Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4295] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Never have I seen such an abuse of the parliamentary process. That the Minister for the Environment is hiding under the bombs of Baghdad to pull off this trick is something that every member of this Parliament should feel ashamed of. 
This bill matters. This issue matters. There are energy stations that need to be built and there are roads that need to be built and there is nothing as important as ensuring that the Resource Management Act is properly changed and amended. But what is outrageous is this. For nearly 2 years the Local Government and Environment Committee considered over 400 submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. It sat for 80 hours and reported back to this House in May 2001. For 100 weeks this Government stymied progress on that bill. Now the Government has pulled this trick. It has introduced an identical bill to that which was reported back by the select committee but under a new name. It even says in the explanatory note that the bill is virtually identical. What an outrage! 
That members of the United Future party would disgrace this Parliament with that sort of conduct is really bringing this place into disrepute. But I have to say I understand why members opposite do not want to have a full and frank debate about that select committee report or about what the Government is doing with the amendment to the Resource Management Act. 
I will go through just what the Minister has said and show how it contradicts the record. Back in May 2001 the Minister rejected limited notification. She told everybody it was a bad idea. Martin Gallagher and four other Labour members voted against it. So why has there been a U-turn? Well the Minister says we got the business compliance costs report but that does not stack up because 5 weeks after the business compliance report the Minister told the environmental law association that she supported 100 percent the recommendations of the select committee. 
What has been pulled off here is a dirty trick. There is one difference between the two bills: the bill from the select committee has 18 parts—each of which could be debated by Parliament—whereas this bill has about 18 subparts. What sort of con is that? Did the Minister tell Parliament that that is what she is doing? Is she telling Parliament that the Local Government and Environment Committee can sit for 2 years listen to over 400 submissions then have its report ignored? Why do we bother sitting on select committees? 
David Cunliffe 
: Oh sit down. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Cunliffe pokes his head up. I want him to get to his feet and tell members why they should sit on select committees when the Government uses that sort of perverted process to avoid a debate on the select committee report on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. 
Then there is the behaviour of the United Future party. Mr Dunne has put out a press statement saying he supports this bill because it has got standing. Well I have had a look through every single page and he has misled the business community. He has told people that this bill has standing in it but it does not. 
Most significantly at a time when this Parliament and this country are crying out for changes in the Resource Management Act this bill makes things worse. This bill will provide more uncertainty more delays and more costs. The Minister went on the  
Holmes  
programme the other week when I raised the issue of Ngati Pu up in the Coromandel. They said they will just object to everything: the first rule object; the second rule object; and if in doubt they will go back to rule one. The Minister said she would fix it. I challenge the next member to tell us whether there is anything in this bill that will stop Ngati Pu or any other organisation from objecting to anything anywhere. This bill does nothing to stop that. 
I then look at what else is in this bill about extending Parliament’s business in respect of spiritual definition. When this Parliament starts allowing regulation around Maori spiritual values and ancestral landscapes it is getting itself into a serious pickle. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says we cannot have prayers at the Prime Minister’s dinners or at formal occasions but we can— 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s that got to do with the bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will tell the member what it has to do with the bill. Can the member answer why we can move a motorway for a taniwha? Why will this legislation extend the ability for courts to chase taniwha when we cannot have a prayer at a formal Government ceremony? That is a disgrace. 
What is missing from this the single most important bill and from the Environment Court? Direct referral. Simon Upton did all the hard intellectual work for Marian Hobbs. She sat around for over 3 years ignoring the proposals that were put forward and rejecting some of the most important ones. What will this bill do to facilitate the development of Project Aqua or any of the other energy projects around the country? Zilch. What will this bill do for an organisation like the Whangamata boating club which has spent $750000 over the last 7 years in trying to get a resource consent to build a marina? It has been told it will be another 2 years before it will get a decision. What is in this bill that will change that? Absolutely nothing! To those in the United Future party who say that this bill will somehow make a difference to the bureaucracy that swamps us from the Resource Management Act I say they are telling porkies. I say they have got it wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use that expression in this House. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. The leader of United Future has told the business community that this bill introduces standing; he is not telling the business community what is in this bill. I refer to the legal opinion given by Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young. It has said this bill provides no assurance of any improvement in the uncertainty costs and delays of the Resource Management Act. That is what Chapman Tripp says. I challenge any members opposite including those from the United Future party to tell us that that legal opinion is wrong. Are we to reject the legal opinion of that firm about what is in this bill? 
Then we turn to the provisions that extend the bureaucracy: the increased weight that is given to iwi planning documents the extension of the historic heritage measures—all of those things that will make this bill a lot worse. Then we come to the granddaddy of them all. The Minister having sat on her hands for 100 weeks in relation to the previous select committee report moves in the House that the select committee has to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. She does nothing for 100 weeks then wants the select committee to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. What sort of respect is the Government showing to the select committee process of this Parliament? Absolutely none! 
If New Zealand is to get economic progress if we are to raise our standard of living then we need to sort out these resource management laws—and we need to do it properly. We should have issues such as direct referral to the Environment Court; we do need to readdress the definition of the environment; we do need to narrow the definition of the environment; and we do need to provide for commissioner hearings. National will be arguing every step of the way that this Parliament’s processes are being totally abused by this Minister and that the United Future party is consenting. Remember all those highbrow United Future speeches made by Peter Dunne about how United Future would be the party that stood up for proper parliamentary process? Proper parliamentary process! You have to be kidding! We will be arguing every step of the way on this bill that the Government is cheating that it is abusing the parliamentary process and most important that it is not serious about fixing the problems with the Resource Management Act.