Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22301] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We had a ruling from Assistant Speaker Robertson this morning that it is perfectly within the Standing Orders to change policy in a Supplementary Order Paper that is introduced on the day a bill is getting passed into law with no explanation of what the new policy is that we are being required to vote on. That is as may be—it is within the Standing Orders—but it is wrong in principle and it shows contempt for the role of the House in scrutinising legislation. I was so concerned when I saw that statement in the Supplementary Order Paper about changes in policy that I went to the Minister David Benson-Pope and asked for an explanation of what the changes in policy are. The Minister was good enough to send over an official to run through it with me. Given that the Greens are not supporting the bill I am sure the Minister would have done the same for other MPs who asked in advance for that advice. But given that that has not happened I think it would be appropriate for the Minister to take a call at some stage to go through the new policies introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I am not surprised that there is a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. The Local Government and Environment Committee made a lot of changes to the bill. We were working through policy in some depth quite late in the process to the point where we were presented on the day of deliberation with considerable changes to the drafting of the bill. Right at the very last minute officials were still working out—and colleagues in the Chamber who were there will remember—how to give effect to the things the committee had done. I can remember saying as we went into deliberations that I foresaw a substantial Supplementary Order Paper because the officials could not possibly have all the details right if they were changing the drafting from one day to the next. 
In particular with reference to the option the Minister has of referring a called-in project to the Environment Court there was still no realisation at that stage on the second to last day that the Environment Court is not used to dealing with projects from scratch. It is used to dealing with appeals and we cannot simply treat a case as an appeal at the Environment Court if there is no decision to appeal against. So considerable work has gone into that Supplementary Order Paper and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. 
There are three changes of policy in this Supplementary Order Paper that directly overturn very considered decisions made by the select committee. Those were decisions about which Government members acquiesced—presumably at the time with the agreement of their Minister. I find it of considerable concern that those decisions are being changed at this point. 
I mentioned when I spoke on the second reading that representations from Maori were unanimous that iwi authorities are not always the appropriate people to be consulted on plans and that hapu are often the appropriate kaitiaki. In the committee’s amendments to the bill we provided for hapu in cases where it was appropriate to be on the council register and to be consulted over plans. 
Well one of the things this Supplementary Order Paper does is to take out any consultation with hapu over plans. Hapu will stay on the register but that will have no practical effect. The form is given but the substance has been taken away. Of course councils can still consult hapu if they wish—that is the case now; no change has happened there. But they are not required to and the fact that that provision has been taken out at this stage when it was in the bill as reported back may well be taken by some as evidence that the bill does not intend councils to consult hapu. I find that a real concern and I think Maori around the country will find it a real concern. The bill has clarified that there is no mandatory consultation with Maori iwi authorities or anybody else at the consent stage. That is probably appropriate given that the thing we have to get right is the plan but if there is to be no consultation with hapu at the plan stage either then where is the treaty relationship in all of that? 
The second thing that has been changed from the select committee’s considered view is that power stations have been reinserted in the definition of “infrastructure”. Infrastructure has always been seen in the words of a former Minister of Energy as consisting of “long stringy things”—that is networks—and in order for a network to function one has to own land. Infrastructure has always been taken to mean developments that require a network that connects land over considerable distances. Power stations do not do that and in this Supplementary Order Paper a higher status is given to power stations in terms of the planning process than the committee felt they deserved. 
The third change that overturned a decision of the select committee is that the value of existing investments must now be regarded when considering the re-consenting of a consent that has expired. The committee always agreed that when looking at contesting applications for let us say a water right the fact that the incumbent had invested quite a lot in the infrastructure to use that water ought to be taken strongly into account when deciding whether the incumbent should get the re-consent or somebody else should get the water. But when there is no contest like that—when the contest is between whether the natural environment needs that water back for some other value or whether the incumbent should be allowed to continue to take it—this amendment now jigs the situation very strongly in favour of the incumbent and continued extraction and taking from the environment rather than the restoration of environmental quality. That was something the committee decided not to do but that the Minister has reinstated. 
Other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are good. I commend the clarification on the joint-management agreements and I commend the clarification on the aquaculture law reform. The technical amendments will I hope make the bill more workable. 
But overall the Greens will not be voting for this Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the considered views of the select committee which the Labour members agreed to should be allowed to stand.