Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22297] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In a typical act of arrogance from this rotting decaying Government 45 pages of amendments have been tabled today and are intended to be passed into law today by a Labour Government that lectures us on public consultation under the Resource Management Act. I have heard some loopy suggestions from the Minister in the chair— 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to remind Parliament about the fiasco that is taking place this afternoon. The Government says that when it comes to resource management issues we have to consult to death. If a developer or a council wants to do something in their community the Ministry for the Environment tells us that on average it will take over 4 years to make a change in the rule. But today in Parliament we will pass 38 pages of law and 134 clauses that were tabled this morning. What sort of double standard do we have when the Labour Government says that if a little council wants to make a teeny-weeny change in the rule it has to consult to death but if this Minister wants to he can change the law today? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Like the Prime Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is lawmaking even faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. 
Darren Hughes 
: Or Don Brash. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Can the perky member on the Government benches explain to me why it is that the Government insists on an extensive consultation process on public participation etc except when it comes through the Government? I ask the outgoing member for Otaki what public consultation there has been on the changes to the Resource Management Act in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. The silence is deafening. 
The problem with this Government and the reason it will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand is that it has an approach of “Do as we say not as we do.” The Government tells everybody else that they have to consult and that they have to involve public participation. [ 
Interruption 
] Now Rick Barker is poking in. Could he explain to me how it is fair to be passing laws that say that one has to consult extensively and involve the public but the Government can make 134 changes that will be introduced and passed into law today? 
I have never known such double standards. They are the same sorts of double standards that we get from the Minister in the chair Mr David Benson-Pope when he launches a programme to ensure there is no bullying in schools and then it is revealed that he has stuffed tennis balls into kids’ mouths. The number of examples by members opposite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. That comment from the member is not acceptable. The member will please withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What comment? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows the comment he made about the Minister David Benson-Pope. He will withdraw it please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. The Minister in the chair is on the public record as having stuffed tennis balls into his pupils’ mouths while simultaneously launching a campaign to stop bullying in schools. Now that is as consistent— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take a point of order to assist the Committee. We will descend very rapidly into the very silly state that the member himself has objected to and has been very emotional about in this Parliament when personal attacks are made. He is now pursuing things that are not true and is misrepresenting what the Minister has said. I caution him that he is going too far. We should debate the bill—we are happy to do that—but this member in particular is the person who gets so upset when personal references are made. He is now leading the charge. I just offer that as a way forward. Let us debate the resource management legislation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to stop telling the truth about them if they stop telling lies about us. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. These matters have come up several times before and I would caution members about behaviour and personal reflections. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would just like an explanation from a Government member as to why the Government put out three press releases in the last week talking about the importance of public consultation and participation but then rolled up this morning with 38 pages of changes to the Resource Management Act about which there has been absolutely no public consultation or participation at all. It is a double standard and I say again that that sort of arrogance—to say one thing and do the opposite—is why this Government will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand in a few weeks’ time. 
I also want to come to some of the lunatic provisions in this bill. Ninety percent - plus of consents are dealt with on a non-notified basis. Somehow the Government thinks that the problem will be solved by making those notification decisions appealable to the Environment Court. If there is any way in which one wanted to add bureaucracy costs delays and uncertainty to the Resource Management Act it is by introducing that provision about which we unanimously heard in submission after submission that it was unwise. 
I would also like an explanation from the Minister in this respect. When this bill was introduced David Benson-Pope jumped up and said that the answer was to remove de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In fact in February I put out a statement challenging Mr David Benson-Pope about his claims that he would somehow resolve those problems by taking away de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In the Local Government and Environment Committee even the Environment Court Chief Judge said that the Minister had lost the plot that this was not going to work and that this was going to make things worse not better. So I have to challenge the Minister in the chair by asking him what has gone wrong. His own press release said that the most significant change in the bill was the removal of de novo hearings in the Environment Court. Why has it gone? Why has he put up the white flag? The truth is that the Minister has made another error and has got it wrong again. 
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment tabled in my name that would insert a new clause 5AB. This affects 50000 New Zealanders who are enthusiasts for the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. My amendment is a very sensible proposition. It states that when a council—and I have heard so much from Labour members about how they want to empower councils—proposes a rule change it will be able to determine whether it shall take effect at that time as compared with existing provisions of the district plan. It sounds like quite a complex mechanism. It is about trusting councils. It means that the Western Springs Speedway will not close. Any member who votes against my amendment is effectively sounding a death knell for that speedway. This speedway has operated for 75 years. There is a petition of 50000-plus New Zealanders who want to see that speedway survive. 
The Auckland City Council which interestingly is dominated by the political left unanimously wants this amendment so that it can fix the problem of the speedway. But this is not just an amendment to fix the problem with that speedway. There are similar problems up and down New Zealand whereby councils know they have provisions in their district plan that are not working for communities and they want to make changes but it will take them years to do so. They do not have the option of banging the House into urgency bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper and passing it all on the same day. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister that they do not have that opportunity. This amendment enables them to fix those problems. It is about trusting councils and it is about a very sensible change. 
I have another amendment in my name. A very significant issue for New Zealand is the security of electricity supply and what happens with the waters of the Waitaki River. We know that the process that was set up by Marian Hobbs is an absolute botch. The Government’s own submission states that it will cost New Zealand 300 megawatts of electricity generating capacity. My amendment says what every single mayor in the South Island has sought—that there be a further round of consultation on the regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Every single mayor in the South Island has called for that amendment. 
 And I say that a further round of consultation would be required— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And they have all changed their minds since. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well they have not actually. Marian Hobbs just keeps stuffing it up. That is why she got sacked; she is no longer in charge of the Resource Management Act. The job has been given to Mr Benson-Pope. The draft plan for the Waitaki River is a disaster for New Zealand. It will cost Jim Sutton his seat; he is a goner. It will probably cost David Parker his seat too. But what is really important is that it will create a crisis in New Zealand’s electricity supply. We need to do that job properly and I seek the support of every member of this Parliament who is concerned about maintaining security of electricity supply and sensible use of that magnificent resource the Waitaki River. I plead with them to support this amendment please so that we can fix the botch-up that Marian Hobbs has made—that her own Government says it has made—with the submission the Government made to the Waitaki Catchment Board. That further round of consultation is absolutely vital to getting it right and I seek the Committee’s support.