Volume 608 Week 23 - Thursday 8 May 2003 
Volume 608 Week 23 - Thursday 8 May 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5543] 
Thursday 8 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill the Families Commission Bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the remaining stages of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). Wednesday is members’ day and of course Thursday is Budget day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I have a simple question for the Minister. Does he anticipate that the House would need to take urgency over any matters that are going to be announced in the Budget or are we likely to have any repeats of the extraordinary urgency that we saw this week over the passing of legislation that essentially should be a Budget matter? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 To the first part of the member’s question I do not anticipate that the Budget will require any legislation or urgency. 
Points of Order 
Official Information Act Requests 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you are aware the Opposition is dependent upon accurate information to be able to carry out its role of scrutinising the executive. I want to bring to your attention the fact that on 14 March of this year the office of the Hon Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education received an application under the Official Information Act from one of our staff seeking a range of material pertaining to a specific issue existing at that time to do with private school funding. It was acknowledged— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I am not responsible for the Official Information Act. That is the Minister’s office; no responsibility for this Parliament. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not really involved in this. I cannot see how it is a point of order. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I was going to ask whether there was any way you could assist us here but I guess the question is in terms of the processes in this House what courses of action are available other than going to the Ombudsman which uses time. So I am seeking advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are no processes in this House. This is a statutory requirement. 
Questions to Ministers 
Privy Council—Referendum 
1. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Given the constitutional significance of abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council does she support holding a referendum on the issue; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Justice Hon Margaret Wilson 
: No. 
Stephen Franks 
: If not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Parliament is perfectly capable of making those decisions. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Minister seen the recent comments of Lord Cooke of Thorndon that the matter was too complicated for a referendum; if so what is her response to those comments? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn people about interjections during questions and that is the only time today. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I note that Lord Cooke of Thorndon who served with distinction on the Privy Council said: “I tremble at the thought of how one might try to educate the electorate in the issues involved. Parliament has to take responsibility for change as it has always done with matters of court structure.” I agree with those comments. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of a statement by law commissioner Ngatata Love that states: “If the bill goes through local courts will have to give greater recognition of the treaty and tikanga issues” why does she agree with Lord Cooke’s arrogant view that the New Zealand public cannot possibly understand that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Lord Cooke of Thorndon was commenting on the fact that the Parliament of New Zealand is competent to make these decisions and said that the issues were very complex. I do note the fact that that member suggested we abolish Maori seats without going to a referendum. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is a fact that Maori have been consulted on this issue as she and her other Ministers claim why is there to be a hui with Ngati Tuwharetoa and if that is proper why is there not a hui with Ngapuhi the biggest tribe in this country by miles? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There has been ongoing consultation with Maori throughout the process as there has been with all other members of New Zealand society and indeed the select committee process is designed for submissions to be made on this important matter. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware of any country in the world that has held a referendum prior to abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I am not aware and indeed I am aware of Australia and Canada both abolishing appeals to the Privy Council and in neither case were referenda conducted. I should make the point that under section 128 of the Australian Constitution Act there is a requirement for referenda on changes to the Australian Constitution Act and Australia still did not have a referendum on abolishing appeals to the Privy Council. 
Murray Smith 
: Does she agree with Lord Cooke of Thorndon’s comments to the select committee yesterday that the Privy Council is going to change quite radically within the next few years and will be a quite differently constituted court with more Scottish judges and no judges from Commonwealth countries; if so how is that likely to impact on the quality of the Privy Council bench as far as New Zealand is concerned? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was not aware of the detailed comments that Lord Cooke made to the select committee yesterday but I take it from the member that he commented on the nature of the Privy Council and how it is appointed and I think that is a matter that we should have some cognisance of. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How is it that a discussion paper on the review of New Zealand’s court structure is now turning into a full-scale consultation on the issue of the Privy Council as claimed by this Government and why was it that at Rotorua on Monday all Maori submitters said they were never consulted and they represented all the tribes in the middle part of the North Island? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I believe that question was answered in the House on Tuesday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Irrespective of whether the question was answered on Tuesday it can be commented on by the member now. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The advice I have is that there has been full consultation. I think the member assumes that consultation means agreement. 
Stephen Franks 
: Is the Minister aware that Lord Cooke advised the select committee yesterday that “It is unlikely the fundamental structure of the State could be altered by a bare parliamentary majority overnight and even without any form of mandate from the people.” and in explanation of why he thought that might not apply to the Privy Council said that he trembled at the thought; if so is that the reason the Minister does not support a referendum? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it is not the reason the referendum concept is not supported. The bottom line is that this Parliament has within itself the power and the jurisdiction and indeed the knowledge base in order to make these fundamental changes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Maori people why are she and her colleagues against going to for example Gisborne Otiria up north or the heartland of Maoridom and seeing them on the marae rather than holding it in some junky hotel room? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is no such objection. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question that appears as No. 2 in my name bears little relation to the question I submitted which was: “Is the Government satisfied with the current level of democracy in Tonga?”. Firstly I would like to know how that question does not meet the Standing Orders because I believe it is in order and secondly I would like the leave of the House to ask the question I submitted not the one some prissy pedant has altered it to read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can tell the member that the “prissy pedant” concerned was a member of his own party who negotiated that question with the Clerk’s Office. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That is not so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been informed of that but if that is not the case I will investigate it. I will hold the question over and come back to it later. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to back Mr Dunne in what he is saying because in fact we do not always get the opportunity to negotiate the wording of questions. I raised this very point with you last week when a question’s context was considerably changed by the Clerk’s Office in order to accommodate the Minister whom the Government had decided would answer it. I have another point when you are ready. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can tell people that substantive changes are not made without consultation. The second point is that the question as it was originally lodged is not in order but the member is perfectly at liberty to seek the leave to ask the question as he originally put it. Does anyone object? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: No I do not object. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is not. The member may ask it. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a further point of order Mr Speaker. I would like some explanation about why a simple question asking whether the Government is satisfied with a situation is not in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The fact of the matter is that the Minister who is asked the question does not have responsibility for the current level of democracy in Tonga. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: But he does have responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he does not. Tonga is an independent country. But that is irrelevant because we are now allowing the member to ask the question. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Speaking further to the point of order I say that it is not irrelevant because the Minister does have responsibility for the view of the New Zealand Government on whether a situation is satisfactory. If we are going to end up splitting straws over this type of process when members are seeking to ask questions then frankly our question process will be reduced to the farcical. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that I always respect the member’s points of order because he rarely raises them and they are all usually of some substance. I will have a look at this matter but now that the House has decided to give him the opportunity I will allow him to ask the question and I will have another look at the point he raises. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is helpful to take a few moments now because you heard a view from the National Party and now you are hearing from United Future that there is concern that the Clerk’s Office is actually preventing this House from asking reasonable questions. I say to you that if we cannot ask what the Government’s attitude is towards democracy in Tonga it would follow that we cannot ask for example what the Government thinks about developments in the EC on trade or what is going on in Iraq. They are all matters that must come under the purview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and I would have thought of the Prime Minister. They are all matters of Government policy and attitude and when you are doing this review I think you should be saying to the Clerks that the rule should be that when in doubt allow the question rather than the other way around. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member has made a very valid couple of points and I certainly have some sympathy with the points he is making particularly with the second one. 
Tonga—Democracy 
2.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Is the New Zealand Government satisfied with the current level of democracy in Tonga? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 No. While the Tongan constitution provides for many of the freedoms and rights we would regard as essential for modern democracy Tonga falls short of the criteria that define a fully democratic State. Executive Government that is not elected by universal franchise and restrictions on the freedom of the press are two examples of that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the curbs on freedom of speech on freedom of the press and on freedom of association that now occur in Tonga will the New Zealand Government reconsider its overseas development assistance of $5.6 million to Tonga until such time as the State does embrace democratic principles; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer is no because the people the member is presumably concerned about who may be deprived of the rights that he supports would if we withdrew our aid also be deprived of basic education health and good governance provisions that are designed not to help the Government but to help the people. 
Simon Power 
: How does the current level of democracy in Tonga benefit from the New Zealand aid payment of $5.6 million in the 2002-03 year when only $450000 of that is prioritised for civil society and community-based development projects? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member said a percentage of that budget is designed to help directly with good governance. Another part of it is providing an expatriate puisne judge and it is important for the justice system that judges of an appropriate standard are appointed there. Two-thirds of the aid that we give to Tonga does not go to the Government at all. It goes directly to non-government organisations and community groups. All of the aid that goes to Tonga is money that we spend that we know the outcome of that is designed to help the well-being of people and alleviate the poverty that would otherwise exist there. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports from Tonga as to its attitude towards New Zealand’s democracy where day after day incompetent Ministers cannot answer questions properly? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is an irrelevant question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it is not. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Not only is it irrelevant; it is incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that question is not in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If we can ask questions about our attitude towards Tonga’s democracy then I have a right to ask whether there are any reports in reverse coming our way in respect of its view on our democracy. That is legitimate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot ask that. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the Government be speaking more publicly about greater democracy in Tonga such as asking the Tongan Government to abide by the court decision in favour of the  
Taimi’o Tonga 
 magazine in asking that its distribution in Tonga be allowed to resume particularly in the light of the fact that the democracy movement wins the majority of votes in the elections they hold there? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have spoken publicly on that expressing our concern and regret at the action taken again  
Taimi’o Tonga 
 and our expectation that the constitutional provision in the Tongan constitution about freedom of the press be upheld. I can tell the member too that we are responding positively to requests from the Speaker of the Tongan National Assembly for guidance on measures that will improve the workings of that assembly. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What does the Minister say to the people of Tonga who are concerned and to the Tongan community in New Zealand who are concerned that the New Zealand Government is not doing enough to promote democracy in Tonga particularly in view of our historic relationship and that more attention is required and maybe the issue of aid ought to be tagged to that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am sure that if the member talks to Tongan people either in Tonga or in New Zealand they would not for a moment agree with the withdrawal of support of development assistance designed to assist the health and education of ordinary people whose standards of living are well below those of people in New Zealand including Tongan people in New Zealand. What I need to tell the member as well is that while we can express our opinion and our position against restrictions on freedom of the press Tonga is a sovereign country. It is not subject to our direction. 
Electricity—Consumer Savings 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What is his response to energy consumers such as Becky Ashe of Mission Bay who is unhappy at being blamed for power shortages and said: “I don’t like the way this is all being blamed on the household consumer … We did our bit last time—and that wasn’t so long ago—so why is it happening again? I don’t want to spend nights at home in a cold dark house because something is happening that is not my fault.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Energy 
: The Minister of Energy is presently announcing a new 80-megawatt wind farm in the Wairarapa which I understand will provide nearly enough power for the entire Wairarapa. Nobody is blaming consumers such as Mrs Ashe for the prospect of power shortages and nobody is asking her to spend nights at home in a cold dark house. The information on power savings being provided in the target 10 percent campaign shows how savings can be made without such drastic measures. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe there are other New Zealanders who take the same view as Becky Ashe of Mission Bay or does he have some other explanation about why the campaign he is running has fallen so far short of its target of 10 percent; and what is he going to do about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I might say that a more unified and nationalistic approach from the Opposition would be a good way to start. There are a number of things people can do. For example people who turn off towel rails would on average save the 10 percent with that action alone. People who turn off appliances at the wall would with that one action save 5 percent. There is a lot people can do that is reasonable. I just ask the National Party to get in behind and stop whingeing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just allowed that member to have a lash at the National Party when that answer has nothing to do with the question. I take the leave of the House for the Minister to be able to tell us on what occasion the National Party has ever said anything about the savings campaign other than offering full support for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. [ 
Interruption 
] No the member cannot take leave on behalf of someone. He can ask a question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I took leave of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot take leave for another person. The member has leave to ask a question which will not be within the allocation that he has been granted by the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister name the occasion and give the statement when any member of the National Party caucus has suggested anything other than encouraging New Zealanders to support the savings campaign fully? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think one could look at the tone of questions for oral answer—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am listening to the answer first; then I will hear the comments. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the member wants an example of whingeing then he should look at question No. 3 from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question is not like a normal question. It is a question allowed by the House very specifically and the Minister should give a specific answer. Has there been an occasion? Is there a quote? If the answer is no he should stand up and say so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No an ordinary question was allowed and the answer addressed it. 
Mark Peck 
: Can the Minister assure consumers in areas such as Southland and Otago which are achieving significant power savings that their efforts are worthwhile when other regions are saving less at present? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes the efforts made by consumers such as those in Southland are very much worthwhile as they will help avoid more severe disruption to power supplies. I urge consumers in other parts of the country to follow the leadership shown by Southland and increase their efforts to reach that 10 percent target. 
