Hobbs Marian: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22303] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I always find it very interesting when people get up and complain about lack of consultation then do not withdraw and think about where a Supplementary Order Paper comes from. A Supplementary Order Paper about this subject normally arises because as a bill has gone to the select committee a number of people—some of them Environment Court judges some of them from the Resource Management Law Association and some of them from a variety of industries—have come knocking on the door and said that they have listened to the submissions and that they have something they would like to say or that they have some way through that might actually help. That is in addition to the normal process that occurs when we are presented with a problem and we work our way through. That is what a Supplementary Order Paper is. It is an indication that there has been listening out there involvement out there and a lot of talking with Local Government New Zealand. 
I want to show two examples. One relates to the question of courts hearing de novo. We listened to what the courts had to say about that and included in the Supplementary Order Paper the addition which the courts and Local Government New Zealand agree with that the court has to have regard to the council decision. We are again trying to prevent people from going on and on and introducing new material forever. It is a way of moving forward. The part I really want to take apart is this question about direct referral. I find that delicious. Yes we did agree back in 2000 not to go ahead with direct referral which is a friend of all developers who would say: “I do not want to go through local government; I as a developer elect to go straight to the Environment Court. I can exclude all the small people who might have a prison built beside me and go straight to the Environment Court.” We took that out and said that we believe in democracy—we believe in people having their chance up before local government. As a result of a lot of thinking and what we learnt in Waitaki—that sometimes things are really difficult when multiple councils are involved and when a council does not actually have a water plan—we put up a provision whereby at the moment the Minister can decide to intervene and can intervene in about five different ways. Sometimes it is just a matter of saying that three councils will join together to have a hearing. Two of the options for intervention involve call-in. Call-in occurs when the Minister—not the local developer—can say that the matter will go directly to the Environment Court or when the Minister does as we have done in Waitaki and appoints a particular panel to conduct a hearing. That is not the same as what the National Party proposed. Its proposal was for developers only—not Ministers—to say: “Let’s avoid local Government altogether.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If you buy Maori off you will get there. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I really object to that particular comment about my probity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member— 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am dealing with the matter. The member knows that it is out of order to make that accusation. The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister was asserting that any old developer would be able to get direct referral under National’s policy. Under Labour’s policy direct referral is determined by the Minister. I quite properly intervened with the remark that the Minister might get a cheque and be influenced. There was nothing wrong or improper about that comment. It is a fact arising from what is in Labour’s bill. That is the difference between Labour’s policy and National’s. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that the comment was not in order. I ask the member to withdraw the remark. He cannot insinuate that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This morning we saw a Supplementary Order Paper introducing 38 pages of new law—134 clauses. The Green Party member in her contribution suggested that it would be fair to Parliament if one of the Ministers gave some explanation because the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper only goes as far as saying that it includes drafting to give effect to new policy. I have been waiting for the Government to tell us what the new policy is. It seems to me quite extraordinary that on the last day of Parliament 38 pages of law are being slammed through without anybody standing up and explaining what it is. I think it would be proper for you to direct the Minister Marian Hobbs to give us some explanation as to the policy changes that are proposed in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. It is a matter for debate. If the member is raising a point of order about the relevance of the amendments I tell him that that has certainly been looked at. It has been considered and certainly the amendments are relevant to the bill. I am happy to give the member a longer explanation if that is what he wants. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I would like it from the Minister actually. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point I am making is that as far as the Chairperson is concerned the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant to the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I understand that the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant but its explanatory note states that it makes policy changes. Nowhere in the main bill is there any reference to for instance marine farming. That is not included in the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper makes quite extensive changes in that area and we have heard no explanation from any member of the Government as to what is intended by this lawmaking—which is faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. We have had no explanation of the reasons for the neck-breaking speed of this law change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I want to clarify this again. I heard an assertion from the opposite side of the Chamber that we had done a U-turn and advised that there would be direct referral to the Environment Court. That is not so and I want to make that very clear. It is not so. There is a step in between and that is ministerial intervention which can take about five different forms two of which involve call-in. Something else that was asserted by the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am responding to comments the Opposition has made—concerned an amendment to extend the submission time in the Waitaki plan hearing. I am quite happy to advise the member that Meridian Energy Ltd and all those people who have submitted—I think Meridian finished its submissions today or yesterday—have finished making their submissions and the process is about to be wound up well within the time that was set. The panel will report in September as it stated. Why did we ask for this plan to be reported by that time? The reason is that I made a commitment to the Minister of Energy that this public consultation about finding a way forward for the people of Otago and Canterbury in relation to the use of the water in that river would in no way delay any decisions out there. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a botch-up. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is not a botch-up. It is a way forward for the future that has been taken on board and approved and it has been wanted very much by the people. So far it has not been liked by Local Government New Zealand which tends to have a different response to the National Party’s proposals in relation to the Resource Management Act and Dr Nick Smith is up there threatening the chair of Local Government New Zealand with banishment from the National Party because he tends to disagree—because Local Government New Zealand knows that this Government has actually worked with it.