Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22272] 
Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The amendments in the bill will be the biggest change to the Resource Management Act since 1991. The key objectives are to increase certainty reduce delays and costs and ensure consistency of process. The amendments are evolutionary improvements rather than revolutionary. They are about finding practical solutions to make the Act work better. Importantly the amendments do not affect the Act’s fundamental principles of strong environmental protection local decision-making and public participation. Rather the bill focuses on ways to improve the quality of decisions and processes. It includes measures to increase certainty and to reduce delay cost and the abuse of process. As Michael Barnett the CEO of the Auckland chamber of commerce noted after surveying 350 of its members: “The issue with the Resource Management Act is not so much the contents of the Act preventing development proceeding but how it is administered by local authorities.” 
The bill forms part of a wider package of reform which includes improvements to legislation practice and resources. We know this package is already having a real impact. According to a 2004 Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey average total environment-related compliance costs have decreased by almost 40 percent between 2003 and 2004 from $12930 in that first year to $7860 in 2004. KPMG attributed the reduced cost to improved implementation of the Act by local authorities and to increased resources for the Environment Court since 2001. Delays in appeals to the Environment Court have been slashed by more than half since 2001 due to a substantial boost in funding and a new system for managing the caseload. The Ministry for the Environment is taking on a greater role in helping local government to develop knowledge and practice. That includes enhancing the ministry’s best-practice programme and targeted one-on-one assistance for specific councils. 
The Government understands that making the Act work is about achieving better administration of the Act. That relies on input from local and central government developers and the community. The process for the review built on that. Extensive discussions were held with local government industry environmental organisations and the wider community over an 18-month period. That process was very different from previous reviews of the Act and Local Government New Zealand has described it as: “an exemplary collaborative exercise.” I will contrast Labour’s approach to working with the local government and business sector successfully with that of National. It is only a week ago now since National Party leader Dr Brash had to lead Nick Smith back to apologise to local government representatives after a typically boorish attack by Mr Smith at a social gathering at the Local Government New Zealand conference. Though few people would actually consider being described as a traitor to the National Party to be any kind of insult at all Mr Smith’s uncontrolled outburst has offended and angered many in the sector. 
This bill is about achieving the right balance between local and national interests. It enables greater use of national policy statements and national environmental standards by reinforcing their role and status under the Act. National policy statements and national environmental standards will give clear national direction and will provide certainty and consistency for communities and developers. The review of the Act highlighted that some decisions need to be dealt with at a national level or with assistance from central government. The bill provides more tools in that area including the ability to make Crown submissions appoint a member of a hearings panel and direct councils to consider matters jointly. Those options are decided in consultation with local authorities from a menu of options that will ensure that central government can play a more effective role in matters that may have national significance. The bill also provides more powers for the Minister for the Environment to ensure local authorities are addressing their functions and duties under the Act. 
The Government has signalled its intention to take a stronger leadership role in implementing and supporting the Act. However that will not be at the expense of local decision-making. We have rejected the calls of a few extreme voices that want to see the Act ripped apart for the sake of unfettered development. Quite frankly that is neither sensible or necessary—nor is it what even the business community has asked us to do. The Government is committed to good local decision-making. Dr Brash says there is too much decision making in the hands of local communities and their councils. Developers should be able to bypass local community decision-making and there should be less recognition according to National of those affected by environmental effects in favour of recognising those who produce them. Silencing communities is after all becoming a theme in National’s election promises. Labour’s bill rightly shakes up the decision making under the Act. It sets accreditation standards for local decision-makers and it gives them powers to make first-instance hearings more effective and robust. The bill improves the design and process for local policy-making. Changes to the requirements for plans mean they will be streamlined and easier to understand. Other changes give greater status to regional policy statements and therefore enable more integrated and strategic planning across and between districts and regions. 
 The bill clarifies consultation requirements and promotes better consultation with tangata whenua during the development of plans and policy statements. In terms of resource consents iwi will have the same opportunity to participate as any other person or party affected by an activity. The bill provides a framework for local authorities to enter into joint management agreements with public bodies and iwi. That is aimed at encouraging success stories such as the partnerships that councils have established with Ngati Tuwharetoa Te Arawa and Ngati Whatua. Other key changes clarify regional council functions under the bill in respect of contaminated land the integration of infrastructure with land use and the allocation of natural resources. 
The bill had the benefit of a robust select committee process and I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for all the hard work it put into the bill. My colleagues will talk more about that process. The Government heard submissions from all sections of the community and as a result it has recommended a number of changes. Those changes are consistent with the principles of the review and the original policy intention. The select committee process has also highlighted that many of the criticisms of the court are outdated. The court is taking steps to minimise costs and delays. It does not conduct every appeal on a full de novo basis and it tailors the process to the circumstances of each case. 
The bill also amends the Electricity Act 1992 by extending the existing rights of operators in terms of works relating to roads and level crossings. The bill extends those rights to high voltage works but not to above-ground structures such as poles or towers. 
A Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled today containing several amendments that the Government wishes to make to the bill. Most of the amendments are technical in nature and seek to clarify wording or to improve the workability of the bill as a result of changes recommended by the select committee. However there are six more substantive amendments. First it is proposed that the bill be amended to include a clear statement that consent authorities must consider the value of existing investment when considering applications for a new consent to replace an existing consent on its expiry. That was part of the Government’s original policy and it will encourage maintenance of and long-term investment in existing infrastructure. Second the bill as reported back creates confusion about the content of the iwi register and the process for its development. The Supplementary Order Paper includes changes that clarify when local authorities should include details of hapu on the register. There is also material relating to the national policy statements and the New Zealand coastal policy statement and an amendment to the ministerial powers to intervene in matters of national significance in the coastal marine area. Finally there are two technical amendments proposed to resolve issues that have arisen out of the aquaculture reform and foreshore and seabed legislation. The current wording requires regional councils to carry out a full review of regional policy statements. That requirement is being somewhat softened. 
Labour is committed to having a clean and healthy environment and to giving people a say in environmental decision-making. Protecting our environment is a strategic investment that all of us wish to make for New Zealand’s future. The Resource Management Act is about striking the right balance between using our environment and protecting it for future generations. The wide support that this bill has received reflects the acceptability of the changes it contains and I am pleased to commend it to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In no area of public policy has the Labour Government made a greater hash of things than in respect of resource management. It has been a comedy of errors and blunders for 6 years for which this country is paying a high price. It is paying in terms of a 38 percent increase in traffic congestion in a city like Auckland. It is paying in terms of security of power supply. A number of officials are crossing their legs their fingers and everything else to try to keep the lights on and power prices have gone up by over 52 percent. I am not at all surprised that the Minister is running to hide. I would be too with this sort of a botch up. We have seen a lack of investment in key areas such as forestry. New Zealand should be investing in timber processing rather than in exporting logs. The environment is paying a high price as well for the fumbles and errors of the Government. 
It is quite telling that this is the last legislative act of this rotten dying Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Samuels that on its very first day the Labour Government said that the Resource Management Act was beautifully written beautifully crafted and did not need changing. One of the very first acts of the Government in 1999 was to reject Simon Upton’s amendment bill. Six years later a grovelling snivelling Minister is back before the Parliament saying: “Well actually we got it wrong. We’ve got to somehow patch up this RMA in the very last week of the House.” 
When the bill was introduced—the Minister’s big flagship—David Benson-Pope said that the most significant change was removing de novo hearings in the Environment Court. That is what David Benson-Pope told the Parliament and the people of New Zealand. Yet now it has suddenly gone. We have seen more flip-flops on this bill than on Bondi Beach. The Government has had to surrender ground all over the place. 
Let me give another example. The member opposite Judith Tizard said that it was “evil and dangerous” to refer things directly to the Environment Court. Well what does this bill do? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I did not. What absolute rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well she did. I ask her to check the  
Hansard 
 of November 1998 when she said in the House that Simon Upton’s proposal for projects to be able to go directly to the Environment Court was “evil and dangerous”. But now she supports it. That shows that members opposite will say absolutely anything to save their political bacon. I would like to know whether Marian Hobbs will contribute to this debate. She is the Minister who has been in charge of Labour’s botch-ups with the Resource Management Act for the last 6 years. The Government is like a beached whale. It is flailing about and has no idea what it will do to resolve the very serious issues for New Zealand in respect of the Resource Management Act. 
I go back to the issue of direct referral to the Environment Court. Labour says that National would politicise the process. Well is that not interesting? Under this bill who will decide which projects get referred directly to the Environment Court? The answer is the Minister. In other words if someone is a mate of the Government and if someone has written out some big cheques for Labour’s election campaign that person will be able to avoid the council hearing and go straight off to the Environment Court. 
Jill Pettis 
: At least it doesn’t come from Uncle Sam. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well well is that not an interesting remark from Jill Pettis? Perhaps she would like to talk to Dover Samuels who has been getting cheques from Uncle Sam—I understand that the amount was $10000. Such diversions are not surprising. The Government’s position is so weak on these issues that it does not want to debate the real issues. 
Then the Labour Party talked about the importance of community consultation and community involvement and it introduced a 32-page Supplementary Order Paper which was tabled this morning to become law by tonight. Such is the respect that this Government has for public consultation it is prepared to make 32 pages of changes to the Resource Management Act with zero consultation. Opposition parties such as mine received this Supplementary Order Paper only this morning. I ask what sort of outrageous abuse of the lawmaking process is that. The Government has the cheek to talk about the importance of public consultation. Do not make me sick! 
I turn to what is wrong with this bill. Firstly it is quite extraordinary what this bill does not do. Everybody knows that a gravy train of indulgence has been created for Maori and iwi as a consequence of the Resource Management Act. 
 Can I give members a practical example. My local Richmond garden club wants to be able to upgrade an area of public park in my electorate. Its members are all volunteers but they have been told they have to pay a local iwi supervisor $40 an hour to ensure they do not dig up any old pipis or the like that Maori had there. What sort of outrage or lunacy is there in that respect? This Government has forked out millions of dollars in relation to the new prison at Port Waikato—paid to grease the palms of the local friendly iwi so that the prison might be built. There is example after example and what does this bill do to deal with the matter so that we might not chase the taniwha when we are trying to build a road? What does this bill do about those issues? The answer is: absolutely nothing—in fact it actually makes it worse. What this Government is proposing with regard to co-management will only make those problems with the Resource Management Act more difficult. 
Then there are issues in respect of how long it takes to make changes in a plan. What really makes mainstream New Zealanders angry with this Government over the Resource Management Act is when it messes with their sport. Eden Park in Auckland needs to be upgraded in order for New Zealand to have a chance of hosting the rugby world cup in 2012 yet this Government is handing out money to the opponents of that upgrade so that they might prevent it. With regard to the Western Springs Speedway we see that this Government is killing it off and giving money to the speedway’s opponents. National will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage to provide for the resolution of that problem in a sensible way by empowering the Auckland City Council to make decisions for its community. I ask Dover Samuels whether he will be voting for the amendment to save the Western Springs speedway. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: You are doing all the talking; you tell us. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Ah! You see members opposite for all the talk about trusting councils will have a real test in deciding whether to support our amendment which says that it is for councils to decide whether a notified plan will take effect at that time. I will bet that members opposite will vote for bureaucracy rather than for common sense. For all the talk we have from Labour members about empowering councils and communities those members are really into funding their narrow sector mates. 
The reality is that the Resource Management Act has turned into legislation whereby the minority is able to stop the majority. A National Government—a change of Government—will be required to inject some common sense into that Act so that we can have decent environmental standards and also so that New Zealanders can get on grow and develop. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The unprincipled rhetoric of that last speech can be unpicked by two simple examples. National will always scratch the itch. Its representative did so in relation to Maori issues in that last speech by saying that nothing in this bill changes the status quo. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He was obviously asleep at the relevant times at the Local Government and Environment Committee because one of the things this bill does is make it absolutely clear that no applicant for a resource consent has an obligation to consult with anyone—with anyone including iwi or Maori groups. There is now no obligation to consult. There was an uncertainty of law until this bill was brought forward as to whether that was the position. This bill remedies that uncertainty by making it clear that no one has to consult with anyone else prior to making an application for a resource consent. That change in the law is appropriate because we all want to have transparent procedures in this country whereby no one can blackmail other people to pay money in order to get resource consents. So Dr Smith on behalf of the National Party has misinformed listeners today on that important point. 
The other issue is that he said there were problems with great delays in dealing with applications under the Resource Management Act. That was the position 5 years ago but it is not the position now. Again Dr Smith was on the select committee when we met with Judge Bollard the principal planning judge of the Environment Court. Judge Bollard set out— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but there are far too many interjections across the House from one to another. I mention to members that the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call and that practice has been going on far too often. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was true of my speech. I had a continual barrage of interjections—quite contrary to the speech of the Minister to whom we gave a pretty fair hearing. Now when the tables are turned and a Labour member is speaking suddenly you get all precious— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No! The ruling has been given because two members who do not have the call—you and Mr Samuels—have been interjecting on each other. You have been doing it far too often. I did not pick on just one person; it was one all. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I thank you for that ruling Mr Speaker and trust that that time will not come out of my speech time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Certainly not. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The second issue on which Dr Smith misled listeners concerned the suggestion that time frames for dealing with appeals on consents have not been improved. We heard from Judge Bollard the Principal Environment Court Judge— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I never said that. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member said there were still substantial delays that were problematic in terms of consents but the reality is different. Judge Bollard came to the select committee and showed us that the majority of cases are now allocated a hearing date upon appeal within 6 months of the date of the appeal. There are exceptions to that but those exceptions are cases where the parties are in mediation and are happy on all sides for the matter to be delayed. Apart from those cases the majority of cases are being dealt with in a very timely period. Why is that? The answer is twofold. Firstly a large number of plan references—or appeals against plans as people might understand them to be—that were outstanding have been resolved. Secondly the number of Environment Court judges has been increased so there are not as many delays as there were. 
The select committee and indeed the Government were faced with strident criticism of the Resource Management Act. The essential choice for any central Government on those issues is whether the decision-making process is delegated to councils with appeal rights to another body or whether decisions are taken at central Government level in Wellington. I for one and this Government believe that the current principle of delegating those decisions to territorial authorities is the right way to go. 
When the matter came to the select committee we had experimented with the idea that we would truncate appeal rights by limiting them to re-litigations of evidence that had already been given at initial council hearings. That had some initial attraction because it was thought that it would avoid going through the facts twice. But as was pointed out by almost all submitters be they territorial authorities developers environmental groups the Law Society or the Planning Institute the sting in the tail is that because only fewer than one in 10 cases goes on appeal we do not want to add costs to the nine cases that do not go on appeal in order to save costs on the one in 10 that does. 
 The problem we have to grapple with is that if we limit appeal rights so as not to give people a right to introduce new evidence on appeal then everyone is forced to go about their initial hearing before the council in a much more thorough way which requires them to lead more expensive expert evidence to take a more litigious approach and probably more often to employ lawyers to represent them at the first hearing. That is undesirable in terms of both the accessibility of the initial forum to lay people and the cost of the process to applicants and objectors alike. The Local Government and Environment Committee felt that that evidence was compelling and the Government agreed. So we have reverted to a position similar to what we had prior to this bill. 
But we have made an important change: the Environment Court must now have regard to the original decision at the first hearing. Until now the Environment Court has been able to start again and completely ignore the council hearing. Indeed on occasions the Environment Court has said that it does not even need to read the original decision because it has the right to start again and to decide as it thinks fit without regard to the original council decision. We have changed that situation by making it an obligation of the Environment Court to have regard to the original decision. In effect that means that the Environment Court will have to give reasons if it departs from the decision of the council. That is very proper. 
This bill does a couple of other things. It sets up a regime to deal with matters that cross boundaries and projects that are very large. The most recent examples are Meridian Energy’s applications for consents on Project Aqua. Such projects are so large and so complex that they are very difficult for smaller councils especially to deal with. Those councils do not have the expertise or the resources needed to deal with some of those applications relating to very large projects. So there has been a call not just from developers like Meridian Energy but also from councils and other interest groups to have some of those bigger things dealt with under a separate process. We have set up that separate process in this bill but we have taken steps to ensure that it will apply only Resource Management Act principles. We are not weighting it in favour of the outcome. 
The select committee made an additional recommendation to protect the independence of decisions on those matters by making sure that the decision-making body is always chaired by an independent judge. In this case the judge has to be either a member of the Environment Court or a retired member of the Environment Court. So a judge will always hear those matters independently with an expert board that will be well placed to consider the issues raised. 
Long hearings on big complex issues can take 6 months to a year and no one who is running that particular gauntlet wants to have to do it twice. We do not want a board of inquiry listening to things for 6 months and then an appeal right creating a similar sort of hearing again on the facts for another 6 months. That is a waste of everyone’s time and money. The appeal might reach a slightly different answer but I do not think it would normally be a better answer. So in respect of applications that have been called in and put through this special process appeals are limited to matters of law rather than re-litigation of the facts. 