Dail Jones 
: What is his response to other energy consumers such as Max Peers of the Waitakere Gardens Retirement Village in Henderson a volunteer driver for the Cancer Society who on his night off will also have to suffer a reduction in warmth both externally and internally arising from the power shortages and an increase in the price of The Old Masters rich cream sherry from $12 to $18—being a double blow to himself and to other New Zealanders of a similar age? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think anyone who has any sort of medical knowledge at all knows that the warmth provided by alcohol does not last for very long. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Government concerned that the spectacular failure of its call for power savings might be because the public perceives this Labour Government as blaming everyone else for the failure except itself—with another example of that occurring today when apparently it was the fault of the Opposition—and has the Government considered that if the Prime Minister were to go on television and accept responsibility personally the Government might get a better response from the public? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If there was one person in this House with more responsibility for the mad excesses of the free market—which includes this area—it is the Hon Richard Prebble. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member might like to authenticate that answer. I have not been a Minister for 12 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises a very very valid and interesting point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely it cannot be acceptable for a Minister to give that answer totally irrelevant as it is and in the case of Mr Prebble totally wrong as well because he surely cannot be responsible— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point—do not make interlocutory comments like that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Just relax; I am getting to the point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not going to have any more comments— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There is a Standing Order that states I have the right to make that point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will leave the House if he is not seated. He has the right to make a point of order but I have the right to intervene when I think it is not a point of order and it was not because of the member’s remark. Please make a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There are two material issues about my point of order. One is that the Minister made no attempt to answer the question and worse still in political terms he set out to make a character assassination on a member who could not be held responsible. I thought it was your duty to get up and make him answer the question which is what would be expected in any other democracy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I was concerned I heard the question I heard the answer and I then heard the member’s point of order. I thought there was a good spirit in the House and he was taking it in that regard. I thought that that was where the matter ended. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm his view that Becky Ashe of Mission Bay is whingeing—to use his word—when she says “I don’t like the way this has all been blamed on the household consumer.”; and when is he going to figure out it is precisely because of the Government’s attitude that the power crisis is everyone else’s fault that the savings campaign is failing? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: At no stage did I indicate she was whingeing. It was the tone the member used that whinged—nearly as much as the two people next to him. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Minister seen the article in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 “How and why the power crisis happened” which stated: “There is a shortage of electricity-generating capacity. The demand for electricity continues to grow but no new large hydro power station has been permitted or built in New Zealand for more than 20 years even though there is an identified hydro-generation potential of about 20000 megawatts of which 10000 was considered to be economic and environmentally reasonable to develop.” and can he explain to the House why Richard Prebble is responsible for the situation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Obviously the Hon Richard Prebble has had an enormous influence. We know that during the 1990s he was running Ruth Richardson and others on a string. On the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the Minister to come to the particular question that was asked. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On the question of permits I tell the House that 1300 megawatts of new generation has received resource consents since 2000. The reason it has not all been built has not been uncertainty about the resource management process but uncertainty about gas supply. 
Hon Bill English 
: What action does the Minister intend to take to improve the rate of power savings going from under 5 percent to somewhere near the 10 percent target the Government has set bearing in mind that if we do not reach the 10 percent target we will be facing blackouts in the winter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member means we may be facing blackouts during the winter. There are factors such as when and where it rains that are also relatively important. 
Hon Bill English 
: Too late. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member says it is too late for rain. The Government is looking at ongoing and developing campaigns for power saving in the area and if the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Gerry Brownlee should just wait and see. 
Legal Aid—Eligibility 
4.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What steps have been taken to review eligibility for legal aid? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In December 2002 a discussion document on eligibility for legal aid was released to groups with a direct interest in the subject including Government agencies the New Zealand Law Society community law centres and the New Zealand Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The responses have been received and are being analysed. This document has also been made available to the Justice and Electoral Committee and is now available on the ministry website. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What are the goals of reviewing and reforming eligibility criteria? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The key goal is to provide access to legal representation in a fiscally affordable way for people with genuine need. The system also needs to be efficient so that resources are being used to the best effect. We also need to discourage unnecessary litigation. 
Richard Worth 
: Against the background of the abuse of the system by legally aided claimants before the Waitangi Tribunal which has been the subject of evidence to the Justice and Electoral Committee what specific actions will the Minister take to stop similar abuses by claimants to the Ministry for the Environment seeking money for attending the Environment Court as impoverished environmental action groups when members of that group as individuals have significant amounts of cash? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member may not be aware of it but the money that is available for environmental groups is paid not out of this legal aid fund but by a separate ministry and a separate fund. 
Dail Jones 
: What action will the Minister take to ensure that any legal aid review deals with the problems arising from a grant of legal aid in domestic violence and interim custody matters to one party heard on a “without notice to the other party” basis resulting in the other usually non – legally aided party not getting interim custody which results in serious prejudice to the child or children and the other party in any subsequent custody action? I refer to the Law Commission’s Report 82 on dispute resolution in the Family Court paragraphs 984 and 992. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is an issue as is the fact that when legal aid is provided to one party over custody matters the other party that is fighting the legal battle may be above the threshold level and may have its assets dissipated. Both of those issues are before the Ministry of Justice as appropriate issues to examine in the context of this review. 
Stephen Franks 
: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the eligibility review considers ways to avoid wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on counsel who defend crime described by a judge as “cruel and unspeakably depraved” yet excuse the brutal rape and murder of a jogger by saying: “The inequality between Maori and the white ruling class explained why a troubled young man with a decent family came to act like a psychopath”? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Who said that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has interjected and I have warned him. I am going to take it that that interjection meant the question was over so he will not be forced to leave. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are of course specific tests for the provision of legal aid in criminal cases. The person needs to demonstrate that having legal representation would otherwise be unaffordable and it must also be in the interests of justice. The interests of justice have been taken to mean that the seriousness of the consequences for the individual is high—that is the individual is likely to be imprisoned. In that case there needs to be certainty that all the issues are argued properly before a court of law so that the verdict of guilty is in fact the appropriate decision. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to an issue with question No. 4 which has been illustrated by the first supplementary question. Surely Mr Russell Fairbrother who has been a personal beneficiary of legal aid has a conflict of interest that he should have told us about before asking that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think that is the case at all. Otherwise we would have people who are dairy farmers never being allowed to ask questions about the dairy industry. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has there been an examination of the policy of not allowing legal aid in criminal cases where defendants are unlikely to receive a prison sentence because the case is not considered significant—a practice that may lead to wrongful conviction—when in fact a first conviction even without a custodial sentence will clearly have significant impacts on a person’s life? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I understand the point the member is making but I have to make this point in reply: the amount of resources we can put into any area is finite. In this area we are currently expending $81 million of taxpayers’ money and we therefore have to make sure that we prioritise who is eligible and what cases are appropriate for legal aid. The line has therefore been drawn so that in criminal cases the probability of imprisonment is a factor that should be taken into account before legal aid is granted. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister intend to review the ability for grandparents raising grandchildren to access legal aid in order to contest guardianship when currently means testing often leaves them with no option but to re-mortgage their homes to protect the interests of their grandchildren; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have considerable sympathy for grandparents in that situation. I have talked to a number of them and that is indeed what I was alluding to when I answered the question earlier from Dail Jones. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the record of the trial in which Mr Fairbrother made the defence as read out by Mr Franks. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Winter Power Task Force—Hot Water Heating 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he support the call by the Winter Power Task Force for hot water to be switched off for up to 18 hours a day if a 10 percent voluntary domestic power savings target is not met by the end of the month; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Energy 
: The answer from the Minister of Energy who as we know is doing good work at this time is that he is advised that the Winter Power Task Force is not calling for hot water to be “switched off” as the member puts it. The task force is doing everything it can to avoid disruptions to the power supply and has pointed out the fact that 10 percent savings will help make more severe measures unnecessary. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely that answer cannot be accepted because this question would not be on the Order Paper if we had not had to take verification of that statement being made by the Winter Power Task Force to the Clerk’s Office this morning. The whole integrity of question time is at stake here I think. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point made by the member is absolutely correct but in fact the Minister did not agree with that particular comment. He is entitled to do that as Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Minister has said that the statement was not made. Who is right? Us and the Clerk or the Minister—the acting Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will repeat my answer. The Minister is advised—my colleague who is in charge—that the Winter Power Task Force is not calling for hot water to be “switched off” as the member puts it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right—and that was the answer that I heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is quite clear that he cannot address this question. There seems to be a totally different view of the information on which the question is based. I seek the leave of the House for this question to be held over until the Minister of Energy is back in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he seen electricity industry players’ suggestions that domestic consumers need short sharp shocks and a few cold showers to get them to save power and does he support this method of introducing power savings; if so how soon would he suggest it start? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: For some consumers opposite quite soon. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why New Zealanders are being urged to save power including having short sharp showers if not cold showers when the Tongariro power scheme is not running to capacity and instead water is being spilt in vast volumes down the Whanganui River? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That question has a level of detail that as a Minister acting for a Minister in this House I do not have. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not have the information about every power scheme and I suggest the member puts the question to the Minister as a substantive question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although I have to accept the Minister’s assurance that he does not know surely there is some obligation to have an acting Minister who knows something. I would have said that most members of Parliament are well aware of the fact that this Government put pressure on Genesis Energy to settle a Maori claim to the Whanganui River. I would have said that most MPs are aware that the Tongariro power scheme which cost multimillions to build is now hardly running at all. Most MPs know that that is one of the reasons for the power shortage but the acting Minister tells us and we have to accept his word that he does not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well as the member just said the Minister had a perfectly proper way of responding. Whether it was satisfactory is another question. 
Darren Hughes 
: What contribution will the Government sector make to power savings? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Cabinet has set a 15 percent target for the Government sector. Archives New Zealand for example has estimated that it is now saving 20 percent of its usual consumption. The State Services Commission has a number of interesting proposals. It has asked cleaners not to do their night cleaning to vacuum once a week and to do all other cleaning during daylight hours rather than have the banks of lights on. Timers have been added to the hot water boilers so they do not operate between 5.30 and 7 and—this is something that might be somewhat of a flashback for some of us—it has been recommended that they wear jerseys if they are cold. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Before the Minister allows cold showers to be forced on all householders who have no alternative source of hot water will he ensure that every significant commercial industrial and retail user of electricity is visited by an official from Government or the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to advise on how it can cut its power use without reducing production safety or health? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it would not be appropriate for me to make that undertaking here. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Government agree with the advice of Tim Saunders chairman of the State-owned enterprise Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd that new coal-based high efficiency electricity generation with negligible pollutant emissions could maintain the wholesale electricity price at 5c to 6c per kilowatt-hour near current rates for hundreds of years; if so why is another State-owned enterprise forced to import coal from Indonesia and Australia—half a million tonnes this year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is a question of having the coal and the coal-fired power stations not in the same places—in fact not in the same islands. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Minister said in the House yesterday that he would be making an announcement about future generation this week was he referring to the Meridian Te Apiti wind farm; if so how likely is this project to help with the current crisis given that New Zealand’s consumption last month was on average 94604 megawatts per day and this project will perhaps by 2005 produce only 2400 megawatts per day? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Immigration Minister—Confidence 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she of the opinion that her Minister of Immigration is on top of her portfolio responsibilities; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Putting aside the obvious—that the information Minister for Iraq was also very similarly qualified— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please come to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That was not funny yesterday and it is less funny today. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It will not be funny tomorrow as well. The Minister is living proof that New Zealanders can take a joke. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I give the member a final warning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sorry. He was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that is why I have not put the member out. Now please ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I thank you for your indulgence Mr Speaker. How can the Minister of Immigration possibly be on top of her portfolio when her open-door immigration policy has created a situation where on one day 3 May in the Auckland District Court alone at least 24 immigrants appeared on multiple charges involving extortion kidnappings aggravated robberies and assaults with intent to rob; and when does the Prime Minister expect the Minister to get on top of this alarming situation which is outlined in this document here? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly let me correct the member. There is no open-door immigration policy in this country and the member knows that. Secondly if the member wants to make assertions about immigrants being a disproportionate cause of crime in this country he should check with my other department the Ministry of Justice where he will find for example that Asian immigrants perform disproportionately less crime than any other group and in fact half the level of crime of their proportion of the population. If the member wants to look at where crime comes from he will find that most of it is home-grown. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Minister possibly come to that answer knowing full well that in many cases the country of origin is not asked of the offender? Otherwise if he cannot tell us that then he is again simply misleading this House again. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is not this member who is misleading the House; it is the person who has asked the question. I will seek leave at the end of answering this question to table two documents: one document from the Ministry of Justice on the sentencing and convicting of offenders which shows that the other category in terms of ethnicity 79 percent of which is Asian committed only 3 percent of the crime in this country. The other document which comes from the police makes a distinction of Asiatic as an ethnic group which indicates that it commits 2.2 percent of the crime in this country. The member should stop making allegations about ethnic groups for which he can never produce the evidence to back up. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the rate of increase and what are the per capita figures in respect of the other category that he now asserts is a low crime - committing area? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The figures that I can give to the member are these: it is my understanding that the Asian section of the population now constitutes something around 6 percent; and the crime rate as set out in the police figures indicates that that group is committing 2.2 percent of the crime in this country. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister was asked what the percentage increase and growth figures are. We want to know that and I have asked him that very very carefully. If he cannot answer that he should say he does not have the figures not seek to avoid it by providing information not asked for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That point is valid. I think the Minister should actually address that part. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because that question has nothing to do with the original question that was asked I do not have those figures with me. Those figures would be available. I can indicate that the Asian section of the population has increased rapidly but the most important point in terms of the proportionality of crime committed by ethnic groups is that that is a group in the community that disproportionately commits less crime that other ethnic groups. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Prime Minister consider it a sign of failure in immigration policy when people like the Auckland Mayor John Banks call for a more coherent policy to help people integrate into their new community; and what is the Minister’s response to his claim that the strain on infrastructure caused by the current influx of migrants is actually making their lives unhappy and uncertain? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: With regard to one aspect of the question the Minister of Immigration and I and John Banks attended the opening of the Migrant Resource Centre in my own electorate and I heard the mayor speak on that occasion. The mayor was gushing in his praise for new migrants to New Zealand and welcoming their contribution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I told the Minister I would seek leave for him to table his two documents—he asked for leave and described them. Is there any objection? 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the court record of the Auckland District Court for 2 May showing 24 people charged with all sorts of serious offences in this country. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table another document. It is entitled “By hoki where’s the scampi?” challenging Winston Peters to provide the evidence on the scampi fishing industry when he had no evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has no relation to this question. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has sought leave. Anyone can seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to bring something to your attention and ask for your assistance. I have through written questions asked respective Ministers in the Government for precisely the sorts of figures that the Minister has just said he now has. He has told the House in his answer to the principal question that the figures of ethnic groups show specifically their levels of crime to support the figures he has given. I have been told in numerous answers to written questions that the amount of data involved does not warrant the time and the money involved in providing me with the answers I wanted which were specifically a breakdown of crime and offences by ethnicity. I have been denied that information and he now tells the House that he has it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is a debating point. 
