Wong Pansy: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5490] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I was told that it was intended that the titles of modern legislation from this House should be more descriptive and more informative so that when readers look at the title of a bill they will get a better feel for what the legislation is about. Because of that I suggest that the Minister should look seriously at being upfront and informative in respect of the title of this bill instead of calling it the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which I suggest is very misleading. 
The National Party originally passed the Resource Management Act in 1991. National was a very responsible Government and after the legislation had been in place for a couple of years it consulted and listened. The Hon. Simon Upton responded to the feedback from the community in terms of implementation problems and drafted a raft of amendments. Those amendments were intended to simplify the Act and reduce the delay in compliance. This bill pretends to fix those problems and in actual fact does not deliver. So I suggest that the Minister should accept an amendment to the title and correctly call it the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Act.” It is deceptive in a sense that it continues to try to tell the business community and the public that this amendment would make the legislation easier to implement reduce compliance costs and reduce delay. It will not. 
I hope the Minister will take a call to confirm the feedback we have had from the business community the public and the councils that the consultation process under this bill would mean that nobody will be able to put any significant projects through under this legislation. In effect interested parties and people who are opposed to any project would tie up the application for a very long time. I suggest that the Minister after collapsing an 18-part amendment bill into two parts should at least attempt to answer some of the valid questions that have been raised by parties on this side of the Committee. I invite the Minister to take a call to confirm whether it is true that the requirement for consultation under this amendment bill will be long and arduous. I hope the Minister will make a change for this Committee process and prove that is not true that Labour Ministers never answers questions during the Committee stage by taking a call. 
I would also like to invite the Minister if she refuses to take the call to accept that the title should be anything but the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). It could also be known as the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Bill”. Everyone outside the Labour Government is convinced that the implementation of this amendment would increase bureaucracy. Apart from the Minister and a few people close to her people are convinced otherwise. However everybody else would get a better feel if this legislation had the title of either the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Amendment Bill” or the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Bill”. The title could also be the “Resource Management (Missed Opportunity) Bill”. This is the biggest lost opportunity for this Parliament to prove that we can work in a bipartisan way and that we are serious about economic growth.