Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5529] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to join with my colleague John Carter and say what a mess we are making of the energy crisis. While the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs tries to avoid questions in the House she is partially responsible for the energy crisis we have right now in New Zealand. What happened with the change of Government in 1999 and her rejection of 14 of the 16— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that members are not allowed to make references to whether a member has or has not been in the House. This is the second time in this debate that I have heard Dr Smith say I avoided question time. I make the point that I am quite sick and that is why I was away during question time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In response to the Minister’s point of order I said she was avoiding questions. She has repeatedly refused to answer questions in this debate. If she wants to put me wrong I would like to put some questions to her right now. She was not present in the House during question time and the question I would like to ask is this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be no reference to a member not being present in the House but it is fine to make references to a member not answering questions. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The question I would like the Minister to answer is why is she ignoring the submissions and concerns about 24 clauses in this part from Meridian Energy which is a State-owned enterprise and New Zealand’s biggest producer of electricity? Why ignore that? This is not some joke; this is the single biggest crisis facing our nation. Here we have Meridian Energy saying that there are 24 clauses in this bill that will increase the obstructions for the generation of electricity in this country and the Minister just smirks. She does not think that is worth worrying about. 
We then hear from an organisation like the Petroleum Exploration Association of New Zealand. It said that the provisions in this part would make it well nigh impossible to expand the gas and petroleum resources of this country. Again the Minister is not prepared to answer questions as to why she has ignored that advice. We will hold her accountable when the lights go out—when 500 people in my electorate are put out of work because of a lack of electricity. The Minister carries some responsibility for that. 
I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in this part that remove any capacity for the court to order security for costs. Let us be clear about what that means. It means that any group of citizens can with absolutely no risk form an incorporated society that can cause huge disruption and costs for those who are trying to create wealth or development in this country and the court will have absolutely no capacity to hold them accountable for it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s appalling. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an appalling provision. This is the Minister who has introduced legal aid for those objectors. I want to know from the Minister from the members opposite and from that fellow Larry Baldock who supports this stuff how that is common sense. It is not. How will that meet the bill’s purposes of reducing costs and uncertainty? That is what the Government said this bill would do. How does removing security for costs increase the certainty around this legislation? It does exactly the opposite. The Minister might as well write to every loopy in the country and say there is a free-for-all to object to cause havoc to shut down and turn this into some sort of— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Every time she sends out an electorate newsletter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister in the chair actually introduced legal aid. Can she tell the Committee how introducing legal aid for objectors reduces the costs the uncertainties and the delays in the Resource Management Act? We know that there are cases where the community is desperately trying to build roads to get rid of traffic congestion and this Minister is funding people to object to them. Even in respect of roads that her colleague the Minister of Transport is on the public record as supporting she is writing out cheques for people to oppose them. What sort of hideous nonsense is that? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s a boo-boo. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is one big boo-boo and it would be a joke if it were not so serious. The provisions for removing security of costs—that right from the courts—are the provisions in this law that all our major energy companies object to. For 43 days we have had resource consent hearings over Contact Energy which has been trying to renew its consent for the Clyde Dam. To date that has cost $5 million. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? Will we do what was done in Tasmania and take the dam out? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You’re joking! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. There were 43 days of submissions—$5 million of costs—for a public facility that already exists. That is the sort of thing that this Minister is not only condoning but will make worse. Yet she pretends that she is about reducing the costs and uncertainty of the bill. She is making it a whole lot worse.