The select committee heard about problems with the complexity of layers of plans where some councils have not finished their planning documents. The plans are the planning laws for the district. Some areas have old transitional plans—which were old town and country plans—proposed plans under the Resource Management Act proposed variations and proposed variations to proposed variations none of which have been finished. That creates layers of complexity and means that more applications have to be dealt with as non-complying activities. Even the most expert people have trouble knowing what is allowed and what is not allowed. As a consequence the select committee has recommended that plans and variations at the council stage of proceedings should be completed within 2 years of the date of their notification. That recommendation came from the select committee and it is a good one. I thank the select committee members for their hard work on this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very serious point of order about parliamentary process in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 389 which has been tabled by the Government today. It is a 36-page Supplementary Order Paper. I have counted up the number of clauses it changes—it changes 132 clauses of the bill. It is a very significant Supplementary Order Paper. On the back page the Supplementary Order Paper states: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill …” and includes this sentence: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” That is all it states—“to give effect to new policy.” If we read the Standing Orders—and I notably want to introduce members’ attention to Standing Order 256—we see that an explanatory note must state the policy that the bill seeks to achieve. Well for the explanatory note simply to state that the Supplementary Order Paper is to give effect to new policy— 
Jill Pettis 
: Is this a speech? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is a very important point of order. I know that Jill Pettis— 
Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. I am well aware and so are members that there are to be no interjections at all during a point of order. The member will stand and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is not interested in democracy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Come to the point of order please Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point of order is that all the explanatory note states about the 36 pages of changes to this bill is: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” That cannot in any way be deemed to comply with the requirement that an explanatory note state the policy it seeks to achieve. The reason why this is such a serious matter Mr Assistant Speaker and why I ask you to give a considered ruling—and I am drawing it to your attention at the earliest possible moment—is that this Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only today. It is intended to be the law of the land by tonight. For MPs to be able to debate it intelligently when there have been policy changes—and quite clearly there have because the Supplementary Order Paper states that it will give effect to new policy—there must actually be in the explanatory note as is a requirement of the Standing Orders something about what that new policy is. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to make a ruling that this explanatory note does not comply with the Standing Orders and to urgently seek the Government and the Minister to provide an explanatory note that does comply with the rules of this House and treats democracy with a bit of respect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for your deliberation and consideration Dr Smith. Standing Order 256 relates to the explanatory note of a bill. It does not apply to a Supplementary Order Paper which does not have to have an explanatory note at all. There is nothing to prevent a Supplementary Order Paper from being circulated during the second reading debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I do note that Standing Order 256 relates to the explanatory note of a bill. But are you giving a ruling that an explanatory note of a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to comply with that Standing Order? Quite clearly a Supplementary Order Paper is about a change to a bill—it introduces new policy. This Supplementary Order Paper is quite direct in saying that there is new policy; it just does not tell us what it is. Are you really giving a ruling that an explanatory note on a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to comply with the requirement in Standing Order 256 with regard to explanatory notes? This is a change to a bill. I do not expect you to make a ruling straight away. It is a very important point. If we are going to have an explanatory note that simply states: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” and if that is going to be accepted by this Parliament as an explanatory note then the whole purpose of having explanatory notes is thrown to the wall. That explanatory note could be used in every single bill or Supplementary Order Paper introduced by a Government without giving anybody any idea of what the Government intends by the policy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you again Dr Smith for that consideration. The Speaker himself or herself cannot decide on the adequacy of a Supplementary Order Paper’s explanatory note. There does not have to be a note at all. It is a matter for criticism in debate and I am sure that the member will take every opportunity to raise that matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns the last point you made. The Standing Order is very clear. It does not say “may” and I am not asking the Speaker or the Clerk’s Office to make a determination as to whether it is a proper interpretation. What it states is: “must have an explanatory note that states the policy …”. That is what the Standing Order states. How can an explanatory note that simply states: “to give effect to new policy” possibly comply with a requirement that it state the policy? Where in that explanatory note is the statement of the policy? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to Dr Smith that the Standing Order does not apply to a Supplementary Order Paper and there is nothing to prevent a Supplementary Order Paper from being circulated during the second reading debate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the point you make drawing a distinction between a bill and a Supplementary Order Paper and the requirement for explanatory notes. We would not dispute that case. But Dr Nick Smith raises an interesting point. The Standing Order you refer to with respect to amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper—Standing Order 299—states: “Any member intending to move an amendment to a bill may lodge a written copy of the amendment …” and then goes on without stating any requirement for an explanatory note. The interesting thing about that is that the explanatory note in this case indicates that the drafting is to give effect to new policy which I submit is quite different to an amendment to an existing bill. That is the important distinction. When Standing Order 299 refers to Supplementary Order Papers it makes clear that it is talking about an amendment to an existing bill—that is the first instance. But the explanatory note to this Supplementary Order Paper indicates that new policy is being introduced. That is quite a different matter and a matter to which Dr Nick Smith has drawn your attention in a pretty acute way. I ask for your views on that matter. The two cases are quite distinct. I accept the point that a Supplementary Order Paper does not have to contain an explanatory note and that that is a matter for debate. But when a Supplementary Order Paper itself states that it contains new policy that makes it different from just an amendment to a bill as in the explanation with respect to Supplementary Order Papers contained in Standing Order 299. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker your first ruling was quite right. The other point that the last honourable member spoke about is dealt with under the question of whether the amendment is within the scope of the bill. As long as an amendment is within the scope of the bill it can be included within a Supplementary Order Paper without an explanatory note. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for your contribution Mr Parker. The test for admissibility of an amendment is whether it is relevant; not whether it is new policy. It will be for the Chairperson to rule on whether these amendments are relevant when the House gets to the Committee stage of the legislation. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Briefly—I have ruled. 
SIMON POWER 
: I accept that. But it raises another interesting question. How are we to know whether an amendment is relevant if it is not contained in an explanatory note on the reverse of the Supplementary Order Paper? That is the very question we are asking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That will be a matter for the Chairperson Mr Power but thank you for drawing it to my attention. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank my colleague Jim Peters for allowing me to speak earlier as I have to be somewhere else at 12. When the Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. business associations local authorities and the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand all turn up at a select committee and say the same thing—that the Government has got major parts of this bill seriously wrong—and give the same reasons then we know there must be something in it. That in fact did happen in this case at the Local Government and Environment Committee. There was widespread agreement among the submitters that the draconian ministerial powers allowing the Minister to instruct councils to put certain things in their plans and the interference with the powers of the Environment Court to conduct a complete hearing were wrong unnecessary and damaging. 
David Parker 
: And were changed. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: And they were changed. A lot of the changes in the bill as introduced were mindless tinkering with the Resource Management Act. It was as though the Minister had said to officials: “We’re getting a lot of flak about the Resource Management Act. Go and fix it will you?” the officials had asked: “Minister what exactly do you want us to fix?” and the Minister had replied: “Basically don’t totally damage the environment and do away with public rights but just fix it so that we don’t get all these complaints about it.” 
So the officials came up with things as mindless as mandatory mediation. Mediation is a process that works if one has goodwill and cooperation on both sides and achieves absolutely nothing if one does not. How on earth does one make mediation work if somebody is there under duress? So we got rid of that one. The officials came up with mindless tinkering like taking away the requirement for plans to include objectives because it would make plans shorter by about a paragraph—or maybe up to a page. Yet if plans do not include objectives how does one measure whether the rules and policies in the plans achieve what they are there for? That had huge consequences right through the bill and the committee has put mandatory objectives back into plans. There was tinkering with the role of the Environment Court trying to shorten court processes but thereby making council processes much longer more laborious and more difficult for the public to participate in. That was clearly not going to work and that has been fixed as well. 
I am proud to have chaired the select committee that has substantially rewritten considerable parts of this bill—with I have to say a lot of cooperation and good sense around the table. Even though many of us had different views about where the Resource Management Act should be heading we nevertheless had a high degree of cooperation about using this amendment to make things work as well as we could. We have restored the powers of the Environment Court to hear all the evidence before it and consider that evidence properly. As I said we have left objectives in plans. We have got rid of the bizarre requirement for regional councils to promote infrastructure. Regional councils are there to manage effects on water air and soil—to manage effects on the environment of the region and planning across the region. Giving them the job of promoting power lines and motorways was clearly in conflict with their purpose. 
We have got rid of the requirement for regional councils to remediate contaminated sites which they could have done only by putting the full cost on the landowner because at present there is still no legal defence for innocent landowners who have taken over a piece of land with no way at all of knowing that it has been contaminated by a previous owner and the State still takes no responsibility for contamination that it has caused on land that it has managed or contamination that it has required through the requirement to use certain chemicals with long-lived effects. That matter still needs to be addressed. We still need law on the innocent landowner defence. We still need the State to step up to its responsibilities in terms of contaminated sites. But at least we have prevented this bill from obliging regional councils to clobber landowners at present. We have at least provided for an appeal against the draconian strike-out procedures whereby a council may decide that evidence is not relevant and refuse to hear it. We know that in many cases councils will use that power with extreme care but that in some cases the Environment Court has found that councils were far too close to developers and could well have used such a power wrongly against members of the community who wanted to be heard. 
 After hearing many many submissions from Maori that kaitiakitanga lies often not with iwi authorities but with hapu in particular cases we have provided a role for hapu. We have recognised hapu in some circumstances as the people who should be consulted on plans and who should be on the register that councils will hold of the Maori organisations they should deal with on resource issues in their community. 
We have constrained the ministerial powers quite considerably. There are now criteria against which ministerial decisions are reviewable and Ministers will not be able to give just any old instruction to councils and plans. But this bill is still an attempt to centralise decision making; to put the national interest as perceived by the Government of the day ahead of the local interest as perceived by the people; to skew the Resource Management Act towards development rather than towards environmental protection; to provide an easy track for big infrastructure projects like pylons prisons motorways and power stations which will have preference over the ordinary person’s resource consent; and to make life harder for community groups that are trying with very little in the way of resources or help to protect their local environment against big damaging projects. 
Much of that agenda remains in the bill despite the improvements that the select committee has made and the Greens therefore do not support the bill. In particular we are concerned about the new process for setting national policy statements. Rather than a board of inquiry and a broad public debate leading to a robust national policy statement with cross-party and cross-society support that will be enduring to guide plans and policy statements we will have a quick and dirty national policy statement written by a Government official with no public inquiry no hearings a submission process—which the official may or may not read—and then it will be law. It will be binding on all plans and councils will gradually have to change their plans to comply. By the time they have done that there will be another Government in power which will use the same quick and dirty process to overturn the national policy statement. We will get this policy see-saw every 3 years which is not good for planning or for resource management. 
We know that national environmental standards are now being drafted in conjunction with the officials by the industries that are being regulated by those standards. This bill makes the default position that those standards will be absolute and that councils will have to allow the degradation of their environment down to that minimum standard. So if people have really high-quality water in the rivers in their area because they have been fortunate in the past and have not had a lot of polluting industry they will not be able to set a standard to keep those waters to that high quality. They will have to allow them to be degraded down to the national standard which of course will be set down to standards that rivers like the Ngakawau which is full of coal tailings and the Otara Creek in Auckland can potentially meet. 
The call-in provisions have been changed so that the biggest and most controversial projects called in by the Minister will unlike all others not have to go through two hearings. They will have to go through only one. So there will be two hearings for someone’s veranda application but one hearing for the giant motorway or pylon process. At least the select committee insisted that that one hearing must be chaired by an Environment Court judge. That is an improvement. 
The benefits which were unanimously agreed cannot compensate for these serious damages to the Act. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In 2002 New Zealand First claimed that the time was appropriate to thoroughly review the Resource Management Act. The backdrop to that of course was the work done in 1998-99 in the bill that is before the House. That review was not done. Our view then as it is now was that it was an appropriate time to see whether Part II of the principal Act “Purpose and Principles” was still valid and whether the 1980s thinking embodied in the Geoffrey Palmer concepts was still appropriate. Today we remain firmly of the opinion that sustainable management with its attendant goals and values ought to have been reviewed. Sustainable development now enshrined in the masthead of the  
New Zealand Environment 
 magazine needs to be aspired to. 
There is growing scientific understanding of the environmental costs and risks associated with the use of our resources. We understand much better the inherent tension in the impact of the ethical and value judgments in the Act and how they may not or do not accord with the property owners’ values and their right to develop and use natural and physical resources. We see and have seen the Resource Management Act as an enabling Act. My experience of the Act is that it has largely been so. It is an Act that allows New Zealanders to strive and thereby thrive. But others unfortunately see it too often as a limiting and restraining factor and look to avoid and mitigate rather than to use the express intention of the Act. 
When we looked at the legislation before us in 2004 we looked at the fact that it does need to have defined and clarified processes but obstacles and frustrations have become part of those processes and we need to ensure all affected parties have unhindered access to the consent process. That was the basis on which New Zealand First went into discussions last year. New Zealand First members were on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
The committee did well in its work in picking up a bill from the Associate Minister for the Environment that was ill formed and lacked clear direction in regard to what the Minister intended and throughout that time including the hearing of submissions the committee worked really hard. I pay tribute to the chairperson of the committee who has just spoken for her work and her ability to resolve some of the inherent difficulties that the committee saw in the bill as introduced. 
Therefore it is with considerable alarm that we see today a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper. I thought that for the first time the Government had got it right unlike the earlier bills we had discussed such as the Local Government Bill 2002 which passed through the House without anyone outside the House having a chance to consider them. I thought that the month between the committee’s final examination and deliberation ought to have been the time to have come back to the House to see whether the Government had had a change of mind. Four weeks and some days later on the very last day of the session we are asked to consider the impact on the bill of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The very slim explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states that it “refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee.” really begs the question of why the select committee was not part of that process. Why was it not the considered opinion of all parties in this House trying to develop a sounder bill than what was given to us? The explanatory note finishes: “It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” It really is something of a disgrace that a Government in its dying last days is endeavouring to persuade the country and the House that that is reasonable and fair practice. It is not and New Zealand First protests against the Minister’s intention. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill after hearing numerous submissions and made a number of amendments and changes to the bill. A former member of this House the honourable Rob Storey made an interesting comment. He told us in Hamilton that he sat for 4 years on the committee that gave birth to this legislation. He conceded that the bill was not perfect and that amendments would be needed as faults would develop but in his mind this bill as introduced gave him great cause for concern. 
 Despite the excellent work done by the select committee New Zealand First is of the same mind today as when the bill first came to the House. 
The select committee examined the broad sweep of ministerial powers—some new. It looked at the development of national environmental standards. The restatement of regional and district plans and policy statements were all examined. It gave extensive thought to local authority hearing processes for plans and resource consents and how these could be speeded up and in the course of that gave more flexibility to pre-hearing meetings which have always been available under the Act but have not been used as they could have been. The committee heard the concerns of applicants and councils regarding the requests for further information provision. That is a real issue for them. The provision was redefined and now gives new powers to hearing panels and provides for accredited commissioners. In other words the bill gives some foretaste of the known wish of district and regional bodies to have a higher level of skill in regard to hearings and indeed the whole resource management process. In particular we heard interesting comments from the Environment Court and they were taken into account in the considered mind of the committee. 
New Zealand First is still concerned about ministerial call-in of applications. Under the previous regime the Hon Simon Upton did it once. The insertion of another option as a major feature of this bill introduces some uncertainty as to the Government’s real intentions in the future—should the people of this country be so unwise as to put them back in office. The new provision was somewhat defined by the committee in regard to a potential board of inquiry. We spent some time ensuring that the skill knowledge and expertise needed must be part of a defined rationale from the Minister. 
When I look back at the policy that the New Zealand First caucus looked at last year seeking a faster speedier fairer process I wonder why I would not support this bill. In developing our policy we were conscious of the immense amount of work done by councils in formulating and formatting the present state of planning. We were conscious of the millions and millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money and others spent to put together plans. More important we were conscious of the number of local people who throughout the course of that planning period of the past 11 to 12 years had been a core and essential part of district and regional plans. Alongside that of course we have the definitive and abundant almost too many judgments and decisions handed down by various courts of the land about many aspects of planning and consents. 
So against that backdrop New Zealand First measured its response to this bill. We contend very strongly that despite the excellent work done by the select committee the final impact of this bill is just a modern version of the “command and control” approach to environmental decision-making. Territorial and regional authorities will be forced to accept overriding statements from central government either in national policy statements or in environmental standards and not in accordance with the matters that the Labour Party has talked so much about in the past with regard to consultation but imposed directed mandatory statements from on high. 
That is not in keeping with the whole history of this bill and the Act. It is not in keeping with the whole history of participation within the democratic process and an approach to public law that have been the hallmarks. Was there a need for change and has that change been properly expressed? The answer is partially. Are the people out there such as farmers community groups local authorities industry lawyers and the community who wanted change satisfied? Yes but this is not the change sought. 
New Zealand First strongly believes that in 2005 this bill should be primarily concerned with promoting the sustainable development of our resources which is about understanding people’s needs and the capacity of this country to further use and better use our natural and physical resources. New Zealand First as part of an incoming Government or with ability to be part of a Government’s future programme will later this year move to further review the Resource Management Act to better effect and fit the common good. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The member who just resumed his seat made a very profound statement. He described the Resource Management Act and this amendment as part of a control and command philosophy. He has identified the exact problem that underpins the Resource Management Act. It is really the icon of the socialist legislative tool kit. This is the biggest instrument for control and command. It is the abuse of the Resource Management Act that has caused so many problems to our country. The ACT party is opposing this amendment. It is almost a bit of déjà vu—here we go again! We have been fiddling with it since it was enacted by the National Government way back in 1991— 
Dail Jones 
: Who? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The National Government implemented the Resource Management Act. But all the philosophical thinking was done by the earlier Labour Government and that gives it no credit. But the point is this. It is a bit like communism—like those apologists for communism who say: “There is nothing wrong with communism it is wonderful it is just that we have not implemented it properly yet.” It is exactly the same with the Resource Management Act. Is it not time after how many years—15 years—we decided that there is something fundamentally wrong in principle? All the tinkering and amendments in the world are not going to make this little puppy work because it is fundamentally flawed. 
