Goudie Sandra: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5504] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the commencement date I agree we have all wanted to see some substantial progress with the Resource Management Act but we have been let down in that regard and so I do not support the commencement date put forward in this bill. 
The Minister says the bill is a “child of democracy” but that is absolutely wrong. This bill is not a child of democracy. Democracy is being denied. People are being denied the opportunity to make submissions on a bill that is significantly different in content in such a way that the impacts will be huge and have great social and economic consequences on this country. That material difference is so huge that the bill should have gone back to the select committee. The public of New Zealand should not have been denied an opportunity to make submissions on this incredibly different legislation. This is reflected in the submissions that we did get on the bill. I shall read out some of them. There was one from St Heliers Glendowie Community Committee which was: “Thank you for recognising the importance of public participation in relation to this important area of the law in offering to represent our views in the legislative process.” Those people said that to Nick Smith Ken Shirley and Jim Peters for giving them the opportunity to be heard because the Minister in charge of this bill denied them that opportunity. 
This Minister denied the people of New Zealand the opportunity to be heard on this bill and that is why National opposes the commencement date. The people of New Zealand should be heard. They should be able to respond to what has been a huge single change in legislation that will have a huge impact—that is the definition around heritage provisions. The changes to that definition will have far-reaching social and economic consequences. Those concerns are also reflected in the submissions received. You may well laugh—you who call this a child of democracy. This is actually a complete— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member not to bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The Minister who calls this bill a child of democracy could not be more wrong and it is a flagrant disregard of the public’s involvement in substantive changes to legislation that will affect them. I think of the grannies who will have to pay for this and the families. They will pay through their rates and their taxes. We oppose the commencement clause because of that. We oppose it because those changes should be debated. The cost of them will be significant. When we have a definition for “heritage” that includes cultural and ancestral landscapes and the word “spiritual” one will not be able to avoid costs. 
We have numerous submissions that identify the hold-ups for all infrastructure including roading and that is particularly significant. The Minister might smile. She is quite happy to see those added costs going on to ratepayers and taxpayers. I could read out the things that have been pointed out to her by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The commissioner found that “existing opportunities for Government intervention through the Resource Management Act had failed to achieve the desired results”. So the Government is going to interfere. It is also looking at new non-regulatory options. These will allow organisations like the Department of Conservation and the Historic Places Trust not only to make submissions to resource consents but also to take appeals to the Environment Court. Not only will resource applicants have to pay for their own applications; they will also fund through their taxes and rates the process by which the department and the trust will challenge those applications through the Environment Court. I personally think that is an atrocious breach of justice. 
This bill is supposed to be a child of democracy yet the Minister is giving nobody the opportunity to debate those issues. She has closed down that debate. That is why it is a breach of a person’s democratic right to participate and challenge those substantive changes. I want to talk about the compliance costs of this bill because they are relevant to the commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A lot of what has been said is not relevant to the commencement date. I call this to members’ attention..