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:5513] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note on a column by the Labour members that there is a quite inappropriate sign in the Chamber. I think you should ask that it be removed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If there is an inappropriate sign in the corridor I ask that it be removed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is a large sign. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It shall be removed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We come to Part 1 which includes a total of 93 clauses. You will be aware that they are in 14 subparts. There is a very difficult dilemma and we have a very unusual process. Originally the bill had 18 parts. Members such as myself who have a strong interest in the bill would normally have had if it were not for this very unusual process 18 opportunities to debate each of those parts. They concern very substantive and different issues and I want some clarification. This is the largest part of the bill. Can I for instance indicate that there are major issues in respect of historic heritage notification and the definitions of environment and amenity value. There are about eight different issues on which I wish to speak. The normal Standing Orders of the House are that members have only three speeches. I would appreciate some indication— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are four speeches—three on the title. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is correct. I want some indication from you at the beginning about how the debate will be managed with this very unusual large part so that a member such as myself who wants to make a substantial contribution on issues that are of very great public interest is able to participate properly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I inform the honourable member that a point of order was raised on 26 March with Mr Speaker in connection with this bill and the decision was that given the nature of the bill the Chairperson should take that situation into account in Committee. Mr Speaker said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case.” The member has indicated that he will speak eight times. If the member were to exhaust his number of four calls he could seek leave to have more calls. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is quite unsatisfactory because with the number of issues in this bill—and I note there are 14 subparts to Part 1—I need some indication at the beginning of the process. For instance if I give a 5-minute contribution on a particular issue knowing that I will get only three or four calls I will have a very different view about whether they will be effective. There are actually 14 substantive issues but there are certainly eight on which I wish to make a contribution. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask you as Chair to be more specific about your interpretation of the instruction that has been given by the Speaker of the House noting the very unusual process in the bill and the fact that it has not gone through the normal select committee process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a Standing Order that limits the member to four calls. I would suggest that the member test the Committee now and seek leave to have more calls. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Then I thereby do just that. I seek leave for the Chair of the Committee to have the discretion to grant more calls to members than the normal restriction of four providing members are making new points and are relevant to the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That sounds sensible. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.