The socialists love it. They love it because they can keep more control and more power. It underpins the expanding bureaucracies that we see in local government and all this endless process. It is all about process—endless consultation rather than outcome for the country’s well-being. 
Having said that some aspects of the bill—some of these tinkerings—are improvements and I would like to refer to some of those. Most of them were done by the Local Government and Environment Committee not by the bill as introduced by the socialists over there. I would classify in the improvements the dropping of the provision that an appeal to the Environment Court could not be a de novo hearing. Because it became very clear that if one does that one has to front up at the local council with a lawyer at all those cases because there is not another chance. So one would actually have to further the process and the costs in a lot of routine cases. 
Someone made the point that only one in 10 cases actually goes to the Environment Court. But if one said that it could only be a de novo hearing then one could not afford to take the risk and all applicants applying for resource consent would actually have to stump up to the council with their lawyers and all the costs associated with that. 
The other point made in evidence to the select committee and made by the judiciary themselves was that often in the time before a hearing—and hearing an appeal can take 1 or 2 years perish the thought—new information and new technologies come to hand and one would of course have precluded the consideration of new technologies if that law as proposed by the Labour Government when it introduced the bill had been carried through. 
The other aspect the ACT party supports is the dropping of the legal phrases. We had this wonderful “urban form” and “rohe”. They were going to become legal terms just as in a previous amendment which the Labour Party promoted we had “cultural landscape”. Does anyone know what a cultural landscape might be? But that is what the Labour Government earlier tried to import into the Resource Management Act. 
We do support the direct referral to the Environment Court because that can facilitate the process. There are some projects—usually bigger projects—that are clearly going to go directly to the Environment Court so why carry out the charade of preliminary council hearings? It is far better for all the parties to prepare thoroughly and go straight to the Environment Court because one knows that it will be there in any event at the end of the day. ACT and National have both defended and promoted that and of course Labour tried to sort of make capital mileage out of it but totally without success. 
The real problem with this bill and why the ACT party will be voting against it is its failure to actually address the fundamental problems that the Resource Management Act has delivered to us. It was meant to be for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It was meant to be part of deregulation. It was meant to be a one-stop shop. It was meant to be effects-based not prescriptive rules. What has really happened is that it got captured during its gestation period and during the intervening 12 years by three interest groups: Maori greens and planners and bureaucrats. I will go through those three. 
There are definitely Maori issues that need addressing in this country but what happened was that the gestation of the Resource Management Act coincided with the renaissance in Maori claims and sovereignty and the Act has been ruthlessly used as an instrument inappropriately. It is meant to be about the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It is a totally inappropriate tool with which to try to determine metaphysical and spiritual concepts. Yet we have imported all that language. We have even provided for taniwha in the Resource Management Act and all sorts of nebulous concepts that weigh it down. That is not to say that those matters do not need to be considered but they certainly should not be considered in the Resource Management Act. It tries to do too much and it defeats itself in doing that. 
The other aspect is that it was captured by the green movement during its gestation and development and now it lacks balance. It was meant to be for sustainable development and that language was cut out and it became “sustainable management” but it was meant to be development-focused legislation. It was meant to be part of deregulating the economy—an enabling Act. But instead it has become bogged down used as a tool and of course the Department of Conservation is the biggest user of the Resource Management Act to impose its will and strip people of their property rights. 
The third category that has captured the Act is the planners and bureaucrats. The Act was meant to be a simplification. It was not meant to be rules-based; it was meant to be effects-based. But if we go to the Resource Management Act or to any district plan we see that the planners hated the thought of anyone taking away their rule book because that is their power-base. So at every turn the bureaucrats and the planners have managed to capture the councillors. Some councillors have gone along willingly and turned the Act into a heavy coded rule-based law rather than letting it be effects-based law which was the basic philosophical starting point. It has been totally lost on the way to the forum and that indeed has meant that the Resource Management Act has become a very destructive instrument in the New Zealand economy. 
But perhaps the biggest criticism is the lack of recognition of property rights and this amendment bill does nothing to address that problem. In a modern market-based economy that is based on tradable property rights in a global environment if we do not recognise and provide for property rights in our basic management and allocation of resources then we have a problem. Property rights are not mentioned in this legislation and that is because it is the tool in the socialist kit bag and it is used to strip away property rights at every turn. 
Anyone can look at a hillside and say: “Oh that crop of trees is nice. I’m going to go to the council and we’ll have it designated as a protected natural area and have it designated in the district plan.” and a compliant council lobbied by the greens would do it. But that hillside happens to belong to someone. It is someone’s property right. If the public at large is saying that it wants that protected for the public good then they should stump up and pay compensation. That is the test of whether it is really in the public interest. The test is whether the public is prepared to pay compensation for the taking of a property right. But no the Resource Management Act at every level restricts property rights strips away property rights and takes from people the right to do things on their land that they would otherwise be able to do. 
In conclusion I say that this bill does not make any amendments. It is just more tinkering. It totally fails to make the amendments that are required. When I say “amendments” I mean we have to gut the Act and go right back to first principles because the Act is based on shaky ground. Its foundations are so unstable. We do not even have a definition for “sustainable”. We have had 15 years of the courts trying to define this wonderful concept that makes us all feel warm and fuzzy inside but the legal profession and the courts cannot get an agreement and an understanding of what it means. If we cannot understand the basic meaning of the basic premise of the legislation then what value does it have? 
What we really have here is another lost opportunity to address the Resource Management Act and sort out the problems. I fear that the problems confronting the country and affecting the prosperity and wealth of New Zealand citizens will remain in check because the problems with the Act have not been addressed adequately. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future in the second reading debate of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill as often seems to be the case on bills I have had the pleasure of working on during the last 3 years is not the same bill that was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee earlier this year. It has undergone considerable change and one of the good parts of the parliamentary process is the fact that we are able to listen to submissions and make amendments that respond to input from the public. 
I put on record my thanks to the officials for their hard work and assistance over the gruelling submission process. We had to work to a very tight time frame and the officials were very helpful through that process and through the consideration and deliberation phase. I also thank the committee’s advisers for their assistance and advice. Over the past year we have had a lot of discussions with the Government and in particular the Associate Minister for the Environment and officials from the Ministry for the Environment on how we could work to make the Resource Management Act more effective and more efficient. We concluded that it was the process provisions in the Act that this next reform bill needed to focus on rather than amendments to Part II in the bill—the major foundation of the principal Act itself. That is still our view—that we do not need to touch those provisions but that we need to work on making the Act work more efficiently and work on the local council processes and on their handling of this Act. 
It is true that some of the proposals contained in the original bill were soundly rejected by a broad cross-section of the community that presented submissions to the committee. It is to the Minister’s credit supported by Cabinet and the officials of the Ministry for the Environment that these concerns were listened to and responded to. I think that part of the process of amending legislation—the select committee process—is the strength of our parliamentary democracy. 
I also want to thank the committee clerks who worked so long and hard to serve us and the people of New Zealand in the work surrounding submissions to the select committee and the drafting of our reports. Thanks also go to the staff from the Parliamentary Counsel Office who draft and redraft our suggested changes. As I said some major parts of this bill were rejected by a broad cross-section of the community that presented submissions to the committee particularly the plans to shift away from de novo hearing processes in the Environment Court but that does not mean that this bill does not still contain many useful amendments that have been welcomed supported and endorsed by many. The suggestion from the Green Party that this bill is just a little bit of tinkering is far short of the mark. The amendments in this bill once adopted will result in more workable proposals and more workable implementation of the Resource Management Act across the nation. 
To our surprise a very interesting by-product came from this process. I once suggested to the committee that it might have even been a clever plan of the Government to have engineered it this way but I have since discarded that possibility. It was that we had representatives from the business community the development community and sector local government and environmental groups all coming to the committee to assure us that the operation of the Resource Management Act was not as bad as some were continuing to make out and that in fact the Environment Court in particular was now operating on a much more efficient and timely basis. They begged us really not to make too many radical changes to the Resource Management Act because they believe that the amendments passed in the past 3 years and the efficiencies gained in the Environment Court were making major changes and major improvements to the way the Act was operating. 
Certainly much of the credit for that must go to Judge Bollard and I thank him for the time he gave to the committee and for the insight we gained from his advice and his comments. The planning system the management file case tracking system which he has implemented has made huge improvements to the operation of the Environment Court so much so that many of the submitters said that it had taken only 6 months for them to have their appeals go through the Environment Court and that is making everything work much better. 
Based on all the feedback we received I think it is a little out of date to be blaming the Resource Management Act for all the problems in the country and to be calling for a major overhaul. In my opinion that is no longer the way forward. We hear the speech from Ken Shirley and the ACT party frequently but never do we find any real policy from the ACT party on what it would do if it did abolish the Resource Management Act or on what it would replace it with. 
I note that National is intending some further changes in its election policies and I think that some of those changes would have United Future’s support. Certainly three of National’s proposed changes are already accomplished in this bill—namely enabling resource consent applicants to refuse further information requests from councils and to have their consent accepted or rejected on the information provided. In fact it was Nick Smith who helped us find the way forward with this and I thank him for that so that in practice it did not become a back-door way for applicants to bypass the local authority processes and go direct to the Environment Court—something all the committee wanted to avoid. 
The bill also expands the capacity of councils to reject vexatious and frivolous objectors. That is another part of National’s policy though we may find that that new capacity is very seldom used. The new power although given to the councils may not be useful on many occasions because the amendments we have had to make in order to safeguard any abuse of that power make it almost potentially more of a risk to ever strike out a submission that is frivolous or vexatious. In many cases it is simply better to let it sit there and be ignored. Then there is the direct referral to the Environment Court which is something else National is calling for and something certainly that United Future has been urging the Government to consider since our time here in this Parliament. In 2002 we began to call on it to do this and we are very pleased to see that although it is in a slightly different form than we first envisaged and certainly slightly different from what National is proposing it is adopted in this legislation and is given to the Minister as one of the very useful tools he or she may have when exercising his or her powers under the call-in provisions of the Resource Management Act. With those proposals addressed from National’s own policies one can only hope for its support for the bill as we proceed through all stages of the passage of this amendment into law this week hopefully today. 
In United Future we acknowledge that there are some changes that we have been unable to convince the Government to make as yet. One of those would have been the reintroduction of the ability of the Environment Court to require security for costs which we always felt should not have been taken from the court but we are pleased with the progress we have been able to achieve in the last 3 years which culminates in this bill before the House this week. It is United Future’s intention to ensure that future Governments conduct a biannual review of the Resource Management Act to ensure that ongoing improvements are achieved for all concerned. Legislation such as the Resource Management Act will always be somewhat of a work in progress and will need ongoing monitoring and improvement so that we can make it work as best as possible. 
In this bill we have deleted the words “national interest” mentioned in it. United Future was keen to see that go because the concept of national interest is not defined and many submitters considered its use ambiguous and we agreed with them. Also there was a need to make much clearer what the new ministerial powers were because many submitters thought they would be Godlike powers and we were pleased to see that corrected. We understand though that the Minister needs adequate tools to monitor the performance of local authorities particularly our regional councils for they are the first level of Government that are supposed to be our environmental watchdogs. The Minister must be able to give them advice and ask them to do certain things and that is what has been accomplished by the amendments. 
United Future was very happy to see the deletion of “urban form”—something that we lobbied for—and we are happy to have the Minister agree to that because it was introducing new terms that were not easily understood and not necessary. Councils already have sufficient tools to be able to address issues of urban form. In fact many are beginning to do so. In that regard I of course refer to the excellent work done by Smart Growth in the Bay of Plenty. It has not needed this new amendment in order to proceed with its proposals. 
United Future will be supporting this second reading and we look forward to further debate through the Committee stage and the passage of the bill later in the day. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I shall take a very short call to support this bill. I had the opportunity and privilege to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the many many submissions and we had the opportunity to travel around the country to listen to many and varied submitters. This bill is a good bill. It shows that this competent Government is providing strong sound leadership and effective services. This bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 to improve the quality of decisions and processes by creating certainty and reducing costs and delays while not compromising environmental outcomes nor sacrificing public participation. We do not apologise for making the Resource Management Act work better. The Act can and should be made to work better for all New Zealanders. We have identified a series of issues and have come up with timely sensible and well-thought-out solutions. We are committed to protecting and preserving the unique aspects of New Zealand’s natural environment. That means striking the right balance between our desire for a clean healthy environment and our expectations of growth and opportunity. I support this bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I was as aggrieved as Nick Smith and the majority of members in this House to see Supplementary Order Paper 389 come forward today in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope without any forewarning from the Government not just to us as members of Parliament but of course to the general public whom we are supposed to represent. In it we see 132 clauses that cannot be considered by this House in any depth or by the public and we are appalled at that. Of course it is not the only supplementary order paper brought into this House—rushed in under urgency—this morning. There is also Supplementary Order Paper 388 again in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. I remind members in this House and the public who are listening intently to this debate that the commentary on the bill states—and should members who know what the bill actually does do buckle over in laughter when I read this out we will forgive them—“The bill seeks to improve the operation of the Resource Management Act by addressing problems with delays costs inconsistencies uncertainty and a lack of national leadership regarding the Act’s processes and in decision making. The bill seeks to address these concerns.” A footnote from the National Party is that the bill fails to do that. It fails to address the problems with delays and costs as it states in the commentary or with inconsistencies uncertainty and the lack of Labour Government leadership regarding the Act’s processes and decision making. 
I was appalled at the temporary member for Otago’s reference to energy issues throughout this country when he spoke some 30 minutes ago. The member for Otago who is a temporary member must have his head in the sand. I know that he is diverted by the fact that John Carter and the National Party candidate for Otago are out there door-knocking today in Otago in Queenstown and around there collecting votes—he will be diverted by that. The reality is that his statement that energy generation projects—those begun in the last few years—have improved under the Labour Government is absolute rubbish. All of New Zealand knows there has been a raft of energy generation projects and transmission projects put on the back burner with no decision pending throughout this country over the last few years. Companies such as Meridian Energy Genesis Power and Contact Energy have all put proposals on the table. They have all stumped up with the cash set out their ideas for where they would generate electricity and asked to be shown where they need to make changes. But there has been no certainty for them and there has been no certainty for the public. 
I will give just four examples. Project Aqua in the South Island was a proposal for hydroelectricity generation. There was no certainty on that proposal for the farmers the public and the generation company down in the South Island for many many months because of the elongated and bureaucratic processes of the Resource Management Act. There was the wind generation project in south Auckland which apparently was going to scare a whole lot of horses. Under the Act and this Government for months and months there was no certainty for the public the energy generation company and the horses in south Auckland in respect of that wind generation project and of course it has not commenced. In the electorate that I represent there was a proposal to put in a coal-fired power station at Marsden Point. The good people living at Marsden Point and Whangarei Heads and the energy company Mighty River Power have had no certainty at all of that project going forward because of the elongated and uncertain processes under the Act—absolutely no certainty whatsoever. 
Of course there is also the issue of the transmission lines into Auckland. For the landowners affected this Government has kicked the issue for touch by passing it on to the Electricity Commission which will not make a decision until next June. There is uncertainty for those landowners for Transpower for 1 million Aucklanders who when they get up in the morning like to have a hot shower for the dairy farmers who when they get up in the morning would like to think that the milking machines will work and for all the businesses in downtown Auckland that want to open up their tills. There is no certainty for them for landowners in the north Waikato and south Auckland area and for Transpower. Those are four examples under this Government of electricity industry projects being put on the table with the proposal and the cash but of there being no certainty for those affected or for the generating companies either. So it is a joke that the temporary member for Otago says that things have been going smoothly under this Labour Government when it comes to the Act. 
The National Party is absolutely delighted that it was able to make some major changes and gut the bill that came into the House originally. Originally the bill was tied up in bureaucratic processes that gave people more and more opportunities to object irrespective of whether their objections were vexatious or genuine and we had some effect on pulling back that bureaucracy. But we believe that this bill still just tinkers with the Act. A major overhaul of the Act is required and this bill will not resolve the substantial concerns over costs delays and uncertainty. We need to fix the Act. It needs a major overhaul not tinkering. National has come out very clearly and said that in the first 3 months of taking over the Government offices we will table a serious Resource Management Act bill. In 9 months we will pass that bill having given 6 months’ opportunity to the public to have an effect on the bill that we table. We know that after 13 years most of the country understands the difficulties in the Act and what is required and we will introduce those changes. 
For example we will prevent vexatious and frivolous objectors by doing three things. One is that we will not fund them to be vexatious and frivolous. At the moment the environment fund pays objectors to go to court. There is no cost on them and they can stop projects from going through. The Labour Government funds people to do that. National will get rid of environmental legal aid for vexatious and frivolous objectors. Secondly we will hold them to account. We will allow the court where it has been proven that objectors have been frivolous and vexatious to award costs against them so that they will carry risk when they object to a proposal for no good reason. They will carry costs if it is proven that they have objected for no good reason. We will also introduce standing whereby only someone directly affected by a development proposal can be involved in the process. It is easy to work out who is directly affected. It is simply a test-case scenario whereby someone is affected to a greater degree than any normal citizen. If people are affected in that way they can involve themselves in the process. But if they are sitting in Invercargill and objecting to something in Kaitaia then that will not be allowed. 
