Hutchison Paul: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5590] 
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.