Examination Fees—Education Act Guidelines 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Who was responsible for the breach of section 4.2 of the Assessment and Certification Rules and Procedures for Secondary Schools 2002 pursuant to Part XX of the Education Act 1989 which states: “The Chief Executive’s Nominee will advise schools of the following year’s schedule of fees for each of the Qualifications no later than 1 December in the year preceding the assessment.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that there is no legal requirement to advise of examination fees by a certain date. Clearly the New Zealand Qualifications Authority did not meet the deadline that is set down in its own rules and procedures that it has made. While this is regrettable I hardly think it is the hanging offence that the member tried to make it yesterday. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority told the Education and Science Committee in response to questions on the increase in the fees: “It is a decision made by the Minister in conjunction with the Ministry of Education” “There were just a series of options” and “There were no recommendations” when all these statements are contradicted by the official documents in her own name; and how can we continue to have confidence in the chief executive of this most important authority when it so grossly misleads a parliamentary select committee? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I understand that the acting chief executive has accepted that she made an error. I understand that she was on leave on 6 January the day the important paper that was signed up in her name but which she did not see because she was on leave—[ 
Interruption 
] I was working and some of her staff were working. We dealt with it during the holidays. She made an error at the select committee and she has apologised. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How long has the role of chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority been carried out by a person in an acting capacity and is it in the best interests of the long-term strategic development of this beleaguered entity to have allowed such temporary leadership for such a prolonged period? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Too long and no. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister consent to a $16 million increase in student examination fees from $83 to $150 per student when he had been advised officially by the authority that this breached its own rules or to specifically quote the document “This decision must be made by 1 December”; and will he now defer that huge increase given that the authority broke its own rules? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As the member is aware following that advice I sought advice as to the basis of the legal advice and found that it was incorrect. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister share with the House the specific advice he obtained at the time—advice that was not disclosed in the papers to the select committee; but it was promised we had all the papers—that suggests there was anything other than a breach of its rules? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My understanding is that that paper was a December paper supplied to the committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the official advice given to the Minister on 13 November 2002 and also the further paper that was provided to the Minister on 6 January 2003 both of which state it was a breach of the authority’s rules under the Education Act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is. 
Early Childhood Education—Innovation 
8.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to actively encourage innovation in early childhood education services and schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Just over $2 million is available every 3 years for six early childhood education centres of innovation. This is pursuant to last year’s Budget. We have also established a $1 million annual Collaborative Innovations Fund in the school sector. Ultralab South the New Zealand branch of the wonderful UK research and development institute will assist in identifying new and innovative technologies to improve educational programmes. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House when these initiatives will improve teaching and learning? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Early childhood services working alongside researchers and schools working together will identify and share innovative teaching and learning practices building professional knowledge and expertise. In my opinion we are not good enough at identifying and developing good practice then sharing it. 
Heather Roy 
: Who does he imagine will implement this innovation when this Government is actively introducing a registration system that will sideline thousands of experienced and capable teachers who will not be grandparented resulting in staffing shortages in early childhood centres around the country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there were three wrong assumptions in that question. 
Air Force—Maritime Interdiction Operation 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Is the reason for the secrecy surrounding the base for the RNZAF Orion bound for the Gulf of Oman concern that people of that unnamed State might object to elements of the maritime interdiction operation being based in their country; if not what is the reason for secrecy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Non-disclosure of the destination was at the request of the host State. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the New Zealand Government colluding with the host Government in hiding the presence of the US-led maritime interdiction operation from the people of that Middle East State because opinion polls show that very few Arab people support their Governments hosting US and allied military forces? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not party and the Government is not party to the deliberations of the host State. The New Zealand Government simply agreed to respect its wishes and we regarded that as a reasonable request on its part. 
Lynne Pillay 
: When will New Zealand deploy a P3 Orion to the Gulf of Oman? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: On Sunday. 
Simon Power 
: Since the deployment of the P3 Orion to the Gulf of Oman does the Minister still agree with the Prime Minister’s statement of 26 March 2000 that “I think we’ll find as the world becomes a more peaceful place to live in a lot of people will start looking at New Zealand and what are the capabilities you need.” and her statement of 21 March 2000 that we live in “an exceptionally benign strategic environment”; if so why? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated in answer to the previous supplementary question the Orion has not yet departed; it departs on Sunday. As to the balance of the question I am confident that this is an appropriate deployment. It is an appropriate contribution to the ongoing international effort against terrorism. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A supplementary question? No ACT members have had their questions for today. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been counting very carefully. I believe we have had only seven supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have counted eight supplementary questions. The member can check both the records concerned. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Notwithstanding the request of the host State to remain unnamed can the Minister assure the House that the normal New Zealand command and control provisions will apply in respect of the deployment of this aircraft? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I can give the House that assurance. 
Keith Locke 
: If New Zealand defence personnel as part of the US-led maritime interdiction operation detect and detain a suspected terrorist will that suspected terrorist be handed over to American jurisdiction knowing that that person would be unlikely to have access to a lawyer or to receive the normal legal rights under New Zealand or international law? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Interesting though that is it is far too wide of the original question. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The original question was about the maritime interdiction operation and the involvement of New Zealand military personnel—and it is with the aim of detecting suspected terrorists. Surely what happens as a result of that work in terms of those terrorists is relevant to the original question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might be able to comment briefly. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can assure the member that the P3 Orion deploying on Sunday and its crew will not directly personally detain anybody. They will be flying over the area concerned. 
Building Standards— 
Better Regulation of the Building Industry in New Zealand 
10.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What advice has she received on the response to the Government’s discussion document  
Better Regulation of the Building Industry in New Zealand 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Over 300 submissions were received by the Ministry of Economic Development in response to this paper and overall submissions have been very supportive of the proposals and the direction this Government is taking. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What were the themes reflected in the submissions? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The main themes of the submissions were the need for competent and good-quality tradespeople support for building practitioner registration and the need for better more accessible good-quality information. Along the lines of the document the people of New Zealand are saying we need to build it right first time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In the light of the fact that none of the recommendations in the document suggest that the Building Industry Authority should become part of her department what advice did she get from the building industry that suggested the Building Industry Authority should be swallowed up by her department and given her bench mate’s track record in this area why should New Zealanders believe that she will do any better? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When I announced that the Building Industry Authority was to come within a Government department not necessarily the Ministry of Economic Development the announcement was received in two different ways. There were groups within the building industry that felt that would make it too close to the Government and there were those groups that felt it did not bring it close enough—that the Building Industry Authority had not been acting strongly enough as a regulator in this area. 
Food Labelling—Country of Origin 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: Does she support mandatory country of origin labelling for food so that consumers can find out where the food they eat comes from; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand consumers have a right to safe food and to know what is in the food we eat and not to be misled or deceived by information on the labels. The Government’s policy is that country of origin labelling for food should not be mandatory because the information is not always meaningful particularly for processed foods and it adds cost to the processes. However I am always willing to receive submissions on the matter. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that the absence of any labels on imported fresh produce like lamb mutton beef and fish—the vast amounts of it that are on sale in our supermarkets—could mislead or deceive consumers into thinking they were eating New Zealand products and not imported produce; and will she therefore use her powers under the Fair Trading Act to develop regulations that require country of origin labelling for food similar to those that already exist for footwear and clothing? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think it is true that consumers could be misled if this is a matter that is of concern to them. However our concern is that any imported food including meat is safe for consumers. The Government has rules prohibiting beef and beef-product imports from countries unless they are categorised by New Zealand and meet specified requirements in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy. For other issues all imported meat must be safe. However if consumers want to inquire they should do so. 
David Cunliffe 
: What protections do consumers have against misleading claims regarding the origin of food? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The Commerce Commission has put out a ruling that no labelling of any product can be false or misleading. The rules are quite strict about that so any consumer who has a complaint about labels should refer it to the commission and also complain to the retailer and manufacturer. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Fair Trading Act she is referring to applies only to products that are labelled and not to unlabelled fresh produce; and can she further explain why the Government supports mandatory country of origin labelling for footwear and clothing but not for food—that is does she think it is fair that consumers can find out where their jandals and T-shirts come from but not their meat and vegetables? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The problem with labelling is that we have international agreements about giving imported goods the same deal we give local goods. I believe that country of origin labelling is often used to discriminate against imported goods. I personally think that consumers should have as much information as possible but that information has to be meaningful. The problem with many food items is that they have many ingredients and I do not think that the Australian rules which are mandatory are meaningful when all that manufacturers have to put on processed goods is that they contain imported ingredients. I think country of origin labelling is a good idea but it is very difficult to implement and we have chosen to make it voluntary not mandatory. 
Health Services—Rest Homes and Home Support 
12.  
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What is she doing to ensure the country’s rest homes and home support services are delivering the best standards of care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Adding to a list of initiatives that are already well under way $1 million is being allocated this year for a project to assess the quality of care of older people and also of people with disabilities and to develop further initiatives to ensure that the best standards are in fact delivered. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are the key issues so far identified for ensuring good-quality care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A key issue identified by the sector has been the need to address the workforce issues that were neglected so badly during the 1990s when there was no planning no assessment of workforce needs and no workforce monitoring of care workers. We are now working constructively with the sector to rectify that neglect. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has the Minister not increased the funding for our frailest elderly in hospital care in line with the Health Committee report that said particular attention should be paid to hospital-care funding; and does she not think that the hospital-care funding freeze is putting our elderly at risk as rest homes have no choice but to cut care cut corners or close? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member should know because she was a member of the select committee that heard the Nelson petition looking at that very issue the decision was made that with the significant amount of increased funding given to residential care providers those who were most underfunded would receive that money first. But I am very pleased to say that the funding increase for hospital-rate beds will be made this year. 
Judy Turner 
: Are there any concerns that services are being financially compromised when the elderly are being wrongly assessed as less dependent than is the case and that rest homes are therefore being underfunded? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The issue of elderly people being assessed and then referred to an inappropriate level of care was raised at the select committee but I am confident that that was an error made by the petitioner having discussed that personally with him. I have confidence in the needs assessment and referral process leading to the right level of care. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are some of the initiatives the Minister alluded to in her response to the original question? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Home support standards have just been completed and all needs assessment services are being reviewed to ensure that individuals receive the most appropriate care for their needs. A needs assessment tool for older people is currently under consultation and various other workforce-related initiatives are in progress. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why has this Labour Government not increased the number of elder-abuse services; and how on earth will the proposed package of initiatives announced on 10 April which set up a review and the holding of a forum possibly stop elderly New Zealanders from being physically and financially abused by family members and carers as is happening all too often in New Zealand today? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am delighted to receive the assumed support from that member for dealing with elder abuse in a comprehensive way. The member noted three parts of the package. Firstly there is a review of the current contracts which have been in place for a long time and frankly the previous Government did not look to see what information was gathered. On completion of that review which will be in the third quarter of this year I will be hosting a forum to look at the issues raised during the review and to develop an action plan. The third part of that process is then in consultation with Steve Maharey and Annette King to appoint a lead agency to drive that action plan. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the full answer to question for written answer on 14 November 2002 from Ron Mark to George Hawkins showing a full ethnic breakdown of crime committed in this country that the member said he could not get and which confirms that 2.2. percent of all crime is committed by Asiatic people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In order that I am not seen to have misled the House I seek leave to table the other questions on ethnic-based crime that the Minister George Hawkins refused to answer— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.15:16:55 End of QOA 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 7 May. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
) 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government announced a multimillion dollar injection into the Historic Places Trust tagged for the expansion of wahi tapu in New Zealand. At the very moment that the Prime Minister was appearing on television earlier this year telling the people of Welcome Bay near Tauranga not to be concerned that 180 hectares of land was covered by a single wahi tapu that the council could decide the use of the land she was sitting in a Cabinet committee room approving this bill that will expand wahi tapu beyond the wildest dreams of the Hon Margaret Wilson. 
The bill states that wahi tapu will now have to be treated as matters of national importance. What does that mean? What we know from the Resource Management Act is that if something is a matter of national importance then the council shall have total regard for that matter and no discretion. What that means is that if a group of local Maori decide they are going to declare wahi tapu on someone’s private land then they now have the power of the Marian Hobbs amendment to the Resource Management Act to override completely both the will of the landowner and the view of the district plan. This Government announced an extra $4.5 million to $8 million to expand wahi tapu throughout New Zealand and give it the full— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Rubbish! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The press statement states it. It expands the use of wahi tapu across the whole of the country and denies landowners their rights to have a say on what happens on their land. What annoys me is that the Prime Minister was giving assurances to the people of Tauranga that the wahi tapu did not matter and she was sitting in a Cabinet room agreeing to amendments to the Resource Management Act that give wahi tapu the highest status possible in the Resource Management Act and remove completely any discretion the council has. It is deceitful to be on television saying one thing when one knows that one is in a Cabinet room doing the complete opposite. It is a real message to New Zealanders. The extra money given to the woolly liberals in Wellington on the Historic Places Trust will cost a whole lot of landowners in New Zealand. That wahi tapu of 180 hectares is nonsense. This bill will deny the rights that those landowners and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council have to manage that land for future generations of those who have a legitimate interest in that land. 
Who is this Parliament to say to those four affected landowners that they cannot cut down their trees they cannot put in a roadway they cannot build a garage unless they consult the locals down the road who do not have an interest in their land. That is what this Government is doing. That is what the liberals opposite want to do in this country. 
I have to say that the real disaster of this bill will be visited upon this Government in 18 months’ time. That extra money they are giving the Historic Places Trust to expand wahi tapu further throughout New Zealand in an unfettered undemocratic and unrealistic way will have a negative impact on a whole lot of New Zealanders. That is another reason this National Party in Opposition says that this Government must go. Those amendments will go when the Government changes at the next election. 