This bill only tinkers. National will introduce a bill that seriously overhauls the Resource Management Act and I can hear the country clapping from inside this House. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I want to speak in support of the bill and in particular of Supplementary Order Paper 389. I do so having spent all morning in my office looking after the positive developmental concerns of my Napier constituency which is throbbing with progress as it strides in development. 
When I came into the House for my 30-second speech in support of this bill I picked up Supplementary Order Paper 389 and I cannot see what National members are complaining about. Perhaps because it is not in cartoon form they have trouble dealing with it. My eyes lit upon this phrase here which amends the definition clause for contaminated land. On the first page of the Supplementary Order Paper it states in relation to contaminated land: “if there is no applicable national environmental standard on contaminants”. Of course there is no applicable national environmental standard on contaminants because the National Party members are social anarchists. They are the apparatchiks of the commercial world who would have no applicable national environmental standards at all. That is why we need a Labour Government. There are no applicable national environmental standards in the National Party. We need this legislation to have some control over rampant commercialisation and policy directives from overseas as carried out by this terrible National Opposition which is fading into obscurity. 
I take this opportunity during my 30-second speech to welcome the election because there are no national environmental standards and this bill at least recognises that. I have not heard one member opposite refer to any national environmental standards. So we need a definition clause because of the absence of any national environmental standards. We need Supplementary Order Paper 389. This bill is a very good piece of legislation that I am glad we are passing under urgency because if it were up to those fellows over there they would still be sleeping until Christmas and they would not know an election had taken place. They lack any national standards and that is why this bill is such a good bill. 
Before I use my 30 seconds I have to say that the good people of Napier know there are no national standards at all. That is why it will be a Labour seat for many years to come. They know the fraud that has been perpetuated by these people who travel to Washington for policy. No that is not in the bill—I am talking about applicable national environmental standards and if we had one from the National members we could sit here and applaud them. But we sit here in desperation at the lack of policy and at all the bluff and all the social anarchy. This bill brings common sense to the Resource Management Act. I welcome it. I just wish I had 30 minutes to talk on it not 30 seconds because this is the most important piece of legislation that could come before this House today. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What a splendid 30 seconds of nonsense. Just in case people have been listening on the radio to those comments they need to know that the last Labour Party speaker had 10 minutes’ speaking time and instead chose to rant for 30 seconds. It is not an original comment to make—that this is a Government characterised by flip-flops and foolishness. Nowhere is that more exemplified than in this legislation the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. It is small wonder therefore that National strongly opposes this legislation. 
We see another execrable trait of this Government in the late tabling today while this Parliament is in urgency of Supplementary Order Paper 389. Unsurprisingly it contains 35 pages of densely written turgid amendments. What has happened here of course is that as a matter of deliberate policy the Government has chosen to circumvent the select committee process. That process exists for the careful evaluation with public input of the provisions of a Government bill. What has the Government done? It has gone through a select committee process sure but then it has subverted that process by the amendments that come to Parliament today. That is wholly unsatisfactory lawmaking. That is stuff that any reasonable Government should be utterly ashamed of. That is why I say that this is a Government characterised by the flip-flops that are contained in this Supplementary Order Paper and by the flip-flops that have occurred in the select committee process as dramatic reversal decisions have been made. 
I just remind members that the history of town planning legislation in New Zealand is quite old. We had the first Town and Country Planning Act in 1926 we had another statute in 1953 another statute in 1977 and then of course the Resource Management Act came in 1991. If one looks at that legislation in its various historic forms it is to be seen that it has become steadily more and more complex. 
But that is only one aspect of the dynamic of complexity because sitting in behind the Resource Management Act and the subordinate legislation that comprises regulations and rules is a raft of other materials. I am referring to district scheme and district plan documents. I will take the case of the Auckland City Council as an example. There are literally volumes and volumes of material that seek to exemplify and explain the provisions of the Resource Management Act as they relate to the city of Auckland. It is an absolute disgrace that this legislation passed in 1991 with an obligation to provide operative district plans has seen an outcome where in many parts of the districts in New Zealand that work has not been completed. So local authorities and those who come to local authorities to seek planning consents are forced to grapple with a plan that is in the process of being made operative and the need to give effect to the current operative plan. 
National is committed to the substantial reform of the Resource Management Act because we believe that such reforms are critical to addressing New Zealand’s roading and electricity infrastructure crisis. They are also important in attracting investment in industries like forestry and reducing compliance costs for farms small business and homeowners. Surely the objective must be to reduce the costs the delays and the uncertainties of the Act while maintaining high environmental standards. 
That is not to say we do not support the underpinning principles of the Act. We do. We support the commitment to sustainability. We support an integrated approach to environment management. We support a focus on environmental effects. Our major concern is that the Act has become too complex and cumbersome. 
Let me give just one illustration. There are 15000 pages of district and regional plans. There are 50000 consents required each year and a 7-year average time is required for a council to process a plan change. Just by way of comparison in earlier legislation there were simple identified circumstances where consent was required. There were predominant uses conditional uses and uses neither predominant nor conditional that required a specified departure planning consent. That has now been made incredibly much more complicated by new classes of activity and by subtle wording of different tests for each class of activity. 
So what we want to do is to rebalance several key aspects of the Act. The Act is too idealistic about public consultation. People talk about consultation fatigue: the circumstance where so great is the consultation obligation that both the parties and those being consulted are simply worn out by a process that is itself incredibly time enduring and incredibly costly. We have the situation—and Mr Heatley has spoken about this—that because of the wide-ranging ability to object minority interests can impose huge costs or delays on communities. Dr Nick Smith who knows a substantial amount about this legislation will cite the illustration of how these days it takes longer to get the necessary planning consent to build the road than to actually build the road itself. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Rubbish! 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I hear Mr Benson-Pope whose ignorance of town planning legislation is manifest. He is a Minister who struggles with his portfolio in even its most simple aspects and he is groaning that what I am saying is incorrect. He is a man who should focus for the short period of time that remains in this Parliament on his portfolio responsibilities. He is a man who should seek to gain some greater insight as to why this legislation is not working. He should heed the public concern which is manifestly out there in connection with delays in connection with costs and in connection with the unsatisfactory nature of this legislation. 
I have said that the Act is too idealistic about public consultation. A second point is that it gives insufficient weighting to the rights of property owners about how their land is used. A simple illustration of this is that some councils have zones that impact on rural areas where substantial tracts of forest in private ownership are preserved in effect in a park-like setting for the benefit of the public at large. It should be no part of the plan that it is for private landowners to retain land effectively as a public reserve. 
Thirdly the Act is too devolved. It results in councils in every part of the country having to reinvent the wheel. Let me give an illustration of that. In the noise area with the number of local authorities in New Zealand there are separate noise standards for each local authority district. So as we traverse the country seeking to establish a particular activity we need to look at the specific noise standards in each particular district. Those standards are quite arbitrary and they should be constant. Another illustration is in the area of air quality controls where there is huge variation from regional council to regional council. 
Mr Heatley has said what our plan is which is to reform the Resource Management Act in two phases. The first phase involves process issues which have been extensively debated. As Mr Heatley has said the bill will be introduced within 3 months of the election and passed into law within 9 months. That drafting work is well advanced. The second phase of the reform will deal with the more complex issues of resource allocation and infrastructure provision. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support this Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a tricky area for Parliament to deal with in terms of the balance we have to strike between legitimate development and both the preservation of the conservation estate of New Zealand and the resources we have to manage and look after. I think that wherever that balance is struck there is always debate around its edges. 
But when we start talking about the Resource Management Act National goes into overdrive with its rhetoric. We have heard from Nick Smith that the Resource Management Act is stifling growth in New Zealand. That is of course despite the fact that New Zealand has a higher average growth rate than any other country in the OECD. But National members put all that to one side; facts can be a real nuisance in that regard to National. 
We have to make sure we get proper legislation that protects people’s rights to appeal and that protects the rights of local authorities to put in place responsible plans for managing their areas’ environmental assets but that also allows people to get their applications considered quickly and fairly and if they are approved on the basis of the standards agreed to allows that work to start. I think that what we have come to Parliament with today in the second reading of this bill is the latest attempt to get that balance right. 
But I say to the House that if we were to give in and agree to every concession National wanted in its pursuit to strip this country of environmental standards National would then argue that the Resource Management Act was too tight—even if we moved to that position. So wherever we strike the balance there is argument around it; that is the nature I think of resource planning. 
We have made enormous improvements in the Environment Court—in halving the time of cases there—and we have also been able to put in place a number of key changes so that local governments have the tools to be fair and consistent arbiters of consent applications. 
I think David Benson-Pope has done a great job of listening to the people who have to make this legislation work—that is our local government authorities across the country. Of course when there are 74 of those authorities there is some variance in the way the legislation is judged and that is why training is so important. But let us not throw the baby out with the bath water in our rush to have the toughest rhetoric on the Resource Management Act. It will always be a difficult area in which to come up with the right balance but I think this bill does that. 
I heard Dr Worth mention the fact that National has a timeline for a reform of the Resource Management Act. I give that about as much credibility as the much-vaunted tax cuts we have been waiting for. We were told were we not several weeks ago that tax cuts were due to be announced? Then we were told we were playing games with the election date and as soon as that was out we would know the date of the tax cuts. Now we find out that the New Zealand public has to wait until almost 3 or 4 weeks before the election for National to put on record what its members say is so important. So I have no faith in what Dr Worth was saying about a Resource Management Act process. 
Finally I want to reiterate what my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope had to say—that although we have heard lots from National speakers about how outrageous the Resource Management Act is with all its appeal rights slowing down development what is the first piece of legislation National members all reach for whenever there is a development or idea they do not like? The Resource Management Act! 
Hon Paul Swain 
: And prisons. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Swain the Minister of Corrections mentions prisons. I am glad he has done that because I notice that Paul Hutchison the member for Waikato opposed the Spring Hill Corrections Facility. I notice that “brains trust” Phil Heatley railed against the Northland Regional Corrections Facility up in Whangarei. Bill English the former—soon to be next—leader of the National Party did not like a prison at Milton and wanted to use the Resource Management Act to oppose that and the theatrical member for Bay of Plenty Tony Ryall in doing one of his law and order routines said he wanted six to 10 more prisons everywhere with parole but as soon as one was going to be in his backyard he reached for the Resource Management Act to try to stop it. There are words for that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about the member for Nelson? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: We could not expect a consistent thing to come from Nick Smith. He likes to beat his chest and say how tough on crime he is but as soon as the authorities sniffed around Nelson for a prison site he rushed out for the appeal processes of the Resource Management Act he rushed out to embrace tikanga Maori and he rushed out to make sure there were strong provisions in the Act in order to give his local people in Nelson the appeal rights he felt they needed. So it really is all a bit much! 
And I have not even had time to mention Judith Collins who sort of runs the National Party independently from the second row and operates in splendid isolation much to the chagrin of all her colleagues as she sails forth. She wants to use the Resource Management Act and all its rights on the situation of the Transpower pylons. Apparently it is quite good to have the Resource Management Act processes for that. 
When National members are talking rhetoric they say they must shut down all that Maori “nonsense” and all those appeal rights and that the Resource Management Act is a terrible terrible thing until something turns up that happens to be a campaign area of theirs—that is prisons—and then they must have a tougher Resource Management Act. National is all at sea it is not ready for this general election and I think that that is the view the New Zealand electorate will take in 6 weeks and 3 days’ time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 
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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want again on behalf of New Zealand First to register our dismay at the fact that the Minister for the Environment has been so cavalier in the treatment of Parliament that this morning was the first time we had the opportunity to see the considerable number of matters raised on Supplementary Order Paper 389. It reminds me of a memoir of the last days of the Attlee Labour Government that tells of a newspaper correspondent who went to see Mr Herbert Morrison and found a half-smoked soggy cigar—the emblem of a dying ministry. The rush and haste evident in that Supplementary Order Paper indicate something of the same sort of feeling across there on the other side of the Chamber. 
I particularly want to ask the Minister in the chair why at this late stage there are so many references to the coastal marine area. Why was the coastal marine area not subject to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee or is there some truth to the rumour that this Government has a desire to embark upon mining expeditions up and down the west coast all the way from Kaipara down into the Taranaki Bight? Is that the reason why there suddenly appears for the first time and for no sound reason at this late stage reference to the coastal marine area to the Minister of Conservation and to their place in the whole matter of resource consents and planning? One questions why the committee was not subject to the same thinking that seems to be indicated there. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s answer as to why there is that late reference in more than one provision to the coastal marine area. It certainly would not have anything to do with the foreshore and seabed legislation; if it did we would want to know exactly what that was. 
Secondly I want to make very brief mention of the fact that in my earlier second reading speech on behalf of New Zealand First I did not mention a key factor—that is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. Unlike other parties in this Parliament New Zealand First members have high regard for on matters of national importance Maori traditions and culture being exactly and expressly spelt out. But we believe that the Treaty of Waitangi provision which was put there in 1991 by National which was not the subject of the review by the group who looked at this matter in 1998 and 1999 and which now seems to be the subject of some concern does not belong. Because of that I want to register now our concern— 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s not what the member says on marae. 
JIM PETERS 
: I beg your pardon; we say here exactly what we say everywhere else. That is unlike others I tell Mr Heatley who have a background of including Treaty of Waitangi principles in over 25 Acts passed by the National Party in its time in Government and who now wish to completely repudiate in an instant—in a flash; before lunchtime—all of those sections. New Zealand First is a party that knows what Maori mean to this country that knows their place in the culture and history of New Zealand and that is prepared to give every ability for that to be expressed in the right and proper manner in the Act. But I want us to go through those provisions in Part 1 that we believe elevate particularly with regard to co-management a concept that this party has no truck with.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 People always know when there is a socialist administration in the last throes of its existence in this Parliament. They can always tell. Here we are in the eleventh hour on the last day of Parliament locked in a time warp still in Tuesday with a piece of legislation that is so out of touch with what needs to happen today it is unbelievable. The Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope who is only 5 minutes in the job has now come up with a Supplementary Order Paper of some 136 pages which was delivered to people this morning to have a look at—a Minister who has spent his whole political career both before he came into Parliament and since he has been in Parliament telling people how important it is to have a robust consultation process. 
I just ask the question: how could that happen? Listening before to the co-leader of the Green Party—the potential future coalition partner of any future Labour Government—I heard it all revealed. That member chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee in the first instance after the 1999 election and the red pen was put through all the recommended changes to the legislation that had been put forward after a thorough consultation process. That was Simon Upton’s bill and a red pen was put through all those recommended changes. Now here we are today with a bill and with a Supplementary Order Paper that is almost as big as the bill itself being recommended to make some minor amendments along the lines that Simon Upton recommended at that time. It is ad hoc; it is the wrong way to go about it; and it certainly will not work. It will not fix the problem. 
I say to the Minister that we all know that this has come about as a result of the circus that took place with Project Aqua in the South Island. We all know that the “muesli man” the new Mayor of Auckland has said to his favourite political party that what it is proposing will not work that it will add a whole layer of cost to the Resource Management Act and that it will not achieve what it is designed to achieve. We all know that power prices have gone up by 50 percent under this administration and that they are continuing to rise. We all know there is a crisis in the electricity industry because new generation capacity cannot proceed. We all know that—all of New Zealand knows that. We know that there is a huge crisis in roading right across New Zealand. We know that the small-business committee that did an investigation under the leadership of Paul Swain came back and recommended to this Government that the single biggest issue concerning small business and the development of New Zealand is the Resource Management Act. We know that but here we are in the death throes of this Government with a piece of legislation that will not address those issues. 
Phil Heatley 
: It tinkers! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It tinkers with the edge of the issues but it will not address them. 
We ask the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope in his last gasp of air in this Parliament why he cannot just listen to his own people—his own constituents his own supporters—on the left of local government around New Zealand and do what they ask him to do. It is interesting to note when we look back that the member for Auckland Central—the “member for Auckland Affairs” I believe they call her—Judith Tizard said in one of the earlier debates on this legislation that the recommendations put forward by Simon Upton in 1999 were evil—evil and dangerous. She said that a direct referral to the Environment Court was an evil dangerous thing to do. Today in this debate with exactly that proposal before us we hear— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s not. Tell the truth. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: It’s not exactly the same. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I will be interested to hear the Minister take a call or either of the Ministers—the one who was there for a start and who got the sack or the one who is in the chair—to tell us why I am wrong. That is exactly what we are doing here today. Those Ministers need to know that it is our roads in this country that need engineering not our people. So the Ministers should front up and tell those people who have supported them why they will not pass legislation in Parliament today that would save the Western Springs speedway—why they cannot do that. Why are they so against that kind of thing particularly when their own people and all of local government are telling them that? 
