Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am trying to recall the last time it was that this Parliament had voting together the ACT Party the Green Party—I think I have just about ruled out pretty well every opportunity that has happened before—United Future New Zealand First Labour. Is that all of them? And on the other side there are National and the Māori Party. You would think that with something as important to New Zealand and as widely supported across the political spectrum over the last three decades the Minister would think We've got a problem here." But the Minister is content having done a sleazy little deal with the Māori Party—and that is the only way you can describe it—to get this legislation progressed by just one vote the narrowest of possible majorities.I thought that vote might go last night when Marama Fox of the Māori Party described what "crops" meant in her deal with the Minister. Unfortunately the Minister described to the Committee what "crops" meant in the bill and they were really different definitions. The Minister said "crops" is about vegetables or cereals or fruit and Marama Fox said "No no 'crops' is that but also about ryegrass and pine trees." One of them is wrong and actually normally I would say it will be Marama Fox because she is new to the House and she is not in charge of the legislation but actually given the track record I bet it is the Minister who is wrong. But that will be the first case that is taken to court.The Minister said that this is reducing bureaucracy and reducing litigation. The first case to be heard in court will be over the definition of "crop" and Pure Hawke's Bay which has been assured by Marama Fox that it includes ryegrass and trees—I think she will be calling them as a witness. They were party to the process of discussion. They were party—not directly but involved in the discussions to give quality advice—and they have been let down. I think Marama Fox will be pretty grumpy—and I have seen her being quite grumpy in this House. Be afraid is all that I could say to the National Government because you should not trick members whose votes you are relying on. It is just wrong.The National members are wrong about another thing. They are saying that this flawed bill will fix the housing crisis in Auckland. They say that is the point of it. Nick Smith is often up on his feet quoting how many houses are being built now compared with how few houses were being built during the time of the Labour-led Government. He is wrong. Let me give you a couple of examples Minister. In 2004—the Resource Management Act (RMA) was going then—the number of building consents issued over the whole country was 31423. The number issued last year was 29970. Which of those two figures is bigger? That is correct—the 2004 figure. In Auckland where we know we have got the worst housing crisis in the country but it certainly has spread to other places in 2004—again when the RMA was operating—12115 consents were granted; last year 9930. Which of those two figures is larger? Correct—it is 2004.So the idea that these changes will fix anything is wrong and the idea that the RMA in these areas is causing the problem is just wrong as well. The figures show that the Minister has made a big mistake. That is what the select committee heard too. That is what the select committee heard day after day after day. It was not from fringe tree-hugging groups not from groups that anyone in this House would say were extreme but from a wide variety of organisations that made submissions including Local Government New Zealand including regional and district councils—Mr Chairman? [Bell rung]—including developers such as Fulton Hogan including Fonterra. Are these fringe groups? They included airport owners the New Zealand Law Society and every environmental non-government organisation. They all opposed this legislation. It is a bill that it is going to make it harder to get things done not easier.The Māori Party had an opportunity using their votes which cause the majority in this legislation to make a difference—to make a difference not just for Māori but to make a difference for New Zealand. Huge power they were wielding with the Minister and instead they crumbled for a con. I would be pretty upset if I were them and I hope they are because they do not deserve to be treated like that. The point that I have been making throughout other parts of the Committee stage of this legislation is that this carries on the trend of the last 9 long years of a National-led Government of reducing a citizen's right to have a say in what happens in their area. I have had a recent example in my own electorate where an asbestos dump has been allowed in a residential area.Can you imagine it? Just a street—you drive up it there are houses on either side and there is now an asbestos dump there. The independent hearings panel that approved this did so on a non-notified consent application and specifically referenced the 2009 resource management changes and said the onus on councils had been completely tipped on its head that it was now no longer expected that councils notified; it now was expected that councils did not notify unless there was a really really strong reason for them to do so. Having an asbestos dump in your street was not a good enough reason. That is what the Minister for the Environment and his National Government colleagues backed by the Māori Party have caused in New Zealand when previously we had effects-based legislation which of course could always be improved but it was widely supported and understood in this Parliament and outside. Water conservation orders have been undermined. The Minister has significant rule-making powers powers of appointments to the Environmental Protection Authority—extensive powers for it now which it has not had in the past.I just want to make one final comment and it is not on the frustration that most people—bar one—in this House feel about this poorly thought-through shonkily dealt with legislation and that is that I find the commencement stages to be of real interest. No longer do we have an Act that comes into force on X date; we have an Act that comes into force on three separate dates. That is in "Commencement" under clause 2. As if this legislation is not confusing enough—nearly the entire bill has been rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee bits have been added and a huge number of amendments have been discussed during the last sessions of debate. So "Subpart 2 of Part 1 … and Part 4 … come into force on the day that is 6 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent."—that is good—"Subpart 3 of Part 1 … comes into force on the day that is 5 years after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent." and "The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent." As if the deal was not bad enough; as if the flawed logic to this bill was not bad enough; and as if the process which has been pretty mangled in this House was not bad enough we have three separate dates in the commencement clause of this legislation which is just going to layer on confusion and frustration.You had an opportunity Minister to really make a difference in this space to really improve the Resource Management Act to get all the experts together get their identification of problems agreed get their solutions agreed and this Parliament would have gone forward with some willingness. It does not matter which political stripe the Minister is wearing; if we did a proper process and got agreement we could really have made a positive difference. Instead what we have done is we have seen a regression in our progressive resource management legislation added an opportunity for resource management lawyers to make big money and denied the public their right to have a say into what happens in their community."