We will not stand for this. Werepresent mainstream New Zealanders who have had enough of the sickly white paternalism that one sees from people like Marian Hobbs and Margaret Wilson. One can imagine them sitting in their spa pools with their glasses of Chardonnay deciding what is good for people around New Zealand and it is not right that we should be giving $4 million to $8 million extra. The Minister can laugh. Obviously she has not met the four landowners in Welcome Bay who do not have a say in how their land is run. She is laughing about that. What about Mr John Kilpatrick who bought the land 20 years ago planted trees for his superannuation and now the local maraewill decide whether he can cut them down. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In case the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I suggest that the Government whip should sort that out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will people have their disagreement outside the Chamber please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are looking at Part 1 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which forms pretty much the whole of the substantial provisions of the bill. The Parliament and those listening may not realise that the progress of this bill through the House has been a constitutional outrage. This bill is very significant legislation which the Parliament has waited on for 4 years and the Government decided there should be no public hearings. I will give one example of why there should be public hearings. 
This bill introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes into the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes. No one knows what that is. We do know that it is land that was owned by one’s ancestors. But according to the commentary on the bill unless one is Maori one does not have ancestors. If one is Maori then the whole of New Zealand could justifiably be called an “ancestral landscape”. Of course the Government will say that no one will see it that way. 
I visited the wahi tapu site that Tony Ryall is talking about. I have no problem with showing respect for the places of the dead; I believe in that. But I do not believe that the cemetery on the top of that hill is 800 acres. I do not believe that anyone ever meant the provision for wahi tapu to do more than protect burial areas. In fact what has happened is that a designation is being used to curtail the rights of owners of whole farms whole hillsides. What will happen to ancestral landscapes? The whole of the area one can see from the top of the hill at Welcome Bay must therefore be an ancestral landscape—and it includes the Mount the beautiful area of Tauranga which is deeply culturally significant to its local people. How could one argue it is not an ancestral landscape? 
Those issues have not been discussed in the Local Government and Environment Committee at all let alone by people who know anything about this. It has been hatched behind closed doors. As my colleague pointed out when the Prime Minister was on television saying “Wahi tapu makes no difference; the council is still in control.” she had come from a Cabinet meeting where legislation was written making ancestral landscapes and wahi tapu one of the highest priorities in the Resource Management Act; making wahi tapu a matter of national importance. 
I say to the Government that this is not how to progress sound cross-cultural understanding in New Zealand. This is pushing it too far; this is pushing against the rights that every New Zealander might have in order to privilege the spiritual values of a few. It is overbalancing the equation. That is why the public and the Parliament deserve the opportunity to discuss the bill; and that is just one provision of the 18 provisions we are talking about—just one. 
This bill removes the capacity of a court to order security for costs from objectors. Whoever asked for that apart from the Greens and Labour? Nobody did. The precise reason people want the Resource Management Act changed is to speed up the processes and to make them less expensive. This bill opens the door wide to every spurious objector imaginable because objectors do not have to offer security for costs. That is a significant step backwards. Has that been discussed by anybody? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has not been discussed. The Minister tried to tell the Parliament that this bill was like the No. 1 amendment bill. How many differences are there? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: There are 18 significant differences. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: But do members know what Marian Hobbs cannot tell the difference. That is the problem. She cannot tell the difference between the original bill and this one. She knows she is supervising a process that is profoundly anti-democratic and the results will be visited on her head. All those people who have sought change in the Resource Management Act for over half a decade have been told to “Get lost!”. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I just want to correct something and I would like the Leader of the Opposition to remain and hear it. There was no decision— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister may be a relatively new member but she should know that she must not refer to the presence or absence of members from the Chamber. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I accept that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member that it is out of order to refer to the absence of members. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I hope that applies to another member who made reference to my absence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It certainly does. It is a longstanding convention in the House. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Good. I will make my point very clearly and I will do it by reading as I did last night from the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999. At page 7 it states: “Government and Green members recommend that the definition of ‘historic heritage’ be modified”. It goes on to state: “We also recommend including the phrases ‘spiritual qualities’”— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The portions she is quoting are from the No. 1 amendment bill. That bill was dispensed with by that Minister. 
Members on this side of the Committee would love the opportunity to be able to debate the select committee report on the No. 1 bill but this Government prevented it. I seek leave to debate the select committee report on the 400 submissions on the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill because it seems that the Minister wants to debate it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s original request was a debatable issue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes it was. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders are very clear. We are debating Part 1 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) so the Minister cannot suddenly start talking about the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill or the select committee report just because it suits her. If the Minister would like to debate it I again seek leave to debate the select committee report on the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill because it seems that that is what the Minister seeks to debate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: It seems to me that in the House we frequently quote from a wide range of documents that have a bearing on the matter at hand. The report back of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the No. 1 bill is one such document. It should be clearly distinguished from the report of the committee on the No. 2 bill. But I cannot see how you can rule it out of order to quote from that document given that people quote from submissions that were made to a pretend select committee which actually had no status at all. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to make two points. First of all the Hon Dr Nick Smith sought leave and that needs to be put. The second point is that a ruling was given by the Clerk to the select committee that the submissions heard by Mr Nick Smith’s select committee were quite in order. Indeed they were referred to in part of the report of the select committee on the No. 2 bill. So members are well within their rights to debate that aspect. If we are allowed to debate other bills and if we are to go that wide why do we not talk about the Ngati Tama bill or the Fair Trading Amendment Bill? The fact is we must generally stick to the bill that is before the House at the time. One cannot go to other bills; that is quite outside the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill is not before the Committee. It is not within the Committee’s terms of reference to debate that bill. However members may discuss that bill to the extent that it is relevant to the provisions of this part. I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has sought leave but I am advised that as a result of the ruling he does not need to seek leave. However I will ask whether there is any objection to that course of action being taken. There is. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Leader of the Opposition made a comment that a decision was made in Cabinet and I point out that the decision was made in the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dail Jones because he has not spoken in this— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You can take the point of order Mr Shirley but in reality I have already made the call and under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 that call cannot be taken away. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You are anticipating my point of order which is often a dangerous path for a presiding officer to take. My point of order is about a totally different matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. Will the member please proceed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: My point of order is this. As I think you are aware the Speaker gave clear directions to the Business Committee as to how this debate would be handled and I think you were present there as were other presiding officers. Time was to be given reflecting the complexity of this bill. I heard you say you were looking at a list of who had already spoken. My point is this: I am the ACT spokesperson on environmental conservation and energy issues and on a whole lot of other things and given the complexity of this matter and to fulfil the clear understanding that was given I would expect to have more than one call on each of these parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can assure the member that we will do that. In fact Standing Order 178 has been suspended for the rest of this year to enable smaller parties to have more calls. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Indeed and in view of that I was wondering why you were consulting a list of who had already spoken because I would have thought there was scope for all here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just trying to look for some sort of proportionality. The honourable member Dail Jones has not spoken and that is why I gave him the call. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The main point I want to refer to today is the point that has just been taken up by the leader of the National Party which is to do with the removal of security for costs. Speaking as a lawyer who has done some resource management work—though I try to avoid it because it goes on for ever and sometimes it is very unsatisfactory— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On legal aid? 
DAIL JONES 
: No never on legal aid. Fortunately I had a practice that did not seem to warrant that; we are quite lucky sometimes. If the right of the Environment Court to award security for costs is removed one will get the problematic situation that existed before whereby people who have no real interest in the matter will delay the Environment Court. There is a suggestion from the Greens that the Environment Court will award security for costs on a willy-nilly basis which is quite wrong. 
The Environment Court does have certain grounds and rules under which it may award security for costs. The insertion of this clause is a rebuke to those judges who sit on the Environment Court. It is saying to those judges: “We don’t approve of the decisions you have made in the past and we don’t think we can trust you to make the right decisions in the future.” That is what the Labour Government is saying to the Environment Court in this situation. It is saying: “We are very very unhappy with the way in which the previous clause was used. We don’t want you to have this power”—which really boils down to a discretion—“any more.” What sort of way is that to run the country when the Government can take the view that the court is not doing its job properly and will rebuke it on the matter of security for costs? All that the judges were doing was trying to say to some people: “That’s fine you can object but really if you’re going to object you’ve got to put some of your money where your mouth is.” And that varies—it is not always $50000. If the person does not have much money that fact is usually taken into account by the court which has discretion in those matters. 
This particular clause would on its own make me oppose this legislation because this little clause alone will result in great delays in resource management consents. Once people are allowed to get in there and lodge an objection willy-nilly we can say goodbye to the proper administration of the Resource Management Act. 
That was proved before the clause was put in some time ago. 
There was a good reason for that clause being put in and I again ask as I did earlier on in the debate on this bill: where is the Attorney-General in this matter? What responsibility is she taking to earn her money and to advise the Government in regard to the running of the court and the ability of court officers and judges to run their affairs? Where is the Minister of Justice? What advice has the Attorney-General given to Cabinet? What advice has the Minister of Justice given to Cabinet? Clearly they are saying: “If we give in to the Greens on this one we will allow endless delays in Resource Management Act applications and all of the things that have been said about the Resource Management Act allowing delays and such like will well and truly apply again.” 
I find the administration of the Resource Management Act generally pretty good. I am not in the camp that says that the Act is necessarily bad. I believe that the administration of the Act is poor but under the situation where there was security for costs there was some control over the people who lodged applications willy-nilly. It is the people who run the system who sometimes are not as efficient as they could be. Now we have lost control over the people who put in spurious objections. Everybody in the House knows that. The Greens know that. We have seen people put out notices stating how they could delay resource management applications. I really think that the Government should have a close look again at that provision because it will create considerable problems in the future. I warrant that within 2 years if the Government has any sense that provision will be repealed. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 The issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition and then spoken to by Dail Jones is a very important issue. The provision is one that not only would prevent frivolous objections in the case of resource management applications but also would have the potential to protect ratepayers when a large proposal is put to a council about a particular project. Perhaps many many hours of hearings may go into the proposal. Perhaps at the end of the day because the application was put in on behalf of the shelf company the bill has not been paid. Then finally if the project does not go ahead the local authority—therefore the ratepayer—will be out of pocket because there was no security-for-costs provision awarded against the applicant. 
That is not uncommon. I would have thought officials would give the Government some advice about the frequency with which security for costs are ordered against applicant bodies. It is very very regular; it is a normal practice and it protects ratepayers. I think that the amendment to remove section 284A(1) should be supported by the Committee. The provision should be taken out of the legislation. 
I commend my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for putting forward an amendment that would insert a right for a big project to go directly to the Environment Court. Everyone knows that this country has at the moment a crisis in electrical energy—in other words a massive shortage. The worst thing is that it is not hard to see that that could become a year-on-year circumstance. We have not had any significant new generation built in this country in the last 4 years. Between 1996 and 1999 we had about 1200 megawatts; since then we have had 166 megawatts—most of which was started in construction prior to the current Government taking office. Just to illustrate how problematic that is let us consider that this country with its current rate of growth needs about 150 megawatts of new generation each year. I look at an answer given to me by the Hon Pete Hodgson that states that there are generation proposals on the books now—what he calls “probable options”. I hear that tomorrow he is to announce a whole new list of “probable options”. Every one of those options will require resource consent. 
There is some talk that there will be a proposal that has a cumulative amount over some 5 to 10 years of 2000 megawatts. That is less than what we need on an annual basis. But each of those megawatts is dependent on the resource management process. How much simpler it would be if on an issue like energy direct appeals or requests for consent could be made to the Environment Court. That does not in any way take away the environmental obligations that those who propose these generating projects face. It does not take away the right of objectors to make their points known but it does remove some years of the bureaucratic process that goes into the ultimate decisions around those types of consent which by and large end up being referred to the Environment Court anyway. One can see that there is a whole layer of bureaucracy that could be cut out by those particular projects being allowed to go direct to the Environment Court. So I hope that Parliament will sensibly support the amendments moved by Dr Nick Smith. 
Let me make it very clear. On the books at the moment we have hydro wind geothermal gas and what are described as “various other options” for new electrical generation in this country. Tomorrow the Minister will stand up and tell the whole country that we have another 2000 megawatts proposed as well. But none of that will come on stream unless it gets a resource consent quickly. The earliest we will get new generation in this country is likely to be late next year but that is because that generation already has a consent. So every one of those projects and every one of the projects the Minister will talk about tomorrow is realistically 5 to 7 years away. Supporting Dr Nick Smith’s amendment in order to shorten up that process would be a good idea. That could reduce some of that lag time to 3 to 4 years and this country desperately needs that generation. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I do not know why the National Party ever agreed in the first place to support a bill that allowed any hearings or submissions. It seems to me that the ideal resource management bill from its point of view would be one in which people got any application they applied for with no community participation at all. National Party members do not agree with anything that makes it possible for community groups to get to court and have a say. 
I am sorry that Dail Jones does not appear to have heard anything I said on the subject of costs yesterday. I made it very clear that the new provision on security for costs does not remove the award for costs. I will quote from yesterday’s speech: “If the case has no merit there must be some sanction for failing to comply with directions of the court and there must be some incentive for people to prepare a case properly and observe the normal rules that go with running the process. That sanction is the ability of the court to award costs against any party to the court that misuses the process.” 
I said specifically that the court does not use the award of security for costs very often. The Local Government and Environment Committee was very clear that it was not criticising the way the court behaves. What we were criticising—what we were trying to deal with—was developers using stand-over tactics and threats to try to prevent community groups from ever having a say in the first place and that is totally contrary to the purpose of the bill which is about bringing all the evidence to the table. If some parties are excluded because of this sort of behaviour and because they do not have very deep pockets all the evidence does not get to the table. The fact is that National is supporting those stand-over tactics and threats from big developers against community groups. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please desist. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It is hard to see how— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We want a withdrawal and an apology. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have asked the member to desist in using that terminology and that is where the matters rests. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I have desisted and I assure the Committee I will not make those claims again. I simply say that the effect of what the National Party is proposing is that developers would be able to continue unchecked with their stand-over tactics and threats to community groups. 