It has been stated many times that this Government has been supportive of local government. Well this is where the rubber meets the road right here today. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We had a ruling from Assistant Speaker Robertson this morning that it is perfectly within the Standing Orders to change policy in a Supplementary Order Paper that is introduced on the day a bill is getting passed into law with no explanation of what the new policy is that we are being required to vote on. That is as may be—it is within the Standing Orders—but it is wrong in principle and it shows contempt for the role of the House in scrutinising legislation. I was so concerned when I saw that statement in the Supplementary Order Paper about changes in policy that I went to the Minister David Benson-Pope and asked for an explanation of what the changes in policy are. The Minister was good enough to send over an official to run through it with me. Given that the Greens are not supporting the bill I am sure the Minister would have done the same for other MPs who asked in advance for that advice. But given that that has not happened I think it would be appropriate for the Minister to take a call at some stage to go through the new policies introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I am not surprised that there is a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. The Local Government and Environment Committee made a lot of changes to the bill. We were working through policy in some depth quite late in the process to the point where we were presented on the day of deliberation with considerable changes to the drafting of the bill. Right at the very last minute officials were still working out—and colleagues in the Chamber who were there will remember—how to give effect to the things the committee had done. I can remember saying as we went into deliberations that I foresaw a substantial Supplementary Order Paper because the officials could not possibly have all the details right if they were changing the drafting from one day to the next. 
In particular with reference to the option the Minister has of referring a called-in project to the Environment Court there was still no realisation at that stage on the second to last day that the Environment Court is not used to dealing with projects from scratch. It is used to dealing with appeals and we cannot simply treat a case as an appeal at the Environment Court if there is no decision to appeal against. So considerable work has gone into that Supplementary Order Paper and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. 
There are three changes of policy in this Supplementary Order Paper that directly overturn very considered decisions made by the select committee. Those were decisions about which Government members acquiesced—presumably at the time with the agreement of their Minister. I find it of considerable concern that those decisions are being changed at this point. 
I mentioned when I spoke on the second reading that representations from Maori were unanimous that iwi authorities are not always the appropriate people to be consulted on plans and that hapu are often the appropriate kaitiaki. In the committee’s amendments to the bill we provided for hapu in cases where it was appropriate to be on the council register and to be consulted over plans. 
Well one of the things this Supplementary Order Paper does is to take out any consultation with hapu over plans. Hapu will stay on the register but that will have no practical effect. The form is given but the substance has been taken away. Of course councils can still consult hapu if they wish—that is the case now; no change has happened there. But they are not required to and the fact that that provision has been taken out at this stage when it was in the bill as reported back may well be taken by some as evidence that the bill does not intend councils to consult hapu. I find that a real concern and I think Maori around the country will find it a real concern. The bill has clarified that there is no mandatory consultation with Maori iwi authorities or anybody else at the consent stage. That is probably appropriate given that the thing we have to get right is the plan but if there is to be no consultation with hapu at the plan stage either then where is the treaty relationship in all of that? 
The second thing that has been changed from the select committee’s considered view is that power stations have been reinserted in the definition of “infrastructure”. Infrastructure has always been seen in the words of a former Minister of Energy as consisting of “long stringy things”—that is networks—and in order for a network to function one has to own land. Infrastructure has always been taken to mean developments that require a network that connects land over considerable distances. Power stations do not do that and in this Supplementary Order Paper a higher status is given to power stations in terms of the planning process than the committee felt they deserved. 
The third change that overturned a decision of the select committee is that the value of existing investments must now be regarded when considering the re-consenting of a consent that has expired. The committee always agreed that when looking at contesting applications for let us say a water right the fact that the incumbent had invested quite a lot in the infrastructure to use that water ought to be taken strongly into account when deciding whether the incumbent should get the re-consent or somebody else should get the water. But when there is no contest like that—when the contest is between whether the natural environment needs that water back for some other value or whether the incumbent should be allowed to continue to take it—this amendment now jigs the situation very strongly in favour of the incumbent and continued extraction and taking from the environment rather than the restoration of environmental quality. That was something the committee decided not to do but that the Minister has reinstated. 
Other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are good. I commend the clarification on the joint-management agreements and I commend the clarification on the aquaculture law reform. The technical amendments will I hope make the bill more workable. 
But overall the Greens will not be voting for this Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the considered views of the select committee which the Labour members agreed to should be allowed to stand. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I always find it very interesting when people get up and complain about lack of consultation then do not withdraw and think about where a Supplementary Order Paper comes from. A Supplementary Order Paper about this subject normally arises because as a bill has gone to the select committee a number of people—some of them Environment Court judges some of them from the Resource Management Law Association and some of them from a variety of industries—have come knocking on the door and said that they have listened to the submissions and that they have something they would like to say or that they have some way through that might actually help. That is in addition to the normal process that occurs when we are presented with a problem and we work our way through. That is what a Supplementary Order Paper is. It is an indication that there has been listening out there involvement out there and a lot of talking with Local Government New Zealand. 
I want to show two examples. One relates to the question of courts hearing de novo. We listened to what the courts had to say about that and included in the Supplementary Order Paper the addition which the courts and Local Government New Zealand agree with that the court has to have regard to the council decision. We are again trying to prevent people from going on and on and introducing new material forever. It is a way of moving forward. The part I really want to take apart is this question about direct referral. I find that delicious. Yes we did agree back in 2000 not to go ahead with direct referral which is a friend of all developers who would say: “I do not want to go through local government; I as a developer elect to go straight to the Environment Court. I can exclude all the small people who might have a prison built beside me and go straight to the Environment Court.” We took that out and said that we believe in democracy—we believe in people having their chance up before local government. As a result of a lot of thinking and what we learnt in Waitaki—that sometimes things are really difficult when multiple councils are involved and when a council does not actually have a water plan—we put up a provision whereby at the moment the Minister can decide to intervene and can intervene in about five different ways. Sometimes it is just a matter of saying that three councils will join together to have a hearing. Two of the options for intervention involve call-in. Call-in occurs when the Minister—not the local developer—can say that the matter will go directly to the Environment Court or when the Minister does as we have done in Waitaki and appoints a particular panel to conduct a hearing. That is not the same as what the National Party proposed. Its proposal was for developers only—not Ministers—to say: “Let’s avoid local Government altogether.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If you buy Maori off you will get there. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I really object to that particular comment about my probity. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member— 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am dealing with the matter. The member knows that it is out of order to make that accusation. The member will withdraw that remark. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister was asserting that any old developer would be able to get direct referral under National’s policy. Under Labour’s policy direct referral is determined by the Minister. I quite properly intervened with the remark that the Minister might get a cheque and be influenced. There was nothing wrong or improper about that comment. It is a fact arising from what is in Labour’s bill. That is the difference between Labour’s policy and National’s. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that the comment was not in order. I ask the member to withdraw the remark. He cannot insinuate that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This morning we saw a Supplementary Order Paper introducing 38 pages of new law—134 clauses. The Green Party member in her contribution suggested that it would be fair to Parliament if one of the Ministers gave some explanation because the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper only goes as far as saying that it includes drafting to give effect to new policy. I have been waiting for the Government to tell us what the new policy is. It seems to me quite extraordinary that on the last day of Parliament 38 pages of law are being slammed through without anybody standing up and explaining what it is. I think it would be proper for you to direct the Minister Marian Hobbs to give us some explanation as to the policy changes that are proposed in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. It is a matter for debate. If the member is raising a point of order about the relevance of the amendments I tell him that that has certainly been looked at. It has been considered and certainly the amendments are relevant to the bill. I am happy to give the member a longer explanation if that is what he wants. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I would like it from the Minister actually. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point I am making is that as far as the Chairperson is concerned the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant to the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I understand that the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant but its explanatory note states that it makes policy changes. Nowhere in the main bill is there any reference to for instance marine farming. That is not included in the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper makes quite extensive changes in that area and we have heard no explanation from any member of the Government as to what is intended by this lawmaking—which is faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. We have had no explanation of the reasons for the neck-breaking speed of this law change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a matter for debate. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I want to clarify this again. I heard an assertion from the opposite side of the Chamber that we had done a U-turn and advised that there would be direct referral to the Environment Court. That is not so and I want to make that very clear. It is not so. There is a step in between and that is ministerial intervention which can take about five different forms two of which involve call-in. Something else that was asserted by the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I am responding to comments the Opposition has made—concerned an amendment to extend the submission time in the Waitaki plan hearing. I am quite happy to advise the member that Meridian Energy Ltd and all those people who have submitted—I think Meridian finished its submissions today or yesterday—have finished making their submissions and the process is about to be wound up well within the time that was set. The panel will report in September as it stated. Why did we ask for this plan to be reported by that time? The reason is that I made a commitment to the Minister of Energy that this public consultation about finding a way forward for the people of Otago and Canterbury in relation to the use of the water in that river would in no way delay any decisions out there. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a botch-up. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is not a botch-up. It is a way forward for the future that has been taken on board and approved and it has been wanted very much by the people. So far it has not been liked by Local Government New Zealand which tends to have a different response to the National Party’s proposals in relation to the Resource Management Act and Dr Nick Smith is up there threatening the chair of Local Government New Zealand with banishment from the National Party because he tends to disagree—because Local Government New Zealand knows that this Government has actually worked with it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not extraordinary? The Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs who has just resumed her seat lives in an absolute fantasy world. She is wrapped in cotton wool and has rocks in her head. Let us look at some of the things she said. She tried to explain away a 36-page Supplementary Order Paper that has been dumped on the Committee today as the Government listening to the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a gross abuse of process. 
Let me spell out for the Minister who should know better how it is meant to work. The Government the executive is meant to bring a bill to the Parliament. The bill is referred to a select committee then the select committee is meant to be given due time to consider that bill. That is how the legislature scrutinises the laws the executive intends to pass. That is how it is meant to work. But—no—what did the Government do? First of all it put its members on the select committee under incredible instructions to ram everything through as fast as they could. Now the Government comes here right at the last stages of this Parliament—possibly the last sitting day; we might dribble over into tomorrow but effectively it is the last sitting day—and on something as significant as the Resource Management Act it dumps on us a Supplementary Order Paper with a whole lot of new measures that no New Zealander will have a chance to submit on and no select committee will scrutinise. And this Minister has the audacity and temerity to try to say that that is listening to the people. What absolute rot and rubbish! Nothing could be further from the truth. 
Another interesting point is that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope put out a press release today in which he stated that these amendments will not have an impact on development—the Resource Management Act will not have an impact on development. He referred to a KPMG report that is purported to say so. The truth of the matter is that the people who did that report did not consult with one farmer or one representative of the farmers of this country. 
Shane Ardern 
: Or the foresters. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Or the forestry sector for that matter. The introductory comments in the bill itself state that it will have an impact on the primary industries of New Zealand. What a contradiction! The Minister in the chair—again wrapped in cotton wool—puts out a press release probably drafted by officials saying that this will not impact on development when the primary sector of New Zealand is reporting to us that it was not consulted in any way and when the Government’s own introductory comments state that the bill will impact on primary industries in this country as we know it most certainly will. 
Some aspects of the 36-page Supplementary Order Paper—and members have had only very limited time to look at them—are I think acceptable. I think that the measure to take into consideration the value of existing infrastructure in consenting or reconsenting is significant. We have that farcical situation of the Tongariro power scheme a sunk investment. Some of us would remember that incredible investment of the 1960s and 1970s and all the tunnelling that went on to produce that infrastructure for New Zealand’s power; yet another decision made by the Environment Court has virtually truncated those water rights and reduced the capacity of the Tongariro power scheme to function. Of course the Tongariro power scheme in turn feeds into the Waikato River and all the power schemes down the Waikato River. 
But the Government has to appreciate that because of all the metaphysical nonsense and spiritual values it has imported into the Resource Management Act we have decisions like the one in the Tongariro instance. Those matters should not be dealt with under the Resource Management Act. They are totally inappropriate. The intent of the Resource Management Act was meant to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources yet somehow successive Governments have tagged on all those spiritual metaphysical values that we cannot deal with in this way. We have to have separate legislation if we are to try to tackle those. The Resource Management Act tries to do too much and it fails miserably. 
There are other matters that I think do require mentioning certainly with regard to the iwi authorities and hapu. It is good to see that it is confined now to consultation at the plan development stage and not actually at the consent stage because extortion was occurring in this place. In this country we had extortion whereby any consent applicant was held to ransom by people purporting to represent spiritual values. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to give some more background to Supplementary Order Paper 389. Those members who were in the House at the time of my second reading speech will already be aware of this but I will repeat at a little greater length. First of all most of these issues are technical but as has been identified there are also some policy issues. 
In terms of the recognition of existing investment the Government has made a change to section 104 of the principal Act to be inserted by a proposed new clause 43A that requires consent authorities to have regard to the value of existing investment when considering applications for a new consent to replace an existing consent on expiry. 
In respect of the iwi register the reason for the change from the recommendations of the Local Government and Environment Committee was so that although that consultation can still take place councils are not required to resource it at the hapu level. Section 36B proposed in clause 15 is amended to allow for joint management agreements between local authorities and public authorities iwi authorities and groups that are recognised. A proposed new clause allows for the incorporation of external material into national policy statements and the New Zealand coastal policy statement by reference. 
In terms of the relationship between standards and designations we are recommending in the Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to clause 21 to require that where a designation to which a national environmental standard otherwise applies is created over existing works those works shall not have to comply with the national environmental standard at that point. As was mentioned by the member Jeanette Fitzsimons there is also an amendment to clause 5 to include under the definition “infrastructure” infrastructure associated with electricity generation. In respect of the new ministerial powers for intervention in relation to the coastal marine areas this was a compromise position negotiated between the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment in terms of the respective roles of the Ministers and the statutes under which they operate. 
The two other matters relate to aquaculture law reform. There is an important clause to amend section 165Z of the Resource Management Act to rectify an issue that came out of the Aquaculture Reform Bill to clarify that regional councils must identify excluded areas prior to inviting proposals for private plan changes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So you screwed up last time. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In response to the foolish interjection from Dr Smith no the Government did not screw up; neither did officials. But we have listened to communities and to local government unlike that member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh yeah! Tell us what consultation you had. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: If Dr Smith just closes his mouth for a moment and listens I will draw to his attention a comment made by local government—one that we are and should be justifiably proud of. It is that the development of this bill has been “an exemplary collaborative exercise”. Later on in the day I will also refer him to some of the documents I tabled in the House yesterday. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to take up some of the comments that have been made in regard to this bill. I am also appalled at the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope which has been put to the Committee without any public consultative process whatsoever and without any parliamentary scrutiny at all. I just reiterate that the purpose of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill is to address problems with delays costs inconsistencies uncertainty and leadership. On the question of leadership I refer to the purpose of this bill. In clause 4 one of the stated purposes is: “(v) consultation with iwi and resource planning by iwi;”. I take exception to the fact that the Government says that that purpose will improve the Resource Management Act in any way whatsoever. In fact I think that it shows a continued disgrace in terms of the leadership provided by the current Government in that it continues to promote increase and exacerbate the separatist environment that we live in today. This should be a nation where we stand alongside one another and together rather than apart from each other. In my view when one group of people is identified separately stands apart and is consulted separately from the rest of the community that is separatism. That is being promulgated through this amendment bill and is also supported by Supplementary Order Paper 389. 
That sort of leadership filters down into our communities and is the sort of leadership that means that when given an inch people take a mile. We have talked in this Chamber about bureaucrats and planners running amok with the sort of largesse that has been given by this Government particularly with regard to consultation with iwi etc. Now iwi will have a pre-eminent position in the planning process outside the resource consent process. In the planning environment iwi management plans must now be taken into account. But the problem with doing that is that nobody has a chance to have any say on those iwi management plans apart from the iwi itself. What is the public input into those plans and how will councils adjudicate on those plans in terms of the public interest when all the weighting is given to the iwi or hapu that puts forward the management plan? 
I can give members a classic example in terms of the Draft Wairoa River Valley Strategy a combined draft strategy of Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council. It is a draft strategy but it gives major cause for concern when we look at the costs involved and see the fact that the councils actually identify that funds will be put towards iwi management plans. Those are ratepayer funds. Do ratepayers have the opportunity to say they do not want to fund management plans from iwi and that they will fund only management plans for the community as a whole recognising that iwi are a part of the community? 
I would hope that more and more of our communities make those statements because when we look at that particular strategy we see it not only talks about councils funding some of the iwi management plans but also identifies some matters that the councils state should be included in the iwi management plans. It states the councils will: “Recognise in decision-making the home or kainga of Ngati Kahu and Ngati Pango including the Pa cultural and spiritual sites within the LMA”. Now the reference to “cultural” is fine. There is more than one culture in this country so I wonder whether the councils will recognise only one culture. But the other aspect is that of the “spiritual sites within the LMA”. Spiritual sites could be anything. How does one prove that something could come under those spiritual parameters? There is absolutely no way on God’s earth—in God’s heaven maybe— that we can do that. In terms of how that clause will be interpreted people could actually dance on a site or say they have sung a song on it and it will become “of spiritual value” to those individuals. 
I just find it extraordinary that we are giving such incredible largesse and we are doing it through putting this bill through the House aided and abetted by Supplementary Order Paper 389. We are exacerbating the problem we already have of identifying people in a separatist way separating them out from the community and standing them apart from the community instead of including them within the definition of “community”. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make some comments first of all on the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled. There has been much comment on the size of it and how preposterous that is. I expected that when we were going through the select committee process we would have to deal with a fairly sizable Supplementary Order Paper because of the speed with which we had had to work. In fact right until the last moment we deliberated in the Local Government and Environment Committee we knew that it was impossible for the drafters and officials to have got everything right and that there would be a number of technical changes. 
The bulk of the Supplementary Order Paper is simply technical amendments to make sure that everything is right. However United Future and I do not support the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only yesterday. I do not see any reason why other members of the House could not have perhaps had more time to view and examine it. Nevertheless the size of the Supplementary Order Paper is not an indication of major policy changes within the bill. We do welcome some of those changes though because they are not exactly new issues. They were debated during the select committee process. 
