Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12672. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to theMinister for the Environment: When she said “… I think we can point to any number of ways that we are making our environmental safeguards more effective and more stringent” was she referring to her proposed changes to the Resource Management Act 1991?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):I was referring to the number of matters that I had just listed by way of examples.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a fairly straight question. It was on notice. I did not hear the Minister answer yes or no.Mr SPEAKER: Well I think it was included in the answer the Minister gave.Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that the Law Society was wrong when it called her proposed changes a “watering down” of the Resource Management Act principles which was “likely to create considerable uncertainty” and “likely to increase the costs as parties and decision-makers re-open long-settled debates”?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well if the member is referring to the quote in the primary question no because that was not the context of it.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I have a point of order from Eugenie—[Interruption ] Order! If Andrew Little wants to stay for the balance of question time I invite him to cease his barrage. [Interruption ] Order!Eugenie Sage: It was a question requiring a yes or no answer and the Minister did not give that.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I am going to invite the member to repeat the question but can she repeat it in such a way that it is without the part that is unnecessary to the question. What the member is wanting to know is whether the Law Society was right or wrong. Ask a simple question and I can help the member get a simple answer.Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that the Law Society is right or wrong when it calls her proposed changes to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act a “watering down” of the Resource Management Act principles and is the Law Society right or wrong when it says that those changes are “likely to create considerable uncertainty” and “likely to increase the costs as parties and decision-makers as people re-open long-settled debates” about what matters of national importance mean?Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister now to answer the question but I will not take a point of order from the member questioning the answer she is given when she was invited to ask a simple question in line with the Standing Orders and chose to make such a lengthy question.Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not agree with the Law Society.Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister saying that 99 percent of the 13277 submitters on her February 2013 discussion document on the Resource Management Act are wrong when they opposed or expressed serious concern on most aspects of her proposed changes to the matters of national importance or is she not going to listen to them and simply push ahead with her changes to the Act?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Amy Adams—either of those questions.Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all I would have to point out that more than 12000 of those submissions were form submissions elicited on what I would consider some fairly mischievous information from the organisations seeking them. Secondly the submissions were in respect of the discussion document and as a consequence of the feedback on that document we have made changes. Thirdly if she is asking me whether I honestly think that 99 percent of submitters were opposed to us adding in natural hazards as a matter that needed to be included no I do not think they meant that.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister think that it is wise given the international spotlight on New Zealand’s clean green reputation to be making changes to the Resource Management Act when the architect of that Act Sir Geoffrey Palmer says that they “will significantly—[Interruption ]Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from Metiria Turei.Metiria Turei: I am sorry but I simply cannot hear the question effectively with the barracking that is coming from behind me on this side of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I do not need any assistance. That is a very reasonable point that has been raised. I am going to invite the member to repeat the question but after question time could I ask Metiria Turei to help her members provide supplementary questions that are of a reasonable length which can we hope get a reasonable answer.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your invitation to discuss—Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Metiria Turei: —this with you but I would ask you as a matter of providing more advice to the House whether you would look at theHansard and consider whether these questions are indeed too long or whether they are actually quite reasonable in the context of questions. Would you do that for me?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would have thought that any member in the House would realise by the number of times I have risen to my feet today questioning the length of questions that I am suggesting that the questions are substantially too long.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may well be that the time has passed for this but during the first of the points of order from the co-leader of the Greens there was barracking of her while she was on her feet including from the Deputy Prime Minister the Prime Minister and Steven Joyce.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for his assistance. I did not actually notice it at the time but it is a reminder to all members that points of order should be heard in silence. We are going back to where we were which was asking Eugenie Sage to repeat her question but if she could manage to curtail it I for one would be very very grateful.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with Sir Geoffrey Palmer the architect of the Resource Management Act when he said that her changes to the Act “will significantly and seriously weaken the ability of the RMA to protect the natural environment and its recreational enjoyment by all New Zealanders”?Hon AMY ADAMS: No but what I do agree with Geoffrey Palmer on is his quote where he says: “the proposals directed towards reducing and simplifying planning documents have considerable merit. So do the proposals for a fixed time limit for the processing of straight-forward non-notified consents and to improve transparency around costs and fees. … many of the [process proposals] will deliver improvements to the current processes [under the RMA] with limited impacts on environmental protection”. I do agree with that statement.