Franks Stephen: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22316] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The bill and Supplementary Order Paper we are discussing are of considerable interest to me partly because I was listening in my office and I heard the speech made by Mr Baldock of United Future and I listened to Mr Peters for the New Zealand First Party and I was curious as to what changes there could be that would produce such wildly divergent views. 
I came down to the Committee and found in debating Part 1 that a Supplementary Order Paper dated 2 August yesterday had been dumped on us with an explanatory note— 
Dail Jones 
: Today. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Today was it? It is dated 2 August and it has an explanatory note that states at the end of 35 pages: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” I think I am reasonably quick at studying legal drafting after the time I have spent at it but I cannot fathom this. I think the Minister should be absolutely ashamed that he will be asking this Committee to vote on material as hard to understand as this. 
Why would a bill not be amended using what is now 20-year-old technology showing us what has been omitted and what has been inserted? Why is there no redline version? Why is the Labour Government now trying to bring a closure motion on the Part 1 debate when I do not think anyone has understood it other than perhaps Nick Smith? We had what should have been debate between New Zealand First and National in the person of Dr Smith which actually halted as they tried earnestly to explain to each other what they thought the provisions mean. 
There is no doubt at all that this Committee will be voting on very important provisions when maybe only one or two people in this Chamber have the faintest idea what they mean. That is a disgrace. There is no justification for it. I have tried to work out what exactly is being done with regard to iwi consultation. As members know the ACT party has long considered that to be racist that there is no justification for iwi consultation to be a separate right from the right of all New Zealanders to be consulted on rights or usages that affect them. I cannot work out exactly what is happening here. It seems that iwi consultation will now be restricted to the determination of a plan. 
On the other hand plans may be able to be modified daily. It may well be particularly if the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment goes through that the plan can be modified whenever the local authority has a whim. In that case we will have constant consultation and the whole notion of long-term planning which gives people a framework so they know what they can do with their land will be gone. 
Perhaps it is only the final nail in the coffin of a false premise anyway. The ability to bring in plan revisions midstream and give them immediate effect has probably seen long-term planning gone but I am very concerned that no one in this Chamber seems to be standing up for the notion of property rights. Article 2 tried to protect the right of individuals to do as they would with their land without interference from their neighbours—or princes or despots or priests or anyone else—provided that they were not harming third parties. 
 I was fascinated to hear United Future members on this part saying that they supported this planning and criticising the ACT party when United Future has brought in a bill purporting to want to entrench property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has brought in a bill that is almost a clean copy of Owen Jennings’ bill of 5 years ago and then we have Mr Baldock another United Future member essentially dumping all over Mr Copeland’s ideas. He is essentially supporting a Resource Management Act that makes a total mockery of property rights. 
As far as I can tell this Supplementary Order Paper will be making power stations part of infrastructure—which I guess is useful only because the Greens oppose it. The one guide we can use when we cannot understand the provisions is to see who is supporting it and who is not. As there is bitter opposition from the Greens I know that it must be in New Zealand’s interests so I suppose we should vote for that part. That is the only guide I can use when dumped with 35 pages. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.