O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): If this bill was with fair and adequate advice and description submitted to the public of New Zealand by way of a referendum it would not have a snowflake's hope in hell of being accepted by the people of the country. It just would not have a chance. The reason for that is that this is actually not going to solve anything while at the same time it is going to cause a lot of problems. I think that if you take the three main issues—what I think are the three main issues that you would put for such a referendum—the people of the country would reject them.The first is this: why is it necessary to have all of these many and various sections that are going to be introduced into the Act through this bill relating to iwi participation agreements iwi representatives on panels and boards and all the rest of it and all those other special provisions that are provided in this particular bill? What would be the explanation to the people of New Zealand for why that was really necessary? It is a very weak description of why that is necessary that I have heard from Minister Nick Smith and from Marama Fox—very very weak indeed. I have heard no such justification at any point for why that is necessary. Furthermore there was reference by Marama Fox to the Treaty of Waitangi. Well that Treaty did not contain anything—directly or indirectly—that would have been intended to give Māori special rights in respect of processes like those set out in the Resource Management Act (RMA). That is the first issue.The second main issue for people if they were to decide this directly rather than through their representatives in Parliament would be just this: would they be willing to accept the marginalisation of local government which is essentially one of the main purposes in this bill? Would they consent to that? Very very few people would do so. The truth is that this bill in plan making and also in respect of decision making when it comes to especially major consents—people would not agree to the kind of thing we see in this bill which actually marginalises local government. They would not agree to that.Thirdly nor would they agree to the introduction of such excessive additional executive power for Ministers in place of local decision-making which we see in this bill. They would not tolerate that for a moment. They believe that they should have effective and democratic local government—not dictated to by Ministers in Wellington in respect of the matters that are referred to in the bill.I also want in the last couple of minutes of this first contribution to say this in response to some of the things that the Minister said. He indicated rather absurdly I think that it is actually the RMA and its provisions that are one of the main problems for why we have a housing crisis in New Zealand—and he is nodding his head he is actually nodding his head—whereas the people of this country know that the main driver is immigration. It is the net 70000-plus people a year who are coming into New Zealand; in the last 5 years 188000 additional people in Auckland alone. That is the main driver and that is the one thing the Government is not doing anything about. It is not the Resource Management Act and these provisions are not necessary for the purposes of tackling the housing crisis. If it did want to do so the Government should invest directly in housing. It does not need to make these kinds of changes to the Resource Management Act.I would say to this Minister: yes we do oppose each and every part of this bill because it is either bad law for the reasons that I have already indicated or in fact it is poorly—very very poorly—thought-out. I want to go on in a bit more detail to talk about the iwi participation agreements and why they should be needed. I listened very closely to Marama Fox to try to glean from her why the Māori Party thinks that iwi participation agreements are so necessary. It is only because of that deal between the National Government and the Māori Party made behind closed doors not through the committee process and certainly not through the consultation process with the general public—it is only through that devious process behind closed doors that we see some of the main provisions in this bill.So as I said I listened very carefully to find out why these iwi participation agreements and related issues were needed. One of the things Marama Fox said was Councils often forget to consult."—often forget to consult. Well that is simply not true. The consultation undertaken by virtually all—if not all—councils in this country with Māori on all of the issues that affect them is very well known and I would challenge the Minister or Marama Fox to provide evidence to the contrary of that. The truth is that Māori and iwi as representatives of the tangata whenua have more than adequate facility in the RMA as it now is to be consulted to give advice—especially on cultural issues—and to object to proposals and plans that are to be made under the RMA as it now is.I will give you an example. I was closely involved in the applications for the Central Plains Water scheme—a very difficult scheme to consent and one that certainly needed the cooperation of the iwi concerned. They were engaged at the beginning they gave advice they objected to some things there were changes made and ultimately at the appeals stage there was a negotiation with them that led to the consents being issued by consent of all parties.The point I am making is this: especially on all major projects if any person or organisation thinks that they can get those through without proper consultation by seeking advice and by listening to objections from iwi then they would be dreaming. Every major applicant in this country actually knows that and they go and get that advice from local iwi. They listen to that. They try to deal with—and they do in fact deal with—the objections. All of that already happens so why are these particular provisions in this bill really needed? I ask once again why they are needed. I would like Minister Nick Smith to tell us why he thinks they are needed other than it being simply getting the votes of the Māori Party to get the bill through because that is where it really is at.So I have got only a few seconds left but I will say this. These provisions for iwi participation agreements and all the other provisions relating to these special rights for Māori do nothing more than add another layer of bureaucracy. The Minister says this is about removing bureaucracy; this actually adds more. It will add more delay and it will add more expense and there will be little or no benefit to show for it. If the Minister thinks otherwise he is deluding himself but he will not pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this country who know that what I have just said is true. If he feels otherwise I challenge the Minister to show why all of those new provisions relating to iwi participation agreements and all the other special provisions for Māoris would not add to more delay would not add to more expense and would add some real benefit to the process that is not already there. The truth is that iwi already have more than adequate opportunity in the process as it already exists.Of course what we really know in the background to all of this—and one of the things that will be driving it from the point of view of the Māori Party—is this whole question of water. Freshwater management is one of the really big issues that are facing us now and in the future and we know that demands have already been made by many Māori iwi in the country concerning special rights for them in respect of water. This legislation is going to give them a big big advantage when it comes to providing them with special rights for water that they do not already have. The Minister says no that will not be the case and that all they are going to do is have an upfront opportunity but in fact they are going to get special rights and that is wrong."