I was really pleased to see that in the Supplementary Order Paper we were taking on board some more submitters’ recommendations to the committee and I think further improving the bill and responding to submitters’ requests. One was the consideration of existing investment in applications. The bill already deals with that consideration where there are competing consents on a renewal basis and this is simply extending the case where there are no other competing interests. Of course local authorities should take into account someone’s investment when that person seeks to renew—in a sense although we never have renewals—a consent. That is something business would welcome. Where people have invested a great deal in infrastructure they should have that taken into consideration when they seek to have their consent renewed. 
The select committee also discussed the matter of the definition of “infrastructure”. Some very good submissions were made on that matter. I was quite impressed by the submission—I forget the name of the organisation the gentleman was from—that talked about quarries and their importance. That actually opened my eyes to how important quarries are in our communities. One can live in a place drive around and not know where all the aggregate comes from until someone brings it to one’s attention. The submitter showed us that making sure there is adequate provision for aggregate is important for our road construction building and so on. Unfortunately that will not be included but I think the submitter made a very good case for it. 
But I am pleased to see that the Minister and the officials have agreed to include infrastructure associated with electricity generation in this definition of “infrastructure”. I am sure David Parker will also be smiling as we have had a great deal of discussion about this. Recent announcements by Todd Energy in Auckland about its desire to perhaps build some smaller power plants there which may lead to dealing with the pylon and national grid problems makes this amendment even more worthwhile. I think regional councils should be looking at not only how power can be transmitted into our regions but also where possible where we can generate that power within the regions and therefore avoid reliance on our national grid. So we welcome those particular amendments and believe they will also add to the bill. 
One of the things we discussed in the select committee that was also amended slightly was the original proposal to give councils the power to require attendance at pre-hearing meetings. This comes out of a great deal of frustration for applicants and I think for local authorities when objectors and submitters may agree to attend a pre-hearing meeting and they then fail to turn up. They do it once do it again and then do it again. Everybody else takes the time to turn up to try to deal with issues but some people particularly if they are frivolous or vexatious objectors abuse the system. So we thought it would be a good idea to require them to attend. But as we started to examine what that would mean we realised we would have to have some amendments. 
We finally arrived at allowing the councils to have the flexibility to require or invite people to attend because in many cases what may be seen as a bit of a draconian power to require people to attend may not be the way forward. So I think we have arrived at a reasonable compromise to give local authorities that flexibility and we have to trust in their wisdom to be able to exercise it. In most cases they will simply invite people to attend. 
We felt that because additional costs could be placed upon an applicant with the pre-hearing meeting it was wise for local authorities to have an applicant’s consent before taking that measure. I think that will improve the operation of the Resource Management Act. 
Another issue that we dealt with was accreditation requirements and it was probably the most well received proposal in the bill right from the word go. Everyone thought that it should be compulsory for over 50 percent of those sitting on consent hearing processes at the local body level to be at least minimally qualified to handle those responsibilities. That process has been going on voluntarily and it is already making an improvement to the operation of the Act. So there was no need to change it per se but we were concerned about what would happen if fewer than 50 percent of a council’s councillors or of those sitting on appeal hearings or consent hearings were minimally qualified. We were concerned that it could mean applicants would suffer from having their consents nullified. I think it was wise to make it clear that factor would not impinge upon applicants but would reflect upon the council itself and once the person’s consent had been granted that consent would remain. 
Another issue we covered and discussed at some length was the transfer of discharge permits—a very good idea in order to maximise the benefit of discharge permits that had been issued and to make it possible for people who are not using their discharge permits to the full to be able to transfer it to someone else. However we did recognise the possibility that it might lead to the further abuse of the environment because if someone is not fully using his or her discharge permit and someone else comes along and uses it to the max we have not gained a net benefit for the environment. The amendments proposed to section 137 are intended to deal with that matter so that at the end of the process the environment is the beneficiary. Now the provision will not be a financial windfall for someone who has held a discharge consent for a long period of time and never really used it and who suddenly has almost a property right that he or she can go out and trade to someone else while the environment is left worse off. 
I welcome these amendments and I think we are progressing in this debate and in this passage of the bill towards a very good resource management amendment that will—unlike the member opposite—be recognised by most throughout the country as a vast improvement to the Resource Management Act. That was the overwhelming message we had from submitters as we went around the country and we have listened to them. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak in regard to new clause 90AA in Supplementary Order Paper 389. New Zealand First does not have regard for the opinions already expressed with regard to the Waitaki catchment. Our party gave firm support to the Waitaki Catchment Board being established. We have faith in that board. We have followed very closely day by day the submissions made to that board and the time frame that is set is one with which we concur and we concur with the insertion here of the provisions that relate to the implementation of that plan. 
 We know contrary to the belief outside that should there be concern on the part of any of the local authorities they have the right of appeal. That is not generally understood because there is a widespread feeling and myth being perpetuated out in the community that this board’s finding is absolute. It is not. In actual fact all local authorities have the right of appeal before the final plan becomes part of Environment Canterbury’s regional water plan. In actual fact anyone who has studied the Waitaki catchment and the valley past and present and the need for water will understand exactly why this Waitaki board plan was a sound move. 
We in New Zealand First hope that this will set a new regime for water flow and a new regime for rivers and that it will be a model as we stated during the debate. So we earnestly support this part. It is the one part although we do not support the Supplementary Order Paper and the rest of the bill that we can relate to. 
I come back very quickly to another matter. I said this earlier and I want to reiterate it. Unlike other members we see provisions in Part II of the principal Act relating to Maori. We will be looking for further explanation in a reviewed Act as to what sections 6(e) and 7(a) actually mean. We do not concur with the opinions that have just been expressed by other parties in this Committee. We are very conscious of the fact that as far as we are concerned we agree with Dame Anne Salmond—it is a basic fact that Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. They forged a unique society before other settlers arrived and they in turn with regard to Maori language arts marae and tribal histories have a real part in our present and are part of our past and our future. They exist nowhere else in the world and they help to define what is special about our country. 
That is the New Zealand First stance but having said that if that were implicit in Part 2 in an expanded form there would be no need for the issue of co-management. That introduces another element altogether. That is an element in this revised bill that we do not concur with because that takes us into another realm and it is nothing more as far as most rate payers are concerned than a recipe for uncertainty. The bill should have clarity. This creates uncertainty with regard to issues place by place and region by region and with that part we do not concur. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I rushed down to the Chamber because I could not believe the comments made by the outgoing member for Otago David Parker—and I say that because Jacqui Dean from National is doing an extremely good job there. Earlier David Parker told the House that there was no abuse and no blackmail and that no money changed hands under the Resource Management Act. I thought that it is no wonder the Labour Party is totally out of touch. 
I will give a real-life example to Mr David Parker and then he can go back to Queenstown and understand why people there think their MP is totally out of touch. We have had a case in Christchurch concerning a motel developer at 160 Riccarton Road. He bought a piece of land and started to develop a motel. The neighbour objected and we thought that was fair enough because it is understood that that process exists under the resource consent process. But I want to read a quote from a letter from the objector’s lawyer to the motel developer’s lawyer: “We are however ready to entertain the prospect of a compromise provided that your client undertake to postpone the commencement of his building operation until the end of February 2004 and pay the sum of $7500 as a compensatory payment for the significant disturbance for the remaining period of our tenure the costs we have incurred and our time.” There is more: “If on the other hand your client would prefer to be free to build immediately and is prepared to recognise the greater value to him and to compensate for the greater cost and loss to us then we will be prepared to withdraw the appeal without condition on payment of $22500.” Well! And Mr David Parker says that those sorts of things do not happen under the current Act! 
The best part of the story is that the motel developer refused to pay up. The objector drew out the hearings process by objecting to one of the panel members former city councillor Charles Manning. He objected to him and kept on filing papers to delay the hearings process. Eventually a week before the hearing was about to take place the objector withdrew his objection without getting any of the compensation demanded. But that had caused the motel developer a 12-month delay. We have to ask why anybody in New Zealand would consider going through with building a factory or whatever the project is when all an objector has to do is to put in an objection and the other people then suffer. 
This amendment bill is still a compromise. I am extremely disappointed to hear from United Future’s Larry Baldock who is prepared to compromise and be a doormat. It is no wonder that United Future as low as it is in the polls. The United Future members came in here after supposedly making a promise to stand up for their supporters demand a high standard and demand the ideal solution. Who actually says that Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope should not be subject to the scrutiny of the Local Government and Environment Committee although the need for that is pointed out by our most hard-working member the Hon Nick Smith? Significant changes are included in that Supplementary Order Paper and even the Minister eventually and reluctantly took a call to briefly explain the Supplementary Order Paper. I think its tabling shows a complete disrespect for the rights of the select committee to properly scrutinise legislation. That Supplementary Order Paper is totally unacceptable. 
I hope the outgoing member for Otago has listened to the case I have outlined and will not now stand up and insist that things like that do not happen. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The first thing I will respond to is the misquote that the previous speaker attributed to me. Finer arguments are often missed by her and she missed one on this occasion as well. I did not deny that there is a history of stand-over tactics on occasions by objectors who use the position of their objections to try to extract some promise from applicants in order to secure the removal of their objections. I did not deny that. What I said was that the way we remedy that in this bill is to make it absolutely clear that no one has an obligation to consult anyone in relation to a consent application. 
Sandra Goudie would go further. She would have us say that Maori do not have a right to be consulted in relation to plans—a position that is absolutely irreconcilable with National’s own legislation the Nga Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act was passed by a National Government and gives absolutely express statutory recognition to a promise made by the then National Government that it would consult Nga Tahu in respect of plans for the South Island. What cant we are hearing from that inconsistent National Party today! 
The next issue—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that hurts those members: the fact that I stand here representing the formerly true blue seat of Otago must be like a burr under the saddle for all those old hacks in National. All I can say is: “Look forward to another 3 years of it!” It was no accident that I overturned the many-thousands vote majority of the previous National Party spokesperson on agriculture. My constituents in the Otago electorate made a reasoned decision— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is not relevant to the issues that arise in this debate on Part 1. We do not want a recitation of that man’s successes and failures. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that this matter has been put into the debate by National members. They cannot now deny its relevance having first put the issue into the debate. 
Brian Connell 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. I am going to rule on the point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: I just wanted to make a contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. Members all know that there have been numerous references—I think it is the time of the week the end of the term or something to do with something else. Maybe it is in the water but certainly they have been general throughout this debate. 
DAVID PARKER 
: They do not like the situation do they? But they have it and I am here to stay. 
Let us just reflect on the Waitaki legislation. Why is it that the National Party is so out of step with every newspaper in the Otago electorate? It is because they have flip-flopped so many times on that issue. Within this term of Parliament Gerry Brownlee National’s deputy leader has called for the Government to wipe aside resource management constraints and push through Project Aqua—as the National Government did with the Clyde Dam. 
Some months later in Oamaru Dr Brash said: “Oh no we don’t need that. What we need is a board-of-inquiry approach.” What did the Government do? The Government actually agreed with that. We set up a board-of-inquiry approach chaired by a judge in order to apply Resource Management Act principles independently. 
What was National’s response to that? It claimed that we were trying to “think big” Project Aqua. That was strange. Project Aqua was pulled and what was the National Party’s response then? All of a sudden an independent board-of-inquiry approach was wrong and National members were saying that if they did not like the result they would overturn it. What would they do? What is that code for? They would “think big” Project Aqua; that is what that code is for. National would impose a central government decision rather than a proper principled Resource Management Act decision chaired by a judge. 
What is the latest bit of cant? It is a Supplementary Order Paper by Dr Smith calling for more time for submissions to be heard in respect of the Waitaki legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He should read this morning’s  
Otago Daily Times 
. The hearings have finished; everyone who wanted to be heard has been heard. The hearings are finished and now that board has 2 months to write its decision. What absolute sophistry we are getting from the National Party on those issues; it is ridiculous! 
In relation to the other suggestion that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is full of new ideas I tell members that I actually sat through all the submissions I read the bill and I know about the issues. There is only one issue in that Supplementary Order Paper that was not considered by us at the select committee and it relates to aquaculture. That is the only issue. If those National members cannot get their heads around that now it really shows the lamentable lack of intellect on that side of the Chamber. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I am a keen supporter of the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. I first went to the speedway about 40 years ago. I am not sure whether any National Party member in this House has ever been to the Western Springs Speedway least of all Dr Brash when the speedway is actually on—and it is on at a convenient and appropriate time. But I have been to the speedway and enjoyed it off and on over the years. I have taken my children there. [ 
Interruption 
] I have driven a twin-turbo Subaru GTB which is a nice car. I drive a Subaru Impreza now and I have a Rover Tomcat. I have a tomcat car apparently. [ 
Interruption 
] If I could just get my speech across. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just a minute; I am going to rule. There is far too much barraging coming from the side. It is very hard for the member when it is going that way. 
DAIL JONES 
: It might be very hard for those people who are actually interested in the speedway which clearly National Party members are not. 
I want to refer to the amendment put forward by Dr Smith to find out what he is actually getting at. The key I think to that amendment is this: is the present decibel-level provision for the speedway part of the operative plan? I need to know that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it is. 
DAIL JONES 
: If it is part of the operative plan then how can that amendment have any bearing on it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because it will allow the proposed plan when it is publicly notified to stand over the operative plan which will enable the Auckland City Council to resolve this problem. 
DAIL JONES 
: But that is the case anyway. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not. 
DAIL JONES 
: If I may just carry on with my speech now. Dr Smith confirms that there is an operative plan with regard to the 75 decibels. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s 85. 
DAIL JONES 
: I think the member might find it is 75 and that is the whole problem. It is 75 and that is too low. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s 85. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well 75 or 85 we will sort it out later but I happen to think that it is 75. If it is an operative plan surely the only way an operative plan can be changed is by going through the process and changing the plan. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Surely that can be done under the present legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But it takes 3 years. 
DAIL JONES 
: And it can take 3 years; that is fair enough. What in this amendment will take less than 3 years? That is what I am getting at. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can I explain? I want to help the member. 
DAIL JONES 
: The member can take a call. That is what I want him to do because I am very concerned about the whole situation. His amendment to section 20 of the principle Act in proposed new clause 5AB would add the following words to section 20(1): “or a change to a plan” and section 20(1)(a) talks about a “proposed plan” and section 20(1)(b) is new as well. The only other new bit is section 20(6). That is the important thing that I shall clarify. Is the member for Nelson saying that a city council can change an operative plan before the time comes to do the ordinary district plan set-up? Does he want it to be done earlier and be treated as a special case? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAIL JONES 
: If that can be done now what is the problem? I shall be very interested to see just how that would work. I am concerned. If we can speed things up if we keep chopping and changing how many times within a district-plan period can those changes be made? Can one be done every year? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
DAIL JONES 
: Dr Smith is saying that with his proposal it could be done every year. So there would be no certainty in a planned period. If one has a plan that is meant to be for a set number of years before it can be changed with Dr Smith’s amendment one could keep on changing the plan regularly not necessarily even yearly. Where would we end up with that? There would be no certainty all the time. I am also concerned about what effect this would have on say an operative plan for Wellington Airport. Could there be constant changes to the noise levels for Wellington Airport and perhaps the Nelson Airport? Where would there be certainty for people who go through an expensive legal process to fight a case—[ 
Interruption 
] Sandra Goudie tells me that there is no certainty. She is giving the whole thing away. Surely there must be some degree of certainty with the whole planning situation. 
I would be very interested to hear what Dr Smith has to say from the point of view not only of Auckland but of other areas as well. I would also be interested to hear whether there will be regular changes to that plan as the case might be. I am a great supporter of the speedway and I would be willing to give it every chance to see whether it could go ahead. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call to answer the points that have been raised by Dail Jones about my amendments. First he makes the point that councils can make changes to their district plan. That is true with or without my amendment and they can do it as often as they like in proposing new plans. 
The law as it stands under the Resource Management Act is that if one has an existing plan and a proposed plan whatever is the more restrictive applies in the interim. For instance at the moment the Auckland City Council district plan states that 85 decibels is the minimum noise level and if the plan is amended to provide for a minimum noise level of 88 decibels—which is the proposal from the Auckland City Council to solve the problem of the speedway—then the lesser of 88 and 85 is still 85. 
The key change provided by my amendment is that when the council proposes its change it can make the decision as to whether it applies immediately. In other words it has the choice—it is not automatically the most restrictive; it is for the council to determine. So it makes no difference as to the number of changes that can be made. The only significant change my amendment would make is that the council has the discretion when it introduces a proposed plan to say which of those will apply in the interim and that is different from the current law. And yes it will solve the problem of the speedway and it will be a test of this Parliament as to whether it is prepared to back those 50000 users and support this amendment. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 The singularly most important issue for this Parliament to deal with in this term was the reform of the Resource Management Act and the Government has made a hash of it. Under this legislation the Resource Management Act is not being reformed at all. People were calling for simplification. They believe that the genesis of the Resource Management Act is right but the execution has been appalling and they are looking for a vehicle to enable them to get on and develop their primary areas of interest and infrastructure development in a sustainable way and this bill does not allow that to happen. What we had in its stead until yesterday was a 94-clause bill. We now have a Supplementary Order Paper that increases the number of those clauses to about 134 yet we have had very little time to consult and discuss those as a Parliament. I think that members will agree in their heart of hearts that that is not the way to make good law. 