Community groups do not always know that the court is quite unlikely to agree to the threats of the developers. They do not have the experience in court to know that and many groups came before us that said they had been deterred from taking action where they had a good legal case because they were threatened with costs. In another case just recently the court turned down an application for security. The group involved was wondering how on earth it was to raise $30000 through cake-stalls if the court awarded security which in the end it did not. That issue was discussed with a judge and legal experts and it was made clear to the committee that going back to the 1996 situation would not create any great difficulties for the court. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 There are three key points I wish to make. The first is in response to the issue of the courts awarding security. In fact our courts are more sensible than that. I am critical of many decisions that our courts make—we know we should not criticise them in Parliament—but they have been shown to be very sensible in terms of awarding security. I would challenge the member who has just resumed her chair to name one case where an injustice has been committed on that issue because I cannot think of one. There is not one instance so to create it as the bogeyman and to do away on that basis with the measures that were there is very very foolish. 
The other aspect I would like to address is clause 10 “Functions of territorial authorities under this Act”. A new requirement for local bodies in subparagraph (iii) of section 31(b) is “the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:”. That is a bumper sticker. Nobody knows what it means. By way of background the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was all about national reporting. It started out with a general concern in UN forums that we were losing biodiversity and that nations should report on that. It was intended for things like the Bengal tiger and the white rhino and maintaining the Amazon rainforest the Congo and the Sumatran rainforest and so on and so forth. It was never intended to be acre-by-acre or hectare-by-hectare maintenance of biodiversity. 
Unfortunately in this country our zealotry and our public institutions have picked up a UN convention on biodiversity and imported it into our planning laws to the point where we are now giving instructions to local bodies that every time there is a planning consent or an application they have to consider biodiversity on a hectare-by-hectare basis. That was never intended. We have gone right off the rails in this country. This is a nice warm fuzzy bumper sticker. It is only sensible when it is kept in the context of each jurisdiction at a national level annually reporting on its efforts to maintain significant biodiversity. Importing it into legislation in the way that we do in this bill is just a bizarre concept. It can only create further problems for us. We know the sorts of problems that the “significant natural areas” concept got into as it was applied to the Northland district scheme. Members should think of this concept being applied under the Resource Management Act. 
The Minister in the chair thinks that importing phrases terms and provisions like this is somehow streamlining the process. Let me assure her it is just introducing more uncertainty more nebulous concepts that no one knows the meaning of and is a recipe for endless litigation through the courts. 
There are several other aspects in this bill that concern me. I go back to the diversity aspect. Members should just think of Card Creek of applying that aspect to a power scheme like the Dobson one. There only needs to be a wee bit of native flax or whatever on the valley floor and one would never do anything. Local authorities now have a clear instruction whenever there is a proposal. It is bad enough the Department of Conservation influencing this Government to the extent it does—prohibiting access to sites like that prohibiting access to Pike River coal and all the rest of it—but now local government in applying its district schemes and planning applications will have to virtually block any development that might in any way compromise biological diversity. 
At the end of the day it is a bumper sticker. No one knows what it means. The convention was never intended to be applied in this way. It was only ever intended to be applied as a national reporting tool. 
The second aspect of real concern is the heritage order provisions. I would like to raise with the Committee a submission from Federated Farmers. It is unfortunate that the Government members did not participate in the select committee because some very good submissions were made. Federated Farmers had grave concern about this provision but one check that they did propose was that the heritage order provisions be amended so that where land-use restrictions for heritage or conservation values were of such significance one was actually paid compensation. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 It is interesting that Government members who are not participating in this debate also did not participate in the select committee. That really tells members the whole— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is not appropriate to refer in this House to an ad hoc body as a select committee—as it has been called by some members. The term “select committee” has a very particular meaning in the rules of this House and the meetings that National members have several times now referred to as those of a select committee were not in fact the meetings of a select committee. It was a committee of members. I would like the member to correct that for the record please. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I was a member of that committee. Most Opposition parties were represented there. The point is that committee is actually mentioned in the report back which is under debate now. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) includes reference to that committee. So I contend that it is very much part of this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr Shirley. It actually is a debatable issue. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: As I was saying the Government members who decided not to participate in the select committee process and hearings of evidence on this bill have also decided not to participate in any debate on the bill in this Chamber. That really says a lot about where this Government is at when it comes to legislation such as the Resource Management Act. Government members approach it from a simple premise of there being only one view and that is their view and that is the way it is going to be. 
That view might make them feel comfortable at night but it certainly does not make business in New Zealand feel comfortable at all. In fact it is a view that makes doing business in this country very very difficult indeed. Not only is the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that we have before us a difficult bill for business to cope with; it is a bill that is driving many businesses for the first time ever to engage in practices that are as close to blackmail and corruption as one can get. I have had business people tell me that in advancing developments and other propositions around the country they have come up against objectors under the Resource Management Act who have said: “We’re going to take you right through the process right through to the Environment Court on this. There’s no cost on us but if you want to drop around a case of wine”—in one case—“then the objection will disappear.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s cheap. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well I think that is outrageous. A case of wine is a bit cheap one might argue but it just shows how shallow the objector was and it shows that we have passed into law and now are amending and making worse legislation that forces business people to make those sorts of choices. 
Members opposite know that is the case. I have had business people tell me that they have spoken to Labour members and told them what is going on. Labour members tut-tut and say: “Oh well you know the Greens are really dominating us on this and we have to do this because of the Greens.” Well I tell Labour members to come out from under the Green shadow and influence and do what they think is right for business and for New Zealand. They should not tell the business people who talk to them in their constituencies that they agree with them but they need to do this because of the Greens. 
I also want to raise the issue of roading. This legislation will almost single-handedly do more to stop any roading initiatives taking place in this country than any other piece of legislation. It does not matter how much people are taxed and how much money is put aside for Auckland and it does not matter how much one promotes public-private partnerships this Resource Management Act and the amendments that the Labour Government is pushing through the Committee today will mean that roading projects grind to a halt. The select committee on the Land Transport Management Bill heard all sorts of people from councillors to developers to business people and to road-user groups say that roading in this country is being strangled by the Resource Management Act. People cannot get consents. It is impossible to get consents. There is a case not far from where I live where someone wants to save a row of macrocarpa trees. That has forced a delay in that project for at least 3 years. This bill will make it worse. Anyone from anywhere can object. Objections from people in the Coromandel who are not too far removed from the Green Party to roading developments north of Auckland are stopping development and roading. 
The Minister for the Environment might think that is OK that is fine. One has to assume she thinks it is OK because she has been silent in this debate and silent in the Committee. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to do this before the vote is declared. I note that during question time which is the time when the House fills up 22 Labour members were not present. We know that Labour is entitled to have a group absent but I hope the Labour whip is sure that he has got his numbers here. We are happy to take the whip’s word but there were 22 members away at question time and it is my experience that on a Thursday afternoon people do not come back to Parliament after question time. In fact they stay away. I want an assurance that with that number having been away Government members have returned to the House since question time—in the last hour. A substantial number of them would have had to come back. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. All members in this House are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted; their word is their bond. If for any reason it was found to be otherwise there are courses of action that can be taken in this Parliament. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to omit this subclause and substitute the following subclause: 
(7)Section 2(1) of the principle Act is amended by inserting after the definition of the term heritage protection authority the following definition: 
historic heritage 
 means those natural and physical resources that possess architectural cultural historic scientific or technological importance together with any associated contents and surroundings; and includes historic sites structures places and areas historic gardens archaeological sites and sites of significance to Maori. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage 
 in subclause (7) by omitting paragraph (a)(vi). 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage 
 in subclause (7) by omitting paragraph (b)(ii). 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(7) be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
historic heritage  
in subclause (7) by omitting from paragraph (b)(iv) the words “and ancestral landscapes”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next amendment is to clause 3 and is in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to insert a new subclause (17) dealing with the definition of “environment”. As many as who are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary will say “No”. The Ayes have it? A party vote called for? The Clerk will conduct a party vote. A party vote is called for? It is agreed? No? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Did you say “No”? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Yes I did. Quite clearly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Noes have it. Party vote called for? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No” and I was quite clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister has called “No”. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is up to the Minister but you said “The Ayes have it.” We did not call a party vote no one from the other side called a party vote so one presumes that we move on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a ruling that the Chair knows what the majority in the House is. The majority has indicated that it is not in support of this amendment and the Minister has indicated that she is not in support of this amendment. Is a party vote called for? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but I could not quite comprehend what you just said. Could you run that by us again please for my benefit? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not have it with me but there is a ruling from the Clerk’s Office that where the majority is known and in this case with the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry. It is for the Chair to make an interpretation of the votes I am advised. In this case— 
Stephen Franks 
: The vote was clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member on my right the Minister—she is an honourable member and I accept her word—has said that she called “No”. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not hear the Chair’s call of the determination but I do know that I voted “No” on the Nick Smith amendment under discussion and I know that the Minister in the chair also did because I was watching her. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I am not going to doubt whether the Minister whispered “No”. The issue is— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I said “No”. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister should not interject while points of order are being heard. From where we were sitting—from where I was sitting—I did not hear anyone call “No”. But that is irrelevant. You called “The Ayes have it.” It is not my responsibility or my whip’s responsibility when you have called “The Ayes have it.” to call for a party vote. You said “The Ayes have it.” No one called for a party vote. From my angle that means the vote was passed. If you had said “The Noes have it.” my whip would have called for a party vote. I am sure the other parties would have done the same. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The position that we are asked to accept the word of a member may well not govern. Even if a member does say he or she has called if the Chair did not hear that and proceeded is there any ability to go back and reopen a vote? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I actually think it is quite simple. People call “Yes” and “No” in the Chamber and the Chair makes a determination and says “The Ayes have it.” or “The Noes have it.” We have just had a series of votes on amendments in the name of Mr Baldock. We voted against some of them by voice. You called “The Ayes have it.” We did not want a party vote on those so we did not call for a party vote. That happens all the time. We had a voice vote; we did not have a party vote. On this amendment from Dr Nick Smith people voted you said “The Ayes have it.” no one called for a party vote and I understand that at that point the vote was locked in. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 Just to add to what I said before one of my other members has just confirmed that she heard me vote “No” and your memory will remind you that I stood to vote and waited for the Clerk to call the vote. It was clearly my expectation that we were about to call the detailed vote and I ask that we proceed with that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the point is being perhaps inadvertently obfuscated. Mr Sowry made it very clear that the issue is that the presiding officer makes the declaration and at that point either the Opposition or the Government makes a decision whether it wants to call a party vote based on the declaration. I put to you that you cannot make one declaration as a presiding officer then if the Opposition does not exercise its prerogative to call for a party vote relitigate it later and say that in fact you heard someone say “No” and therefore there is a majority and that precludes the Opposition from exercising that option. Clearly that is not right according to the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that it is for the Chair to interpret the results on the voices. I may have made a mistake. If I have I accept that but I have determined that the Noes have it and any member who voted “Aye” can call for a party vote. I now call for a party vote. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What you are saying is that you called “The Ayes have it.” and when we went to move on to the next vote you decided you had made a mistake and you have changed the vote. So we do not need any leave of the Committee or anything else like that—you can just change a vote. I find that extraordinary and I think we need to have a Speaker’s ruling if we are going to be in a position where a Chair without the leave of the House can just say: “Oh no I am going to change the vote.” You called “The Ayes have it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. It is up to the Chair to decide whether he or she may have made a mistake. In this case I have determined that the Noes have it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You called “The Ayes have it.” then moved on. Your words were “The Ayes have it.” I am saying to you that either you seek the leave of the Committee to re-put the vote on the basis that as you have explained you got it wrong or we will have to get a Speaker’s ruling on whether that vote can be changed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say based on advice that if we have not moved on to the next question we can have a party vote to clarify the matter. So I am now seeking the leave of the Committee to carry out the party vote. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry; I do not need the leave of the Committee because I have not proceeded to the next question. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am looking at Standing Order 141. I ask you to indicate where there is room for a mistake. This Committee heard the votes. You declared them as we heard them. You then proceeded. There was no call for a party vote. Where is the room for a mistake? Are you saying that you declared wrongly? 
David Benson-Pope 
: I called for a party vote. I stood up. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: There was no call for a party vote. There is a point of integrity here and the fact that it may be embarrassing is not a matter for the Chair to take into account. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can I just say to members that I may have declared the result in a certain way and then decided to adjust it. That is the Chair’s prerogative and we have not moved on to the next question. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not the Chair’s prerogative to determine the declaration of a vote. The outcome of a vote is the vote of this Committee. The Chair is merely the functionary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am not hearing any more. The outcome of the vote is that the Noes have it and that is where the matter rests. Is a party vote called for? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am trying to assist because I think you have come clean and said that you had made a mistake and that is fine. In my view the correct way forward would be for you to seek leave to put the vote again. I do not think that any Chair can sit there and declare a vote then decide that he or she got it wrong and just change it particularly after the vote was finished. We can get into an argument about whether we had moved on but clearly the voting had finished. You had called “The Ayes have it.” That is when we move on. In fact I think you had even started your next sentence but had not actually put the next vote. I think the proper way to do it is by leave because I would hate us to get into a situation where we created a ruling—and I think it would be quite improper to create a ruling at this level—that the Chair having put the vote and declared the vote can then say: “I’m going to change it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not actually need to seek leave. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I thank Mr Sowry for that contribution. I can assure the Committee that if he seeks leave for this vote that you have declared to be retaken the Government will not object to that leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just advise the Committee that the result has not been finally determined. The Committee has not moved on to the next question. The Noes have it. Any member who disagrees can call for a party vote. So I am saying that the Noes have it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am starting to worry about the advice you have been given. You had clearly called “ The Ayes have it.” The issue is when is a vote finished. If your adviser is telling you that that is not the finish of the vote then I think that is wrong. You had actually started your next sentence. I do not know what your adviser is going to say about when a vote is finished or not but certainly members of this Committee need to know when a vote is finished. It is usually finished when it is declared. The point I am making is that if you declared it wrongly then it is appropriate that you seek leave to re-put the vote. We are trying to help you here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I appreciate that. I realise that. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think Mr Sowry made a suggestion that had the right spirit about it. Without in any way commenting on the authority of the Chair and in order to help clarify the matter for the Committee—and I think the Chair made a clear indication that he had declared the vote—I seek leave in order for all members to be clear that we simply take the vote again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(17)Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the definition of the term “environment” and substituting the following definition: 
environment includes— 
(a)ecosystems and their constituent parts; and 
(b)all natural and physical resources; and 
(c)the health safety amenity values and cultural values of people and communities. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(17)Section 2(1) of the principle Act is amended by omitting from the definition of the term “amenity values” the words “ aesthetic coherence”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13: ACT New Zealand 6 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 8A be agreed to: 
8ANew heading and sections inserted 
The principle Act is amended by inserting after section 29 the following heading and sections: 
Commissioner hearings 
29A Appointment of hearing commissioners 
(1)The Secretary for the Environment may from time to time appoint persons to be hearing commissioners who in the opinion of the Secretary are suitable persons for that purpose. 
