integrity of people on this side of the House—and how dare he question our integrity—why has he done a backward flip and voted opposite to what he voted for in the select committee? I say to Mr Baldock that that is not acceptable. That is a con job and he should have a damned good look in the mirror before he starts questioning the integrity of members on this side of the House who have done their proper job in questioning legislation. 
I say to my colleagues in New Zealand First and ACT that the reason we have this change is that we collectively provided the opportunity for informed parties like the Employers and Manufacturers Association Business New Zealand members of the Resource Management Law Association and a whole range of 34 organisations to repeatedly come before our special committee because that Minister specifically moved a motion to deny the select committee the opportunity to have a say on these provisions. 
That special committee identified that as a very real problem and it is good that it is gone. I thank United Future for forcing the issue but tell its members not to question our integrity when we do our job as the Opposition in highlighting provisions that should be changed. I would go so far as to say that if the Opposition had not done its job United Future would not have found its backbone to be able to make those changes to this bill. 
This bill is a disappointment in that respect. In the original Simon Upton bill and during the Committee changes members on this side of the House raised a number of sensible proposals for the Resource Management Act. We think there are major projects that should go directly to the Environment Court. I have not yet heard a single argument at any stage in this debate as to why Government parties refuse to support that. We said we thought decisions should be made by commissioners and we moved amendments in that direction. No one put up any argument; they were simply rejected. We put up proposals to amend the definition of “environment and amenity values” because just like the heritage nonsense that has caused huge uncertainty and problems in the courts. Again that has simply been dismissed. 
We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy—it was in Sandra Lee’s name. I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions. 
I also have to draw the House’s attention to some of the other fuzzy provisions that have been endorsed in the Committee stage. The mechanism about biological diversity includes such a broad loopy definition that it will create exactly the same sorts of problems and uncertainties. Then this bill does something that we should never do—it gives responsibilities for protection of biodiversity to both district and regional councils meaning that we will see more confusion. The very thing this bill should be trying to address is the removal of confusion and this bill adds to the confusion in that regard which is a big disappointment. 
This bill matters because if we are to deal with the traffic congestion problems in Auckland we cannot wait 8 years for a resource consent for a new road. If we are going to deal with the power crisis without the lights going out and people having cold showers we need to be able to deal with consents for power stations in less than 8 years. If we are going to grow our economy and create great agricultural wealth with new water augmentation schemes like those that are required in the Hawke’s Bay and the South Island then we need to make changes to this Act that are not in this bill. 
This is a lost opportunity. Here was an opportunity for this House to make a real difference in one of the most important statutes on our book and we have flunked it because the Minister for the Environment is more interested in political correctness confusion and in providing legal aid for objectors than in providing some help for developers. It is ironic is it not that the Government wants to hand the cheque-book out to try to provide incentive for development while the developers are saying “Just remove the barriers.”? Today we are increasing those barriers and that is a big disappointment and that is why members on this side of the House say that the people of New Zealand deserve a far better improvement in the Resource Management Act than that which is included in this bill.