Pansy Wong 
: Apart from United Future. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: United Future seems to think it is OK but the majority of members do not think it is the right approach. The Hon Richard Prebble made reference to this in his valedictory speech and I totally agree with him. If we are to pass good law we need the time to understand exactly what it is that we are passing. I defy any member of this House to have picked up a 34-page Supplementary Order Paper read it understood all of the detail and be in a position today to make an intelligent contribution to this debate that will stand close scrutiny. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope has made a couple of statements via the press that do not stand close scrutiny either. He has said that the Government has consulted business and business has said that the Resource Management Act is not its No. 1 priority. I know that he has taken a very narrow definition of what business is. I know that Federated Farmers believes that reform of the Resource Management Act is the No. 1 priority. If we talk to any developer or anyone trying to provide infrastructure they will tell us that reform of the Resource Management Act is absolutely their No. 1 priority. 
It is not as if the Government did not have prior notice of this importance. It commissioned the Al Dunn report. Some members might recall that report which identified 162 compliance issues. Of that number 42 related specifically to the Resource Management Act. The Government’s own report stated that 42 of the most significant compliance issues facing New Zealand right at the moment relate to the Resource Management Act but what do we get apart from tinkering? Yet the Minister in the chair is trying to tell us that it is wide-reaching change. 
He also argues that the bill will strengthen the position of district and regional councils. I remind him and other members of the recent decision on Blue Mountain Lumber. The local council and the regional council approved that timber mill on the Coromandel. It was rolled by the Environment Court. The Minister in the chair should take a call and explain to the Committee how this legislation will strengthen the powers of regional and district councils when they can make a decision having received and looked at all of the evidence in detail yet that decision can be overturned by the Environment Court. 
Blue Mountain Lumber is just an example of a forestry industry in free fall through no fault of its own. All the industry experts in forestry accept that the way to trade out of their current problems is through midsize processing. They all accept that but guess how many mills have been built in this country in the last 2 years under the Resource Management Act? Zilch zero. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The bill and Supplementary Order Paper we are discussing are of considerable interest to me partly because I was listening in my office and I heard the speech made by Mr Baldock of United Future and I listened to Mr Peters for the New Zealand First Party and I was curious as to what changes there could be that would produce such wildly divergent views. 
I came down to the Committee and found in debating Part 1 that a Supplementary Order Paper dated 2 August yesterday had been dumped on us with an explanatory note— 
Dail Jones 
: Today. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Today was it? It is dated 2 August and it has an explanatory note that states at the end of 35 pages: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” I think I am reasonably quick at studying legal drafting after the time I have spent at it but I cannot fathom this. I think the Minister should be absolutely ashamed that he will be asking this Committee to vote on material as hard to understand as this. 
Why would a bill not be amended using what is now 20-year-old technology showing us what has been omitted and what has been inserted? Why is there no redline version? Why is the Labour Government now trying to bring a closure motion on the Part 1 debate when I do not think anyone has understood it other than perhaps Nick Smith? We had what should have been debate between New Zealand First and National in the person of Dr Smith which actually halted as they tried earnestly to explain to each other what they thought the provisions mean. 
There is no doubt at all that this Committee will be voting on very important provisions when maybe only one or two people in this Chamber have the faintest idea what they mean. That is a disgrace. There is no justification for it. I have tried to work out what exactly is being done with regard to iwi consultation. As members know the ACT party has long considered that to be racist that there is no justification for iwi consultation to be a separate right from the right of all New Zealanders to be consulted on rights or usages that affect them. I cannot work out exactly what is happening here. It seems that iwi consultation will now be restricted to the determination of a plan. 
On the other hand plans may be able to be modified daily. It may well be particularly if the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment goes through that the plan can be modified whenever the local authority has a whim. In that case we will have constant consultation and the whole notion of long-term planning which gives people a framework so they know what they can do with their land will be gone. 
Perhaps it is only the final nail in the coffin of a false premise anyway. The ability to bring in plan revisions midstream and give them immediate effect has probably seen long-term planning gone but I am very concerned that no one in this Chamber seems to be standing up for the notion of property rights. Article 2 tried to protect the right of individuals to do as they would with their land without interference from their neighbours—or princes or despots or priests or anyone else—provided that they were not harming third parties. 
 I was fascinated to hear United Future members on this part saying that they supported this planning and criticising the ACT party when United Future has brought in a bill purporting to want to entrench property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has brought in a bill that is almost a clean copy of Owen Jennings’ bill of 5 years ago and then we have Mr Baldock another United Future member essentially dumping all over Mr Copeland’s ideas. He is essentially supporting a Resource Management Act that makes a total mockery of property rights. 
As far as I can tell this Supplementary Order Paper will be making power stations part of infrastructure—which I guess is useful only because the Greens oppose it. The one guide we can use when we cannot understand the provisions is to see who is supporting it and who is not. As there is bitter opposition from the Greens I know that it must be in New Zealand’s interests so I suppose we should vote for that part. That is the only guide I can use when dumped with 35 pages. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We heard from Minister Hobbs this afternoon that this Supplementary Order Paper is the result of special pleading—a kind of special pleading that is open to some stakeholders but not to others. In the adjournment month they have knocked on her door and local government and resource management lawyers have come as have other stakeholders and they have persuaded the Government to change policy as introduced in this Supplementary Order Paper. Yet the only example the Minister could give us of changes that were the result of listening to the people in this way was that the Environment Court when it looks at the evidence should have to consider the decision made by the council hearing. That matter was actually inserted in the bill as reported back. So it is still not quite clear which of these changes are the result of special pleading to the Minister during the adjournment. But it does reflect the selective approach to consultation that we see also in the Cabinet minutes which agree to the setting up of reference groups on national policy statements and national environmental standards whereby selective consultation is with the industry to be regulated rather than with the public the environmental movement or whatever is progressing the work on these environmental standards and national policy statements. 
Transpower told the Local Government and Environment Committee that it was already working with officials to write the standards for high voltage transmission lines and the standards for electromagnetic fields as produced by those transmission lines. Transpower told us that the draft of those standards was expected to be ready to go out for public submissions in July. So we must be very close now given that this is the beginning of August. But nobody on any of those consultation groups is reflecting the wider public interest or the environment. It is the regulators and the regulated working together. 
I have to comment on Brian Connell’s remarks about Blue Mountain Lumber. As far as I know Brian Connell does not live in the Coromandel and is not particularly familiar with what has gone on in our local community. Everybody in the Coromandel agrees that processing the forests in the northern Coromandel locally would be a good idea. But the site chosen by Blue Mountain Lumber was a peaceful rural valley a completely inappropriate site between two streams that fed directly into the waters of the Whangapoua Harbour against the backdrop of the spectacular “castle” up on the Coromandel ranges. There was no possibility of that site not contaminating the two streams and the harbour. It was not an industrial site. It was a rural site and it was an area of tourism importance and the local community objected to that site being used. The local councils did not agree because they want to see economic development but the Environment Court did agree and that is the way the Resource Management Act is meant to work. 
Furthermore one of the points of local processing was to reduce the amount of timber trucking on the roads so that what was taken out from the mill would be sawn timber instead of whole logs and that would reduce the number of trucks going down the Coromandel coast on those windy roads. But lo and behold what did Blue Mountain Lumber want to do? It wanted to build a really big mill too big for the trees in the forests of the northern Coromandel so it wanted to truck trees in. That company wanted to truck whole logs up the Coromandel Peninsula to the mill so it could then truck the sawn timber back down again. That is the reason why the local people opposed this site. They did not oppose an industrial site for example in an industrial part of Whitianga or another town up there. It was inappropriate development and that is exactly what the Resource Management Act is for—to stop that kind of development. The Act worked and the National Party should just accept that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
5ABCertain rules in proposed plans to have effect 
The principal Act is amended by repealing section 20 and substituting the following section: 
20Certain rules in proposed plans or proposed plan changes to have effect at the discretion of the local authority— 
(1)A local authority may before publicly notifying a proposed plan or a change to a plan resolve that: 
(a)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan does not have effect until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative; or 
(b)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative. 
(2)Public notification of the plan must include the resolution. 
(3)If the resolution is rescinded the local authority must as soon as possible publicly notify: 
(a)the rescission; and 
(b)the resolution to which it relates; and 
(c)the date of the rescission. 
(4)A rule to which a rescinded resolution relates has effect as a rule in the plan or ceases to have effect in substitution for any existing rule for all purposes on and from the day after the date on which the rescission is publicly notified. 
(5)A reference in this Act (except in Schedule 1) and in any regulations made under this Act to a proposed plan excludes a rule in the plan if— 
(a) the rule is subject to a resolution under subsection (1)(a); and 
(b) the resolution has not been rescinded. 
(6)If a local authority has resolved that any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative pursuant to subsection (1)(b) then for the purposes of this Act the existing rule will cease to have effect until the resolution is rescinded or the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
90ABTransitional powers to enable a further round of consultation on Waitaki Water Allocation Placements 
1The Waitaki Board must undertake a further round of consultation on requiring water allocation placement taking into account amendments made in this Act. 
2The Waitaki Board shall allow a further four months for this round of consultation. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 32 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Abstentions 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Electricity Act 1992 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. An interesting issue arises in connection with Part 2 that I would like to briefly explain to you. The Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill makes changes to two pieces of legislation. The first is the Resource Management Act and the second is the Electricity Act. Standing Order 259(1) makes it quite clear: “Except as permitted by Standing Orders a bill must relate to one subject area only.” 
We know and I am sure you know Mr Chairman how broad the scope and subject of the Resource Management Act is. When one looks at these provisions under the Electricity Act and what they do one sees that they in no sense relate to the subject matters of the Resource Management Act. When one looks at the principal Act the Electricity Act 1992 and its purpose one sees it is concerned with the regulation and supply of electricity with consolidating and amending the law relating to the regulation and control of electrical workers and with the repeal of the Electric Linemen Act the Electricity Act 1968 and the Electrical Registration Act. When one looks at the particular changes in this bill proposing changes to the Electricity Act one sees that they all centre on the powers and duties of electricity operators and other owners of electrical works. You will see Mr Chairman that they are concerned with the construction or maintenance of works on roads and with the rights of entry in respect of level crossings. That is way way removed from the subject area of resource management. 
Although it is true under Standing Order 259(2) that “A bill may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts…”—and that is an obvious point to acknowledge—a bill must relate to one subject area only. When one looks at Standing Orders 261 and 262 one sees that none of the exceptions referred to apply. I am asking you Mr Chairman to take a hard look at what seems to be a clear breach of the Standing Orders. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 This bill received its first reading on 14 December 2004. The member referred to Standing Orders 259 261 and 262 but helpfully for his own argument left out Standing Order 260 which states: “The Speaker scrutinises each bill on its introduction to ensure that it complies with Standing Order 259.” By virtue of the bill receiving its first reading on 14 December last year it had to be introduced into Parliament before that. For the introduction to have been accepted the Speaker had to verify that it did indeed comply with Standing Order 259. So 8 months later is a little late to raise objections about the content of the bill. It is clearly covered by Standing Order 260. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am advised also Mr Chairman that the very issue of the appropriateness or not of the inclusion of these two matters in the bill was determined by the house—I believe on 1 December—immediately after its tabling so the House has already made a decision I understand on the very matter that has been raised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much for that. Can I just say— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just keep on cheating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order. I am ready to rule but I will hear the Hon Mark Burton. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite Nick Smith cannot make the claim against the Chair that he made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It wasn’t against the Chair; it was against the Government. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. He directed the words “Keep on cheating.” at the Chair. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No at the Government. You know all about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that members in this place are of long-standing. The member well knows that there are to be no interjections at all during points of order. The member is warned. He has his first yellow card. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am curious—as this is a matter of principle—about the reference to the House having previously made a decision on this. I would be obliged if we could be referred to it rather than there just being an assertion. I imagine there must some record of it if the House did in fact make that earlier decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that the House has resolved to allow the bill to proceed despite Standing Order 259 and the Government gave notice of a motion to gain the House’s authority for the bill to proceed. The House resolved accordingly and it was done on 1 December 2004. I have the notice here and the member is quite welcome to look at it here on the Table. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to commend my colleague Richard Worth for highlighting the way that this Government will trample all over the Standing Orders. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: But the House did it by majority. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh but the House did it by majority he says. That is what I mean by cheating. The Government is always cheating on the rules; it is always ahead of the play. That is why I have in front of me a press release from the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope stating that we need to consult more with regard to the Resource Management Act and electricity but he does not apply that to himself. We have Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope which includes 134 changes on which there has been absolutely no public participation consultation or anything. In fact we received that Supplementary Order Paper only today and that Mr Chairman is a disgrace. 
What is even more extraordinary about this Government is that this bill is so radically different from the version introduced by the Minister. The Minister brought a bill to the House and said he had done all his homework he stood by the bill and he had got it right yet very little has survived of the significant proposals that David Benson-Pope introduced in this mashed bill. 
The provisions in this part relate to changes to the Electricity Act. We rightly ask why the Government is sneaking through some changes regarding electricity in a resource management bill. Actually Dr Cullen has let the snake out of the bag. He said that Labour knows it is going down the tubes and that if it does survive by the skin of its teeth it will be with the Green Party’s support. There is no way the Green Party would ever support these sorts of draconian measures so Dr Cullen said Labour should bang them through the House–ram them through the House. 
Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is what Dr Cullen insinuated at a public meeting that included Business New Zealand. He said Labour had to ram these changes through before they get dished up to—[ 
Interruption 
] Government members want to talk about everything but that which is in the bill. I understand the reason for that. If I were a Government member in my last few days in Parliament as Clayton Cosgrove and Darren Hughes are the last issue that I would want to talk about is the mess that the Government has made in terms of electricity and resource management. I would be so embarrassed that I would be like the rest of their colleagues who are hiding in the corridors. 
The reality is that the Government has made such a complete hash of this area of law that the changes it is making to the Electricity Act are nothing more than a panicked reaction at the last moment before an election. The Government knows that it is in trouble. It knows that from the reports of electricity crises throughout the country. It knows that because it has rejected initiatives like the Dobson River scheme and Project Aqua and because it has refused over and over again to make changes to the Resource Management Act this country is lining itself up for a very serious electricity crisis. The Government has nobody but itself to blame for that and that is one of the many reasons why it will go in 51 days’ time. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in respect of Part 2 which has now substantively become a bill in its own right. I remind the Committee that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard a very interesting submission from New Era Energy. I want to quote the Hon Rob Storey a former Minister for the Environment because his comments are in line with our thinking in New Zealand First—and this is talking not just of the original bill but of the revised bill. He said: “As a former Minister for the Environment I am horrified at the amount of uncheckable and largely unfettered power which is proposed to be given through this law to any Minister who in future holds this portfolio.” He also stated that he was mystified as to why an advocate which is normally the role of the Minister for the Environment could in future be forced into a situation under this bill where “the environmental interest may be secondary to short-term commercial gains”. 
If that statement was to stand alone one would think that that was a matter of opinion. But today we read that at long last—although it has widely been known in the wider world—this Government is planning a series of new national standards particularly in regard to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure and that these when they come on line particularly national policy on contentious topics such as electricity generation should help to set a standard for construction and operation. One must regard the late addition of this section of the bill as being one for justifiable suspicion because that is the way it would seem. 
One of the issues about this bill—and on behalf of New Zealand First I want to express this very strongly—in regard to policy statements and national standards is the uncertainty and the mixed message that the Government has been sending throughout its time. What happens is that Government members have probably gone off to a conference been clapped on the back and cheered by the party leaders there— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Go drinking! 
JIM PETERS 
: They probably go drinking as well in the after hours then make an unfettered promise that they would fix it. Then they come back here and suddenly realise that the reality may be something different. So we have a whole series of uncertain opinions culminating in the bill that is before us. There can be no other explanation for this very late change. Those of us who heard the submissions were particularly interested to see that the small but interesting section was put right particularly in regard to where works could be carried out above the ground or at which height. 
New Zealand First still has reservations about what national standards and policy statements under this Government would mean particularly with regard to their gestation and the lack of community input throughout the whole process. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 National members have criticised the Labour Government for not doing enough to ensure we get more big power stations more big pylons and more big roads. They need not be concerned. This whole legislation and everything that flows from it is about forcing big infrastructure projects on to unwilling communities. In Part 2 those two clauses about works crossing roads—extending it from 110 to 400 kilovolts—are just a detail of the Electricity Act. The real meat of it is in Part 1 which we have discussed before. 
The combination of absolute environmental standards with ministerial direction may say for example that huge transmission lines shall be a permitted use in district plans—that is clearly what is envisaged. National environmental standards will say for example that electromagnetic fields must be allowed to be 100 times stronger than those that have been shown in recent UK studies to be associated with a doubling of leukaemia risk in children because that is about the standard that is being advised by the National Radiation Laboratory at the moment. The weakening of the rights of the public to make submissions and the striking out of submissions from members of the public who offend councils in some way is all part of closing down public opposition to this. This is being done for only one way of providing for our electricity needs. It is not as though there is no other way of keeping the lights on in Auckland. There are lots of alternatives that could do so without imposing those huge transmission lines across Waikato. But this Government has done absolutely nothing to make sure that those alternatives can be properly developed. 