(2)A hearing commissioner may not be appointed for a term exceeding 5 years. 
(3)The Secretary for the Environment must keep a register of all persons appointed as hearing commissioners and make the register publicly available. 
(4)The Secretary for the Environment may terminate the appointment of any person as a hearing commissioner for disability bankruptcy neglect of duty or misconduct and may amend the register accordingly. 
29B Hearing commissioners to hear applications 
(1)An application for a resource consent or a requirement for a designation must be heard by a hearings commissioner if required by— 
(a)the local authority; or 
(b)an applicant for a resource consent; or 
(c)a requiring authority for a designation; or 
(d)any person who has made a submission on the application for the resource consent or the requirement for the designation. 
(2)If required the principal administrative officer of the local authority must appoint a hearing commissioner or a panel of hearing commissioners from the register to decide the application. 
(3)When making an appointment under subsection (2) the principal administrative officer of the local authority must not appoint a councillor of the local authority as a hearing commissioner. 
(4)A hearing commissioner has the functions powers and duties of a local authority or consent authority under the provisions listed in Schedule 12. 
(5)The local authority is responsible for providing all administrative services and for the remuneration of a hearing commissioner. 
(6)A resource consent granted by a hearing commissioner is to be treated as if it were a resource consent granted by a local authority after the hearing and determination of appeals (if any). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
9New section 30 substituted 
The principle Act is amended by repealing section 30 and substituting the following section: 
30Functions of regional councils under Act 
(1)For the purpose of integrating the management of natural and physical resources and to give effect to this Act in its region the functions of a regional council are— 
(a)to establish implement and review objectives policies and methods for the control of— 
(i)the use or development of the bed of a lake or river; and 
(ii)the taking use damming and diversion of water in a water body; and 
(iii)the quantity level and flow of water in a water body including the maximum or minimum levels or flows of water and the range or rate of change of levels or flows of water; and 
(iv)the taking or use of geothermal energy; and 
(v)the discharge of contaminants onto or into land air or water; and 
(vi)the discharge of water into water: 
(b)to establish implement and review objectives policies and methods for the control of land— 
(i)for soil conservation purposes; and 
(ii)to maintain and enhance the quality and quantity or water in a water body and coastal water; and 
(iii)to maintain and enhance ecosystems in a water body and coastal water; and 
(iv)to avoid or mitigate natural hazards; and 
(v)to precent or mitigate any adverse effects of the storage use or transportation of hazardous substances: 
(c)together with the Minister of Conservation to establish implement and review objectives policies and methods for the control of the coastal marine area including— 
(i)land and associated natural and physical resources; and 
(ii)the occupation of foreshore and seabed that is land of the Crown or lead vested in a regional council; and 
(iii)the extraction of sand shingle shell or other natural material from foreshore or seabed that is land of the Crown or land vested in a regional council; and 
(iv)the taking use damming and diversion of water; and 
(v)the discharge of water into water; and 
(vi)the emission of noise and mitigation of the effects of noise; and 
(vii)the discharge of contaminants into or onto land air or water; and 
(viii)the dumping or incineration of waste or other matter; and 
(ix)the dumping of ships aircraft or offshore installations; and 
(x)the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards; and 
(xi)the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage use or transportation of hazardous substances; and 
(xii)the modification damage destruction or invasive investigation of the whole or any part of an archaeological site in on or under the foreshore or seabed: 
(d)to establish implement and review objectives an policies for the effects of the use development or protection of land on terrestrial ecosystems that are of regional significance: 
(e)any other function specified in this Act. 
(2)To integrate the management of natural and physical resources a regional council may establish processes for issues that affect more than one local authority in the region. 
(3)A regional council’s functions under subsection (1)(a)(i) do not include establishing implementing or reviewing methods for the control of subdivision of the beds of lakes or rivers. 
(4)This section does not enable the Minister of Conservation and the regional council to control the harvesting or enhancement of a population of aquatic organism if the purpose of the control is to use conserve enhance or develop a fisheries resource to which the Fisheries Act 1996 applies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 77B(2) by adding the following paragraph: 
(e)the consent authority must be satisfied that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment will be minor. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 41 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 42 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 42A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 42 the following new clause: 
42AReferral to Environment Court 
The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 100 the following section: 
100A 
(1)At any time before a consent authority fixes a commencement date for a hearing in respect of an application for a resource consent the applicant may with the agreement of the consent authority refer the application to the Environment Court. 
(2)The Environment Court must hear and determine an application in accordance with the procedures set out in section 150B. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 58A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 58 the following new clause: 
58ANew sections inserted 
The principal Act is amended by inserting after section 150 the following sections: 
150A Direct application to Environment Court 
(1)Any person may apply directly to the Environment Court for a resource consent. 
(2)On an application being made an Environment Court Judge may direct that an application for a resource consent be heard and determined by the Environment Court. 
(3)When considering whether to make a direction the Environment Court must have regard to whether the application for a resource consent— 
(a)requires a decision to be made without delay; or 
(b)relates to a matter of public importance; or 
(c)involves a complex or controversial issue. 
(4)If an Environment Court Judge declines an application the Judge must direct the local authority to hear and determine the application for the resource consent. 
(5)If an Environment Court Judge grants an application— 
(a)the Judge must notify the following of the direction: 
(i)the applicant for the resource consent; and 
(ii)the local authority: 
(b)the applicant for the resource consent must forward copies of the application to the consent authority which would normally consider the application. 
150B Consideration of application 
(1)On receipt of a notice from the Environment Court under section 150A(5)(a)(ii) the authority must apply with all necessary modifications the provisions of section 92 to 98 to the consideration of the application. 
(2)When the time for submissions has closed the local authority must prepare a report on the application. 
(3)The local authority must as soon as practicable forward its report and any submissions received to the Environment Court. 
(4)The local authority must as soon as practicable forward a copy of its report to the applicant and to any person who made a submission on the application. 
(5)The report must state any conditions which in the opinion of the local authority should be imposed if consent is granted. 
(6)On receipt of the report of the local authority the Environment Court must fix a time and place for the hearing of the application and the provisions of Part VI with all necessary modifications apply to that hearing. 
(7)There is no right of appeal against the Environment Court’s decision under this section except an appeal on a question of law under section 299. 
150C Charges costs and expenses 
(1)The applicant must pay to the local authority any administrative charges imposed under section 36. 
(2)The Environment Court may award costs under section 285 in respect of the application but when considering whether to award costs it must have regard to the fact that the hearing is a hearing of first instance. 
150D Application to requirement for designation 
Sections 100A and 150A to 150C apply with all necessary modifications to a notice of requirement under Part VIII as if that notice of requirement were a resource consent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 80 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 45 
Noes 69 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 82(3) be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (3) by omitting from new section 310(h) the words “except for an issue as to whether any of sections 93 to 94C have been or will be contravened” and substituting the words “including (for the avoidance of doubt) whether or not any provision of sections 93 or 94 has been or will be contravened”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 82A be agreed to: 
82AScope of enforcement order 
Section 314(1) of the principal Act is amended by adding the following paragraph: 
(g)suspend or cancel a resource consent if any provision of sections 93 or 94 is contravened. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question That  
the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 45 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Part 2Amendments and repeals of other enactments transitional provisions and savings 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Here we are again with an 18-part bill that has been condensed to two parts and we are now debating Part 2. Never before in the history of this Parliament has there been such an abuse of the parliamentary process as we are experiencing in this Chamber today. This bill has had 18 parts brought down to two parts. There were 400 submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill and 80 hours of work in the Local Government and Environment Committee on it including visits to seven cities throughout New Zealand where many people submitted their views. Yet all those 400 submissions have been totally ignored. There is not one single acknowledgement that the concerns brought forward by those people during that process are represented in this part. 
In fact none of the recommendations of the Government’s own compliance cost committee which came back and recommended substantial changes be made to Part 2—I note there is a section in this part that refers to that—has been upheld. At this point in time it would be very useful if the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs could take a call and explain to the people out there in radioland and to others who are— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member must not refer to radio listeners according to Speaker’s ruling 39/1. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: OK; I hear what the Chairman is saying. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to those nearby—and not so nearby—who are taking a close interest in this legislation why the concerns of the committee that this Government put in place in the forty-sixth Parliament have not been upheld by that same Government in this forty-seventh Parliament and are not reflected in this legislation. That is an issue to which hundreds maybe thousands of people would like to know the answer. Certainly there are millions of dollars tied up in knowing the answer to that question. So the Minister could take a call and help us with that. 
The Minister could also help us by telling us why in the amendments earlier we have seen placed in this legislation cost overruns such as I have not seen in legislation before. As I said in an earlier speech the title of this bill—and certainly its connection to Part 2—should have reflected the bill’s emphasis: if something moves we should tax it and regulate it if it keeps moving we should tax it and regulate it a bit more and if it stops moving we should subsidise it and regulate it in order to get it moving again. Perhaps the Minister could take a call and tell us why that suggestion was rejected in earlier debates as well. Clearly a lot of people have an interest in this legislation and they would want to know why that suggestion was rejected out of hand. 
Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell us why contestable consents and the process concerning those were changed in the way that they have been and explain why they are no longer in the form they had in the original bill that the select committee looked at. Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell us why the clarification of the roles of district and regional councils has been overlooked in the way that it has and why the ambiguity that exists in terms of development on the question of who is in charge of what between regional and district councils has not been rectified. A large number of the 400 submitters to the select committee said that that was an increasing concern and there was a major cost involved in that. Certainly there have been huge delays in development when district and regional councils had different standards or rules between themselves when it came to developments within their areas. Why was that issue not cleared up when there was an opportunity like no other I would suggest to the Minister to rectify that? 
Why has the Minister not taken into account some of the concerns raised by a particularly large business in the country with regard to vexatious objectors involving themselves in the process? Why was that not attended to in this amendment when the Minister had an opportunity to fix up some of the concerns about the Act with regard to that? Certainly there are many examples of where that has happened under the Act thus far. Once again I remind the Committee of the example of highway 3 in north Taranaki where the major route out of Taranaki was threatened by a landslide. For 6 months that situation was allowed to continue. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make a further contribution to this debate on Part 2. I say at the outset that I am desperately concerned that legislation that was previously in 18 parts has now been condensed into two. I am desperately concerned about that because this legislation has far-reaching consequences. This could have been very good legislation. It is very significant legislation but now we have lost our opportunity to do something worthwhile for the people of New Zealand. 
In particular I believe that fixing up the Resource Management Act is the most critical thing that underpins our economic prosperity. Constituent after constituent has approached me and asked me to go and see the nice people in the Government in Wellington and to talk sense to them because my constituents believe they will surely listen to a reasoned approach. 
Shane Ardern 
: Those constituents are misguided. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They are. What has happened is that we now have the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) going through this Parliament and that is an abuse of the powers of this great institution. Fixing the Act would have done more for decongesting our roads for new electricity generation and for sustainable irrigation than any other thing that I can think of. 
I shall use sustainable irrigation as an example of why my constituents are so desperately concerned about what is transpiring here today. They understand that water is the lifeblood of their economy. They understand that and they have beseeched me to come to Wellington to take that message to this Parliament. Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears. There is a body of opinion that says that people who want to exploit water in a sustainable way are bad. That is absolute nonsense. The people of Rakaia are some of the best conservationists that I can think of and they deserve better from this Government than what is happening. 
Fixing the Resource Management Act would underpin our hospital standards in terms of the hospital care that we have all come to expect that we deserve. It would underpin our education system and enhance it. It would do a lot to reduce our crime rate because people who are actively engaged in society and who are stakeholders do not wreck things. It would put us back in the top half of the OECD. We have lost our opportunity to do something significant for the people of this country. We know that we have an electricity crisis but what is happening? We are thumbing our nose at it and we are telling the people of New Zealand to get used to incompetence because that is what they will get from this Government. When Bill English is Prime Minister I can tell members that those things will be fixed and we will do what is right for the people of this country. 
The Minister has made a lot of claims that businesses have been consulted and that they are happy. I would say “insulted” not “consulted”. I have taken the opportunity to do a little bit of research and I have come up with a couple of press releases. A fairly significant business body Federated Farmers had this to say: “Federated Farmers of New Zealand’s national board member Neil Barton says the federation is outraged that the parliamentary committee considering the bill will only hear submissions from officials.” That is disgraceful. That is not justice nor is it parliamentary democracy. That is not what I came to this institution for. I had thought better of the people on the Government side of the House until I heard that. 
Federated Farmers went on to state: “Contrary to the Minister for the Environment’s claim that the bill has been discussed to death there are significant changes to the intention of the original legislation. Mr Barton says that Federated Farmers does support limited notification and changes to the bill that will reduce the cost for consents that have little environment impact.”—and we endorse that; we think that is sensible. “However”—and this is the piece that really made my antenna go up—“this will not offset the likely increases in cost if changes are made in the way the Act is administered or if proposals to increase the importance of historical heritage sites are implemented.” I understand that we have made some progress on that today and I commend the Government for that. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 How can we come to Part 2 so quickly when Part 1 has 61 pages? Part 2 has only five pages and is titled “Amendments and repeals of other enactments transitional provisions and savings”. The public would have been astounded at that. This bill was hailed by United Future party MP Larry Baldock when he said this “significant reform” of the Resource Management Act needed to be passed through the House under urgency. That was in October 2002. 
