Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12637] 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment noting that the just-released International Institute for Management Development  
World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004 
 ranks New Zealand number 60 out of 60 economies for its environmental laws and compliance hindering the competitiveness of business? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. I note that New Zealand also ranked bottom on that indicator in 1999 suggesting that the business community which is asked to rank New Zealand on that indicator did not like the Resource Management Act any better under a National Government than it does under a Labour Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell Parliament on 12 April this year that the Resource Management Act was being reviewed when in response to written questions since then her Ministers have said there are no terms of reference timetable structure or process for the review of that Act; and given the strategic importance of that Act for the energy supply sector for roading improvements and for business growth does she not think New Zealand deserves better than a Government that 4 years after rejecting National’s Resource Management Amendment Bill continues to ignore the problems the Act is causing? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Ministry for the Environment has continued to work on improvements that may be made to the Resource Management Act and Cabinet is currently considering what the process may be for bringing that to some finality. It is hard to see how New Zealand’s ranking on the environment indicator that the member is so interested in could possibly be improved by an announcement the National Party is slipping out at 4 o’clock today that it is to dump the nuclear-free policy. 
Dail Jones 
: Does it not follow from the first answer given by the Prime Minister that neither Labour nor National is capable of bringing in adequate amendments to the Resource Management Act to assist in economic development so it should be left to another party like New Zealand First to be given the opportunity in Government to do so and to improve economic development in this country? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are interjections from both sides of the House which is out of order. But the question itself is out of order because the Minister has no responsibility in that particular area. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question began with the response given by the Prime Minister when she referred to the Resource Management Act. She said that neither the 2004 review nor the 1999 review had shown that New Zealand’s status had changed in any way. My question was: does that not prove that both Labour and National have failed in so far as economic development is concerned under the Resource Management Act? I was using her own answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is all very well but she cannot then be asked about New Zealand First policy. It is New Zealand First that can be asked about its policy at a general election. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister share the expressed view of her Minister for the Environment the Hon Marian Hobbs who described the Resource Management Act as “beautifully written and beautifully crafted”; if she does not share that view what will she do in terms of making some amendments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: An Act like the Resource Management Act will be kept under review. The previous Government had amendments proposed and this Government has passed an amendment law. We are looking at what future improvements there may be. But what we will not do is to destroy New Zealand’s environmental reputation by abandoning the nuclear-free policy and I note that the brave National Party is slipping that out under the cover of the hikoi. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you explain to the House why when my colleagues have introduced matters that are irrelevant in questions you immediately stomp on them but when the Prime Minister does so you do not do a thing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I object to that comment. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not finished my ruling. Please be seated. I say to the member that he overdoes things all the time and gets himself into considerable trouble as a result. As far as I am concerned I like to give members the opportunity to make their answers and occasionally a political comment comes up. Now if I were to ban all political comments—and there have been some very good ones made by the member’s own colleagues; I did not rule them out of order at all—then question time would be a very easy session indeed for me to run as Speaker. I like to think there is a reasonable flow and that is the way I deal with it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question to the Prime Minister was very clear: does she agree with a statement from her Minister who said that the Resource Management Act was “beautifully written and beautifully crafted”? Members did not have a reply to that. The Prime Minister went off and talked about another party’s policy which is out of order and did not attempt to address the question I put to her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the Prime Minister’s answer did address the question. The second part of the answer was out of order. A comment was made at the end of the answer and as I said before if members want me to be much tougher and to rule out all those comments I am very happy to do so. That would make matters very easy for me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to record the National Opposition’s concern at the tone that you have just used to remonstrate with Dr Nick Smith. We think it was unreasonable and given that the Prime Minister was being deliberately provocative and had been for some time it was quite unfair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will say this to the member: I think perhaps I am in the wrong here. I want to apologise to Dr Nick Smith. I think I did make a mistake in being a bit tough in that regard. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why noting yesterday’s report that ranks New Zealand at the bottom—60th out of 60—on environmental regulation is the Prime Minister’s Government introducing legislation tomorrow to amend the Resource Management Act through the foreshore and seabed legislation which according to its own commentary states that the compliance costs for 2500 annual coastal permits under the Resource Management Act will increase and is it her concern that being 60th out of 60 is not bad enough? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Resource Management Act passed in the beginning of the 1990s made matters concerning Maori matters of national importance under the Act and the amendments that are in the foreshore and seabed legislation are entirely in line with that spirit. It is fair to say that New Zealand’s ranking overall on the survey the member is quoting from is actually two places higher than it was in 1999 under a National Government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs has said that the Resource Management Act is “beautifully written and beautifully crafted” but that her new Associate Minister for the Environment has said: “It is convoluted and difficult” can she advise the House which of her Ministers represents the Government’s policy with regard to the Resource Management Act? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I assume that all those who voted for that legislation in 1991 thought it was well written and well drafted. However as time goes on Governments want to look at how such Acts work in operation so amendments have come forward and more amendments will come forward to that Act.