Brian Connell 
: When? 
PANSY WONG 
: In 2002. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s a year ago! 
PANSY WONG 
: A year ago! One year ago United Future thought this bill would be passed under urgency and that was wrong. But the point I want to make is that although United Future thought this was a significant reform the bill has only two parts. So how can it be a significant bill? We would call something like that a little bill—like a Statutes Amendment Bill—containing technical amendments. That is the type of issue that the public would expect a bill with only two parts to deal with. They would think it was going to amend only some technical inaccuracies in the principal Act. 
How can a “significant” piece of legislation have only two parts? In fact Part 2 of this bill only amends and repeals other enactments. [ 
Interruption 
] I see that Murray Smith from United Future wants to make a contribution. I look forward to his taking a call and explaining to us why this legislation was not passed under urgency in October 2002. His colleague Larry Baldock announced in the Chamber yesterday that when he came to Parliament he learnt something: he learnt how to horse-trade. That is interesting. He said he learnt to convince Labour it should trade a Green vote for a United Future vote—that it was give and take. I invite his colleague Murray Smith to take a call and explain to us what sort of horse-trading United Future managed to achieve in this legislation. We know United Future lost out on the issue of timing because the bill was not passed in October 2002. 
I am really concerned about this issue because Peter Dunne who was leader of United NZ in 1999 cautiously voted for the referral of the original Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999 to the Local Government and Environment Committee but on one condition. He said the legislation was not supposed to be gutted. That bill had 18 parts. This one has only two parts. It has gone from 18 parts to two parts. How else can one read it other than that this bill has been gutted? So the Opposition really looks forward to hearing a contribution from United Future MP Murray Smith to explain how a bill of 18 parts could become a bill of two parts and not be described as having been gutted. 
It was a great disappointment to us that the minority Labour Government chose to rush this bill through the Committee stage by condensing an 18-part bill into a two-part bill. I think the public has come to expect certain things under an MMP Government. The Prime Minister Helen Clark said that her Government would be a transparent Government where the democratic process of the Parliament would be respected yet our ability to question the Minister and also to debate each part of this bill in full has been condensed. So how can we do justification to this legislation? 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to debate an issue in Part 2 in relation to the amendments that have been made. During this week we passed a taxation bill that the Government said was there for another reason and the public saw through that. Now all of a sudden something very odd has happened. All the way through the debate when the bill was introduced in the select committee in the second reading and even—up until recently—in the Committee stage debate the Government has been right behind the issues of “spiritual” “cultural landscape” and “ancestral landscape”. It has all been there. Suddenly the Government has allowed United Future to put in an amendment—which we supported—that took those definitions out of the bill. The Government rolled over so that it will be able to say no it was a good motion and it wants to thank United Future for that. 
I want this Government to understand that the public will see through this ploy as well. Does it think that the people of this country cannot think for themselves? It was obvious that this is just a set-up to try to give some credit to United Future. What a joke! For goodness’ sake if the Minister is trying to give some brownie points to another party she should be more subtle. Bless my soul I have never seen anything like it in my life! An amendment was put in and rammed through. Talk about “culture” “cultural landscape” “ancestral landscape” and how important that is to everybody then flick the switch on and roll over so that somebody can stand up here and say: “We did that.” I have to tell the Minister that the public will see through that as well. 
We are pleased that provision is not in the bill as we fought against it all the way through. Did United Future do that in the select committee? Not on your nelly! There was not one comment. Who of those who were on the select committee can remember United Future rallying against that provision? Can anyone? No but we got an amendment through so that United Future can get a bit of credit. The Labour Party rolls over and they think that no one will see through it. Some of us have been around here long enough to see these sorts of funny things going on—and see through them. We are not going to stay dumb and not tell people about it. What a joke! What a way to run a country and what a way to try to hold on to power. The people of this country see through those things. Believe you me we had 9 years’ experience of knowing that. The Government has been in power for 4 years or so and it still has not learnt. It should have learnt from us but it has not—nor has it learnt from its own experience. 
Again I say that the Government will pay the price for this bill—it is a folly. One does not go out there and frighten the horses then expect people to jump on them as they are bolting away. It will not happen. That is exactly what will happen with this bill. It is a vote-loser for all the parties that are involved with it. They should not try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes because the public do not like it. They like people to be straight up and down with them and to tell it as it is. 
If the Minister never intended to keep that provision in here it should never have been put in in the first place. It is just not proper for the Minister to now step back and let it be taken out. The public will see it with a degree of cynicism. They will see it as an act of arrogance and as an act of folly. They will not like it at all. We are pleased that that provision is gone because it was a lot of nonsense to ever have had it in there in the first place—and an act of cynicism. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on Part 2 of this iniquitous bill and I am very glad to see the Minister Marian Hobbs in the chair. She is grinning like a Cheshire cat when she should not be because in the 3 short years that I have had in Parliament no legislation has caused as much concern in the great electorate that I represent Port Waikato as the Resource Management Act. Of course the Act is not only a source of concern in the electorate of Port Waikato but in the whole of New Zealand. It just so happens that I have been asked by Federated Farmers to talk on land ownership at its conference in Auckland tomorrow. 
I was fascinated to see a quote from the Minister in the chair regarding this legislation. She said: “The Resource Management Act is a beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation.” Unfortunately that reminds me of one of those old time-honoured stories about Winston Churchill and Lady Astor. I am glad the Minister is listening. Winston Churchill and Lady Astor had been having a party one night when Lady Astor came up to Winston Churchill and said: “Mr Churchill you are drunk—very drunk.” Mr Churchill turned round to her and said: “Lady Astor you are ugly—very ugly—but when I wake up in the morning I will be sober.” 
Here we have a Minister who has said that the Resource Management Act is beautifully written and beautifully balanced legislation.I say to her that this is ugly legislation— 
John Carter 
: And it will be in the morning. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —and it would be at absolutely any time of the day. That is absolutely the feeling up and down the country and I am sure that will be the message the Minister will be given by those who attend the Federated Farmers conference tomorrow. 
Here we have 18 parts of a bill compressed into two. Only yesterday the biotechnology task force put out a very important report which the Minister’s colleague the Hon Peter Hodgson said was a high-quality report. Its recommendation was that regulations must be efficient cost-effective and equal to international best practice. It also said: “Compliance costs and delays relating to public consultation are climbing. The public consultation process requires streamlining to improve cost and time overheads without compromising quality control.” It went on to say that industry must have a regulatory environment that is transparent and predictable. 
I ask the Minister in the chair whether she can confirm that this bill has a regulatory framework that is efficient cost-effective transparent and predictable. I would like her to stand up and say to the people of New Zealand with all sincerity that that is the case with this bill. I do not believe she can. I ask her to take a call after this speech and confirm that what her colleague Pete Hodgson said was a report of high quality applies to this iniquitous bill that she and her Government—the lazy Labour Government—are perpetrating on the people of New Zealand. This is not only one of the greatest abuses of regulatory process but also one of the worst ways we have ever seen of achieving an efficient regime that will contribute to economic development in New Zealand. I put that challenge to the Minister. Can she take a call and say with all sincerity that this bill has a regulatory framework that is efficient cost-effective transparent and predictable? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I remind the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs—whom I hope will respond to our pleas to take a call—that in October 2001 she promised the wider community that this legislation would soon be passed. In August 2002 she promised the wider community again that because of its importance this legislation would be passed within the near future. Here we are in May 2003 in the forty-seventh Parliament still debating Part 2 of what was an 18-part bill. 
It is interesting to note that United Future has gone through a major learning curve in how MMP works. I took great interest in Larry Baldock’s speech yesterday when he said that his party had learnt a lot through the process. They certainly learnt a lot through the process—that much we can see from over here. In fact Larry Baldock quoted the Good Book saying: “He who gives shall receive.” Well United Future certainly gave—there is no question about that. It learnt what happens when the Christians are put into the centre of the ring with the lions—they get consumed. It gave and the hand that fed it was chewed off. Never before unless one goes back to Roman times has there been an example in a Parliament or governance where that has been more evident than it has in this debate today. 
The clause being amended is a Clayton’s clause. It does not represent the original suggestion in any shape or form. In fact it is probably contrary to the original suggestion but United Future feels that it has achieved something through that process. I suggest that it sits down with the Green Party and learns how to do some real horse-trading. In the forty-sixth Parliament under a Labour Government the Green Party really did achieve some of the things it set out to achieve. Most of them were negative—not many people in society were pleased about it—but at least the party achieved what it set out to achieve. 
I notice that the Minister who was in charge of the Government’s own regulatory committee the Hon Paul Swain is here today. That is very good because his committee made a recommendation to the Government that stated that the Resource Management Act was the single biggest piece of legislation now adding to the cost of doing business in this country. This bill in no way addresses the concerns that that committee chaired by the Hon Paul Swain brought back to this Government. In fact the article I have here states that a collective of the mayors of Auckland are saying that dollars are not holding up the major developments necessary to address traffic congestion in Auckland; the problem is with the Resource Management Act. That is the single biggest problem in terms of solving traffic congestion in Auckland. 
Mayor Bob Harvey the former Labour Party president was part of a team that told the Government that it was not dollars as we have been led believe that were stopping the development of major roading in Auckland but the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) does absolutely nothing to address those concerns. What we have here is a former Labour Party president—a person who saw fit to give $10000 of ratepayers’ money to stop the Ministry of Agriculture eradicating the painted apple moth in Auckland—coming out in a collective with other mayors such as John Banks Sir Barry Curtis and the like and saying that the single biggest barrier to solving Auckland’s roading problems is the Resource Management Act. 
What is the response of the Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs to that? Absolutely nothing! Even in the Minister’s own city of Wellington where major roading extensions are necessary and there are roading problems to be overcome the Resource Management Act is cited time and time again as the biggest barrier to achieving those outcomes. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank my colleague for his Winston Churchill story because when I look across at the senior Government whip I know that this legislation is ugly I really do. This legislation is ugly for a couple of reasons. If one condenses an 18-part bill into two then it is ugly. It is a disgraceful abuse of the parliamentary process. 
I have said before that fixing the Resource Management Act would do more to underpin New Zealand’s prosperity than anything else I can think of. I want to use the example of water as it pertains to the good people of Canterbury. They understand that if they could bring all their irrigation initiatives on board they would generate something like 20000 new jobs and make a contribution of about $2.2 billion to the local economy. That is how we grow our economy. 
I say to the Minister that that is why we should have fixed the Resource Management Act and that is what she has done wrong. She is wrong because it takes people an inordinate amount of time to get consents to use water in a sustainable way they are cross about it and they will bring the Government down as a consequence. As I have said before when Bill English is the Prime Minister he will put people in the ministry chairs who can actually get things done and I look forward to that opportunity. If the Resource Management Act were fixed— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Sell sell sell! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Is that the Government whip yelling out again? I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs to bring on the dog legislation so that we can get him muzzled. Will she do that for me? If she could use a bit of influence in her caucus I would certainly appreciate that. 
The point I was going to make was that if we generated income and grew our economy “dinosaur Jim” would not have to sneak through legislation in the middle of the night and target old people’s bottles of port or sherry and Michael Cullen would not be party to the act of getting a sneaky tax grab because he would not need to do it. If the Government did not have to do things under urgency and in desperation it might even get things right for a change. 
Doing something right would be novel for the senior Government whip. 
Winston Churchill also had another famous story that included Lady Astor. She wandered up to him one night and said: “Sir your fly is undone.” He replied “Madam dead birds don’t fall out of trees.” This is dead bird legislation. It will not do anything. I am reminded again of the senior Government whip when I think of that story because dead birds do not do anything and this legislation will not do anything to drive business into the local economy. In fact it will drive businesses out of the local economy. 
This legislation as it is now framed will do an economy good—someone else’s because businesses will leave this country in droves. They will close their doors and people will be out of jobs. They will track back and find out why that happened and they will put it very squarely at the Minister’s feet. They will say that she had an opportunity to do things but she ignored it. The Minister would have this Committee believe that businesses have been consulted and that they are in agreement. 
I have another press release. This one from the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association states: “The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) currently before Parliament does nothing of consequence to address business concerns with the Resource Management Act 1991. We urge Government to seek a parliamentary majority for further changes to the Resource Management Act to ensure sustainable management and development is not stifled.” That is from Alasdair Thompson chief executive of the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association. The Minister should take a call and tell me whether Federated Farmers and the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association are not organisations with significant influence and whether they do not represent a significant proportion of the business people of this country. The Minister should look me in the eye and say that those people have been consulted and are in agreement. The Minister should hang her head because what she is doing is an absolute disgrace. 
The press release states further: “Our concerns for the present bill are twofold: it will erode business confidence by adding costs— 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name ofthe Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 46 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 55 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Schedules 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take a call on the schedules because there is an important issue still to debate. The Government has now accepted the changes around the issue of spiritual cultural and ancestral landscape. That was to be part of the bill. The National Party especially represented by Nick Smith and other parties as well took strong exception to that and argued in the committee against the inclusion of those terms. I am pleased that the Minister and the Labour Government have accepted the amendments to take those out. However it is most unfortunate indeed that the amendments did not include the words “wahi tapu” because that is already causing and will add to consternation around this sort of legislation in New Zealand. It will cause much anxiety. It has already caused much anxiety but it will get worse as a consequence of this legislation. 
I have not come across anyone in New Zealand who does not respect burial grounds. There may be some but I have not come across any. 
Shane Ardern 
: Does the Minister? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am sure the Minister respects burial grounds. I am sure everybody in this Chamber respects sites where the dead are buried. It is not an issue that belongs to one culture alone. It is a fact that around the world people have burial areas—whatever they are called—and they are respected. With rare exceptions they are supported right across the nation. 
What worries me is the definition of wahi tapu in this legislation with regard to the Historic Places Trust and its interpretation of that term. We have seen examples of that already over in Tauranga where a wahi tapu was considered not just to be an area of an acre or a hectare. Eight hundred hectares? A wahi tapu? You have to be joking! [ 
Interruption 
] Look we had the same thing in Northland with the Maori land claim around Dargaville. There were five farms comprising over 5000 hectares. The argument was made that the land needed to go back to the iwi because the whole lot was wahi tapu. What a nonsense! That is just idiocy that causes consternation and anguish among the majority of New Zealanders because it gives them a wrong perception of what wahi tapu is and the value of it to our Maori race. I worry when we have legislation like this that it ends up causing dissension amongst the races because it allows wrong interpretations to be put on and as a consequence causes racial disharmony. 
This sort of legislation does exactly that. We should not be in this Parliament passing legislation that will cause dissent amongst races. But I tell the Minister that this bill will. This bill inevitably will affect somebody who has a genuine resource application before the local authority and the Historic Places Trust or somebody on its behalf will come along and say: “Sorry forget that it’s wahi tapu.” and the whole thing will be dismissed. What will happen is that the community will get to hear about it and will rail against it. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What about the Maori community? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Let me tell the Minister that the unfortunate result of this will be a backlash against the Maori race and that is unfortunate. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: It is already against them. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes that is true but the Minister knows that I am genuine on these matters. I worry about them. I do not want to see disharmony amongst races in this country. I do my best to ensure that there is harmony where I can. I stand here genuinely and work on all sides in Northland to help people. The last thing I want to be is part of a Parliament that passes legislation that in the end could cause dissension. I say genuinely that I believe personally that this legislation will cause dissension. I am pleased that we have a  
Hansard 
 that records these words because in time I will be able to look back and say I was right. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
:  
I would like to carry on that point because I think we are all pleased to see the removal of ancestral landscapes and cultural landscapes. That is a clear nonsense and what we have here is an admission from the Government that its thinking was astray and was awry. But the point has been made that we have not removed the reference to wahi tapu. In fact we learnt earlier today that the Government has just pumped a whole lot more money—$23 million—so that we can facilitate this process of establishing a wahi tapu over tracts of New Zealand land. But what is of real concern to me—I am not sure that members of the Committee are aware of the process or how it operates. Clearly the schedules in the bill do not address the problem that we are confronted with because there is no requirement. The wording specifically says in regard to wahi tapu that one does not have to specify the area it can be a general area and one does not have to specify the reason. That is just unbelievable. 
The Welcome Bay example is a classic. A group of Maori landowners adjacent to the site where these four property owners were applied through the process to have a wahi tapu declared. It was declared. In spite of what the Prime Minister said on television it was taken out of the local authority’s hands and under this bill it is now elevated to a matter of national importance. We know what that means under the Resource Management Act—the local body’s hands are tied. So this mystical designation—one does not have to specify what the wahi tapu is for or where specifically it might be—can now be imported on to private land in that case by a group of adjacent landowners. 
The interesting thing is that they were engaged in exactly the same activities on their land and did not want the potential for those four landowners to perhaps do a subdivision or development in what is essentially a prime near-coastal environment. It was an anti-competitive measure nothing more nothing less. Here we are right at the end of this debate addressing the schedules. Although the Government has been beaten into submission on the nonsense and nonsensical definitions that it had it was not prepared to go to a select committee because if it had the submitters would clearly have pointed out the appalling wording that the Government had. Finally the Government has backed down. 
It is a trophy for United Future; clearly its members have been working overtime because I read Mr Baldock’s press release yesterday. He obviously had it in the bag at that stage— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two trophies this week! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right. And taxing sherry yesterday was a United Future little trophy—self-contained in the silo outside the Budget! But getting back to the wahi tapu we still have that term in this bill and under the procedures of how that is designated it is now “national importance”; one does not have to specify where it is. One does not have to specify what it is about and it can be imposed on private property. That is an outrageous provision. The nonsense of it all is that the Minister in the chair says that this bill is all about facilitating and streamlining the process of resource management. That is even stated in the introductory comment to the bill. Who in his or her right mind believes that that is the case? This measure will be abused up and down the country. So even at this late stage I implore the Minister. She backed down on the ancestral landscapes she backed down on the—what was the other one? 
Brian Connell 
: Heritage— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes well they are both heritage provisions. But surely one can see the nonsense that is proposed to be imported into this legislation with the wahi tapu measure. 
I invite the Minister to perhaps take a call. If she will not then could she explain to the Committee why she is not prepared to do that. Perhaps the Minister could respond to the comments I have made in terms of the way wahi tapu can be declared with no specification ofwhat it is about or where it is. It can just be a general area and a general request. That is not good enough when we are dealing with other people’s property rights. It is just applied right across anywhere in this country and it will be used as a tool for non-competitive measures. That was the case at Welcome Bay in Tauranga. A group of landowners virtually wrote in and said: “We want to declare this a wahi tapu area.” Some of the depressions they claimed were in the land were actually an old fence line. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to speak on these very unfortunate schedules in this very unfortunate bill. While the Minister for the Environment is in the chair I call upon her once again to take a call. Given that these schedules are in place removing so much of the bill that she has talked about as beautifully written and beautifully balanced legislation is it not the “Resource Management Compression Bill” reduced from 18 parts to two parts? Can the Minister sincerely say to landowners and farmers up and down New Zealand that these schedules are beautifully written and beautifully balanced? 
Yesterday we had this biotechnology task force report that talked about regulation of which her colleague the Hon Peter Hodgson said that this was a high-quality report. The report concluded by saying that regulations must be efficient must be cost-effective and equal to international best practice. It also stated that they must be transparent and predictable. Is the Minister willing to finally get up face the Committee and the people of New Zealand and say whether she sincerely believes that this legislation which is so important for New Zealand fulfils those criteria? 
I am really calling upon the Minister for the Environment. This is a test of her integrity. All she has to do is to confirm to the Committee that this bill has a regulatory framework that is efficient cost-effective transparent and predictable. I do not believe that she can do that. I do not believe that any members here in this Chamber can really look into their hearts and say that this legislation which is so important to New Zealand fulfils those criteria. 
While the Minister for the Environment is in the chair I would also like her to comment as the Minister on the watch who presided over the decision for the Hampton Downs dump—the biggest dump in New Zealand to gain a consent. It will take refuse from the upper half of the North Island into quiet rural Waikato land. This is the Minister who was given the opportunity through this bill which she said is beautifully written to use her call-in powers. Even though this is of such huge national importance she said: “No this is a local issue and I will not use them.” 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us why she has gone up and down the country talking about waste minimisation yet in this instance raw rubbish will be deposited in this monument a legacy to her that will last in New Zealand for something like 60 years. How can she sit there and say nothing about it when in this bill her Government has put in these historic heritage provisions that talk about cultural historical spiritual matters wahi tapu and so on? Surely that means that on the one hand the Government comes up with the rhetoric yet on the other hand when it is convenient it totally ignores it. 
When United Future holds the balance of power in this Parliament and its members say: “Let’s put an amendment.”—as was pointed out by John Carter and Ken Shirley—“to remove those particular areas of historic heritage spiritual and cultural.” suddenly the Minister bends again. Where is the sincerity? Unfortunately the all-pervading theme around this bill compressed into two parts from 18 parts is one of absolute insincerity on the part of the Government and the Minister when they are really viewing the important things for New Zealand and the important things that this bill was aimed to protect. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the schedules for this reason: hundreds of people have spoken to this Minister—I will not exaggerate; I suspect that it may be thousands—about the concerns they have with the way this process has been handled. Yet here we are debating the schedules today after having all of those submissions made to the Minister and the Minister doing nothing about it. 
I want to remind the Minister of some of the statements she has made during the period that this submission process has gone on. She said: “I don’t think the Resource Management Act is a particularly friendly Act to the average New Zealander.” She is right. She also said that the Resource Management Act is a beautifully written and beautifully balanced piece of legislation. I know that in her former occupation the Minister was a teacher. Perhaps she could take a call and explain to me what the term “oxymoron” means because I believe that those two statements are an oxymoron. They are in direct contrast with each other absolutely and I am astounded by that. 
When we look through the schedules we wonder how those two statements can stand without their beingin contrast with each other. I would really enjoy a call from the Minister on that topic because I am absolutely perplexed about how that could not be so. “Increased flexibility for business and more opportunity for public participation have been major aims of the RMA. Responsible businesses have embraced those opportunities finding that doing their homework and getting their neighbours on board has let a smooth process and good outcomes go and not just for business but also for the environment.” That is another quote from the Minister. Well! I just need to remind the Minister of that when we look at things like wahi tapu. 
I absolutely share the concerns of my colleague John Carter when he spoke earlier on. He represents a large Maori population in his electorate and so do I—23 percent of my electorate are Maori and I do understand the concerns of Maoridom. But I also feel that putting in legislation the opportunity for racial divide such as we are putting in this bill will not be a positive thing for New Zealand. I honestly and sincerely believe that what we are putting in this bill will not be a positive thing for New Zealand. I honestly and sincerely believe that and like John Carter I am pleased to have those words recorded in  
Hansard 
 so that in time when that comes to be the case we can go back and say that we did forecast that that would be an issue. 
The Minister does have at this “eleventh and a half” hour an opportunity to amend some of that. She still has that opportunity before this bill is passed today or whenever it will be and receives its royal assent. 
The removal of the Environment Court’s power to give security across cost particularly in the schedules when it comes to vexatious claims using the Resource Management Act will be a major issue going forward not only for big business but for the ordinary mum dad “Joe Hardworker” or mother of seven from Glenfield as my colleague Maurice Williamson often quotes. Those people will pay the price for this legislation. There are many examples here where various developers and city councils and the like have talked about the likely impact on the cost of the ordinary section subdivision and development as a result of the passage of this bill—not of any other legislation. The United Future party which campaigned up and down the country on family values and common sense cannot have overlooked that. I do not believe that its members are so naïve in their entry to Parliament that they will not have had that pointed out to them and totally overlooked it. So one can only conclude that they have decidedthey will roll over. They will not stand up for those principles. They are the two things that actually got them into Parliament in the first place—common sense and family values—and they will not stand firm on them. They will roll over. 
What we are doing here will affect mum dad and “Joe Hardworker” out there when it comes to the price of their small business the price of their section the price of any subdivision or extension they want to put on to the house as the family grows or any other minor development—that is a key point here: it is a minor insignificant development. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have come down to the Chamber to speak to the schedules of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I have done so to give credit to the work of a number of members of Parliament. Some members may not realise this but this bill has been most unusual in that massive amendments have been made to it: amendments introduced by the Minister who then decided that it was not necessary to send it to a select committee. I think we need to record that because if the Minister had been right then the bill would have gone through with no amendments whatsoever. Would that not be right? If what she had amended did not require any amendments there would have been no change. Well the ACT member of Parliament Ken Shirley and I understand—and I have read here in the minority report—that the National Party member and New Zealand First member I am not sure who those members are— 
Brian Connell 
: Nick Smith. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Was it Nick Smith? And who was the New Zealand First representative. Was it Brian Donnelly? 
Edwin Perry 
: Jim Peters. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Well I as a member of Parliament want to pay credit to them because what they did in their time was go out and do something that is very interesting. They went out and formed their own Opposition committee to hear evidence. I can read that in the commentary on the bill which states: The Opposition Committee received over 30 written submissions from a range of business and community organisations. Twelve oral submissions were heard.” That is quite a massive amount. It is a massive effort from them They came back and reported that: “Of particular concern are the heritage provisions that will increase uncertainty and costs for landowners and businesses. Elevating the protection of historic heritage to the level of national importance will allow objectors to virtually veto developments.” 
I think that that is so because as I read their analysis it meant that every single piece of land in New Zealand was actually going to be a cultural landscape or an ancestral landscape because the definition was any land that had ever at any point been owned by Maori. Well Maori claim that they own every single bit of Aotearoa—which I am sure the Maori members over there will confirm—so this was actually saying that every piece of land was an ancestral landscape. So any objector anywhere in the country could have stopped any development. 
When the Minister heard that submission even she suddenly realised that they had made a terrible mistake. I think that the United Future party suddenly realised that it was backing a loser. The only people who were still prepared to support it were the Greens. They have always been losers and never wanted any development. They want New Zealand to be back pre-1840—and the thought of there being no Greens is quite a good thought—but apart from that nobody else supports it. But when we look at the schedules we see that those provisions have all been dropped. 
That is a huge achievement. I have not seen any Opposition party deliver such a humiliating defeat to a Minister for years It is a humiliating defeat for a Minister. The Minister brought forward a provision then said it that is so beautifully written that it does not need to go to a select committee. But when we get up to this stage of the provisions in the bill as the Minister wrote them—no they are not. This Minister Marian Hobbs one of the most incompetent Ministers I think I have ever seen has actually suffered a humiliating defeat in this Chamber. 
Brian Connell 
: Again. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Again. But of course we are seeing that day after day now are we not? The Government has been in office for 4 years. It is no longer cruising along on the achievements of previous Governments. We are now seeing a Labour Government having to operate and having to tackle problems like the power crisis—and now that is relevant to this bill. 
How does this bill help solve the power crisis? Is there anything in the schedules that will enable us to get the generation we need earlier? No there is not. The Government said: “Oh that is a serious problem. We must get on to it.” Winter is already here I say to the Minister. If it really is a serious problem and if she can write so beautifully how about having a section to help us tackle that problem? But no—and the Government still has other sections. It has the wahi tapu section. Why is that a matter of concern—because that is not defined either. The reality is that anyone who really has a big think can decide that that is a provision and the bill actually says that one does not have to justify it. That is an outrage. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules stand part. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 54 
Schedules agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m.