The Government has given the Electricity Commission the job of evaluating the transmission lines against the alternatives but has not done anything to ensure that the alternatives will be properly developed so that they can be evaluated. There are certainly no law changes being proposed to make it easier for example for new gas finds to be used as a direct fuel and to be taken to Auckland through the gas pipelines rather than being wasted and turned into electricity at 50 percent efficiency or less which requires new transmission lines to get it up to Auckland. No legislation is being proposed to make it easier to get a coordinated programme of energy efficiency implemented across Auckland’s commercial buildings where so much electricity is wasted at the moment and could be saved at much less cost than generating it. There is no special legislation or other Government favours being proposed to enable better metering and load management in order to send the right pricing signals in Auckland about the time of day of electricity use. There is a lot of technical stuff that one can do with the lines that will reduce that peak loading on the grid. 
There is no special legislation or other provisions being put forward by this Government to make it easier to use wood waste in Northland as a fuel for forestry product processing which would reduce the amount of power that had to be brought to Auckland. All those alternatives are clearly possible and cost-effective but all the effort is going into making sure that it is easy for the pylons to be built because that is what Transpower New Zealand wants to do. It is extremely unfortunate that when we have planning that is designed to facilitate a particular way out of some problems we have such as power demand in Auckland we are facilitating only one approach to the problem—actually the most destructive and unpopular approach—rather than facilitating the alternatives that could have solved the problem. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a few comments on Part 2 which deals with the amendments to the electricity legislation. It has been amazing to hear some of the claims about this very small part of the legislation. I have had people in my office who have told me that this is the Government’s sneaky way of making provision for Transpower to do its work all through the Waikato and so on. 
There is a very simple amendment to allow for transmission lines which are above the currently allowed-for capacity to go over roads—not to go through farms and everywhere else but to go across roads. We had representation from our advisers to the Local Government and Environment Committee. They were with us very briefly because there was so little to discuss about the legislation. We did make some changes because some things came up in submissions that made it clear that not everything had been thought about and they have now been resolved adequately I believe. 
United Future is happy to support this part because it simply means we will have fewer difficulties later on. If consent is given for transmission power lines to go wherever when they come to roads they will now not have to go through a whole lot of unnecessary processes just to get across the carriageway of the road. So United Future is very happy with the amendment and we will support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It will be helpful at this time in the debate to recite the sorry history of this Government’s approach to resource management law. Six years ago Labour’s very first act as a Government was to kill off a very constructive bill Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill. At that time Labour Ministers said that the Resource Management Act was all honky-dory that it was beautifully crafted and beautifully written and that things were all just going very well. Well is it not interesting that in the very last act of this dying rotten Government it has to revisit the cock-ups it made 6 years ago? In fact it is interesting to note that over 12 of the changes in this bill are straight out of the amendments proposed by Simon Upton over 6 years ago. 
I have been waiting patiently to hear a Government Minister get to his or her feet and apologise for stuffing things up and admit the Government got things wrong put people to extra costs stopped roads from being built to deal with congestion and stopped power stations being built. I have been waiting to hear a Minister say the Government has added millions of dollars of cost to people and that he or she is sorry it got things wrong. But no this arrogant Government does not know the word “sorry”. Its members will use whatever trick they like in order to try to avoid scrutiny of their mistakes. 
I want to note for instance that the big change that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope promised in this bill was to get rid of de novo hearings in the Environment Court and everybody said that he had got that wrong. Even in February the Minister in the chair was saying no he had got that right and it would work really well. But that provision has disappeared. He has had to concede that his most important reform in this bill was a dog and appropriately it has gone. 
What is really worrying is the lost opportunity with regard to this bill. Every New Zealander knows that a shambles is going on in respect of Maori consultation and the Resource Management Act but we hope that a Government will be able to see through that. We hope that a Government will be able to cut through that nonsense and let New Zealanders get on with creating the wealth the jobs and the infrastructure needed for our country to go forward. [ 
Interruption 
] But the sad reality I tell Mr Cosgrove is that we will still have the Environment Court chasing the home of the taniwha because of the PC brigade like that member of the Labour Party. 
 I was driving through Waimakariri last week and what is really interesting about Clayton Cosgrove’s hoardings was that there was no mention of the Labour Party. The Labour Party just was not there. I can remember that; I can believe that. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: You can’t read. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Did I not take my microscope? Does one need a telescope to be able to find the tiny little Labour logo on his hoardings? I do not blame Clayton Cosgrove. If I was a member of the Labour Party I would be deeply embarrassed at the mess-up that Labour has made in respect of the Act. This bill will just make the problems of cost uncertainty and delays with the Act worse. 
But there is good news. The good news is that help is on the way. In a few weeks’ time New Zealanders will reject this rotten decaying Government and employ people with the wherewithal to get on and make the changes that are needed so that we can fix the transport problems in Auckland provide security of electricity for our homes and businesses and let farmers get on with creating wealth for this country without the politically correct nonsense that Labour would impose on them. The reform of the Act is absolutely critical to New Zealand’s well-being. We more than any other country depend on the smart use of our resources to create wealth. We want to be able to provide the sorts of changes that will make New Zealand prosper. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to respond to some of that nonsense because it really encapsulates the difference between what the Government has carefully done over the period since 1999 and the extraordinary contradictions we are already seeing in what National would offer to our community. I was a city councillor in Dunedin during the time of the last National Government and I recall only too well the appalling “we know best” attitude that was shown by Dr Smith and his National Party colleagues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much did rates go up? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can recall that Dr Smith was part of the Government part of the executive indeed that made the council and the community of which I was a part sell the Waipori power station. Dr Smith should not talk to me or the Dunedin community about talking to people. We have seen the same arrogant unconsultative behaviour in terms of the development of the National Party’s policy. Labour inherited a shambles with the Environment Court in 1999 because of Dr Smith’s incompetence. Since that time we have resourced the Environment Court. It has reduced its backlog by 50 percent since 2000 and currently it mediates 80 percent of cases. We have put in new judges to cope with the workload that the court could not cope with because that member and his incompetent colleagues did not resource it. 
One of the most satisfying things as part of this process is the way we have worked with local government—a way that Local Government New Zealand describes as an exemplary collaborative exercise. Is it any wonder that that level of cooperation could not be achieved with our predecessor in Government National because it was making cities sell power stations and was even embarking on a lunatic proposal to privatise our roads? That member cannot talk to me or my community about working with people. 
The most telling comments I can contribute to the debate are not my words but come from two articles that were in papers in this country in the last 3 or 4 days. The first comments come from an article by a senior planner in Auckland who is writing on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society. I will read just a few comments from that article: “The National Party’s policy proposals to ‘rebalance’ the Resource Management Act are a direct attack on people’s rights to have a say on what happens to their environment… That provision removes significant rights of people to protect their property interests and the environment. It is backward move… This is because National proposes to abolish legal aid for RMA cases so there will be no financial support available for those without financial means… So what will be the result of these provisions if they are implemented? They will mean poorer quality decision-making greater degradation of our environment more procedural litigation and huge frustration in the wider community at the new system. This is in no one’s interests apart from second-rate developers who will be able to get their proposals approved more easily.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did Business New Zealand say? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well what did Business New Zealand say? I am afraid that Dr Smith has walked into that one because the Business Council for Sustainable Development has written to me and said that it got six out of the eight things it approached us for. While Dr Smith is accusing Labour of bribing people I can tell him that we do not bribe the editorial writers of the  
Otago Daily Times 
. I will repeat for him comments from the document I tabled yesterday. The editorial from last Friday’s  
Otago Daily Times  
states: “The Government wants faster decision-making for resource consents more power for local councils to work with developers to speed things along and national guidelines to avoid the conflicting standards between regions. National wants to go much further—too far in fact … Under National’s proposals we very much doubt whether for example the campaigns which succeeded in Lake Manapouri being saved from destruction or Aramoana from smelter construction would have been more than pipe-dreams. National’s proposals … are a bare-faced attempt to erase basic rights of dissent while its measures intended to diminish the rights of local government in resource consent matters would actually extinguish a basic premise of the Act which is that communities most affected by applications should have the principal say in decision-making.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just your mates. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That member cannot talk to me and the Government about mates when he is advocating a “chequebook wins” policy in resource consent applications. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The leader of New Zealand First often refers to “two tired old parties”. That exchange first of all by Dr Nick Smith and then the response from the Minister brings every use of that phrase to mind. I have been familiar with this Act since it was passed in 1991. When I hear Dr Smith making those very passionate comments I think of the period between 1991 to 1999 when I saw one guiding step from the Government—namely a coastal policy statement. Not one other item of real guidance went to councils throughout the country who basically had to find their way through the planning stages from 1991 to 1999. It is no wonder therefore that many councils although they are sympathetic to the present suggestions in this bill are also very well aware as I have already mentioned of the high cost in terms of funding staffing time and even more important the community input that produced their plans. As has already been said although the councils have been under the auspices of Local Government New Zealand generally sympathetic to this bill in other ways they have reservations about how it will impact on the community. 
For a Government that has prided itself as it did during the passing of the Local Government Act 2002 on a high level of advocacy with regard to consultation and that has talked about expanding the role of councils—I believe unwisely—so that they are now all things to all people at a high cost to their ratepayers to now come to the Chamber and suggest that it has adopted a different path is rather unseemly. I too recall coming to this Chamber in 2002 and seeing a truncated attempt by the present Government with regard to the reforms advocated by Simon Upton. It was very very strange as I observed in the first reading debate to come back and see how many of those ideas are inherent in this bill but never acknowledged. Instead we still have no real acknowledgment of much of the genesis of the ideas that are being expressed in this bill. 
I know that many councils are friendly toward this bill and the suggested changes. They have yet to see the real teeth with regard to policy statements and national standards which I have no doubt will be superimposed on what I have already stated as being a command and control approach to these matters. I would have hoped that for once in the course of this debate there would be a reasonable explanation by the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope as to what the Government’s intention really was in bringing this bill into the House. I see it as being not much different from that envisaged by Simon Upton in 1999. 
I say on behalf of New Zealand First that we do not support this bill. We recognise again the excellent work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee and the people who were involved in advising it but this bill is not the answer. The time for change is yet ahead and I look forward to being part of that process after the next election. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is unusual for clause 2 of a bill the clause that sets the date on which certain provisions will come into force to be as significant as clause 2 of this bill. I want to talk about the significance of this clause 2. It relates to clauses 82 and 83 in Part 1 which deal with an idea introduced in 1999 by the Rt Hon Simon Upton. The idea was that it should be possible to seek a declaration from the Environment Court on whether a matter should have been notified by a council. 
The Resource Management Act is very clear on the question of notification. It makes it clear that an application must be notified unless the effects on the environment are minor. Even if the effects are minor the application must still be notified if persons affected have not given their consent. The Supreme Court in a very useful judgment just recently made it clear that that minor effects test is the overriding one and that if the effects are not minor one does not even go so far as to ask who might have to give consent; the public must have an opportunity to be heard. 
Councils for some years have been taking a very strange view of “minor effects”. A number of projects have been declared to have minor effects and have therefore not been notified—projects like big open-cast coalmines coastal landfills 13-storey buildings right next door to people who did not even know those buildings were going up and the clearance of very significant areas of native forest. There has been increasing concern that the test of “minor effects” has been interpreted extremely liberally and that people who should have been notified about a project have known nothing about it—but there has been no real redress. 
To challenge those notification decisions people have had to go to the High Court for judicial review of council decisions. Not only is that very expensive—most community groups cannot afford it—but it is also unlikely that the High Court would be able to issue any redress even if it found that challengers were right. So the cases that have been taken to the High Court for judicial review have tended to be cases of wealthy businesses reviewing decisions on the applications of other wealthy businesses rather than those concerning community groups and individuals who have been shut out of the process. 
Simon Upton proposed that instead of the High Court the Environment Court was the court that should be able to consider whether notification decisions had been made in error. The Environment Court is used to considering environmental issues. It is familiar with the minor effects test and it is accessible to people who cannot pay $20000 first up before they even hire a lawyer. 
The Greens strongly supported that provision of Simon Upton’s bill—unlike most of the other provisions which we managed to knock out at the select committee stage. The select committee agreed to support that part of the bill as well. But the bill came back to the House sat here for 2 years then that clause was taken out by the Labour Government in a Supplementary Order Paper to an earlier amendment to the Resource Management Act. 
The provision is now back in clauses 82 and 83 of this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee added to it and gave the Environment Court powers to offer redress in situations where the public had been excluded wrongly from commenting on an application. But it is a pyrrhic victory because clauses 82 and 83 will never come into force unless Cabinet chooses to pass an Order in Council. 
That is the same trick Jim Bolger played on Winston Peters over the Overseas Investment Act. Mr Peters’ amendments were passed into law and he did not notice until the time of the next Government—when the Greens pointed it out to him—that in fact his amendments had not come into force at all but were waiting on an Order in Council as well. 
That did not happen this time. I read the bill from the beginning looked up the references in clause 2 and knew immediately where the Government was coming from. The Government argues that it is necessary to delay the coming into effect of those clauses because the Environment Court is too busy to hear such cases. It has promised that when the Environment Court is less busy then that Order in Council will be passed. 
Well I am sorry but I have to point out that the Environment Court is now meeting its deadlines. It is hearing cases within the time frame that has been set for hearing cases. In fact in some cases it is offering a hearing date before the applicant is even ready to proceed and the applicant is asking for a delay. A great deal has been done—and I have to give Labour credit for that—since the Labour Government came to power to speed up processes in the Environment Court by creating a new division more resourcing another judge and so forth. That court is never likely to be less busy than it is now so this is clearly just a tactic to make sure that that clause never comes into effect. 
The Greens are not to be duped like that; we are not like Winston Peters. We do read the legislation and we were aware right from the beginning that this was happening. I want to place on record our very great disappointment and concern that a good proposal like this has been put on indefinite hold by the Labour Government. But I also have to express my disgust at Simon Upton’s erstwhile colleagues in the National Party. After lauding all the things in his 1999 Resource Management Act Amendment Bill they are now totally opposed to this legislation because it would give members of the public a real opportunity to exercise some control over councils that sometimes get just too close to developers. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Before we move on to speeches on the third reading I would like to make just a few comments in response to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ very clear description of what is taking place within this bill in terms of amendments to allow for appeals on notification to go to the Environment Court. I think she explained the situation very well in that while this bill does allow for those appeals to take place it is unlikely they will ever occur in the future. I think that that is United Future’s position. We would probably rather see the Order in Council for appeals to transfer to the Environment Court never materialise. 
Today I reviewed United Future’s position on this matter going right back to October 2002 when I made a speech concerning the Resource Management (Controlled and Discretionary Activities) Amendment Bill a member’s bill of Owen Jennings and when we first committed to reform within the Resource Management Act. I made it very clear that United Future’s position was that we did not want to see the removal of appeals from the High Court. In fact as I looked I found that it was the Government of the day that removed that provision from the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No. 2) so it was certainly not keen to see that happen. 
In this bill we really do have a great compromise between United Future’s position and the Labour Government’s position as has happened on many occasions—unfortunately not on some of the occasions when we would have liked to see it happen. Certainly in this case we are pleased with the arrangement in this bill—where we have provision for the change to occur but a recognition that it is probably not in the best interests of the overall process for the Environment Court to have to deal with those issues—and we look forward now to the final passage of this bill through its third reading and into law. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As other speakers have said this bill and the time that Parliament is spending on it have given an opportunity to try to fix something that many many New Zealanders have been begging to have fixed for a long time. It has also been an opportunity to fix something that a huge number of New Zealanders—probably the vast majority of New Zealanders—do not even know is making their lives a misery. They are New Zealanders like the Grey Power members who are busy demanding that the Government renationalise power generation. They are people like those sitting in traffic jams right now as traffic starts to build up in Auckland and wondering why it is so hard to get what seem to them to be common-sense requirements to break the logjam in Auckland roading. 
This bill or what it should have been reforming is affecting the people who are trying to meet their water rates in places where there are water rates. It is affecting people who are struggling and wondering how they can ever buy a house on their income when land prices have gone to a multiple of three or four times the average wage. 
This bill does not touch on the basic problem that the Resource Management Act created. The Act’s intention may have been well meaning but for years people have clung to the idea that all that was wrong with it was its silly administrators—that all that was needed to do was to tell the bozos in local authorities that they should not misuse its provisions. I have heard it said so often that there is nothing wrong with the Resource Management Act except that it is badly run. 
But the Resource Management Act is fatally flawed and this bill simply eliminates a small part of the difficulty for Government in relation to infrastructure. It eliminates some of the worst irritants particularly for those major developers who will be able to afford to attract the attention needed to get their developments called in under this legislation but it leaves irritants in place where the Act most needs reform—that is for the everyday developers who are probably individuals maybe once or twice in their lifetimes needing to make some change in their land use. 
This bill should have been absolutely panned by every Maori member of this Parliament because it simply confirms that the Government regards article 2 of the treaty as an empty nonsense. The bill continues to entice Maori into using their iwi consultation rights when the very existence of those rights is a denial of the undisturbed use possession and power to control the use and disposition of land that article 2 promised them. Instead of Maori being here to ask for the legislation to be repealed and to ask for the property rights they were promised to be restored they have been suborned into being part of the process of attacking everyone else’s property rights. Maori have been gulled into being part of the process by which busybodies and newly-minted planners impose their ideas of how property should be used on the people who actually wear the costs. 
If this bill had been doing what it should have been doing we would have seen house prices falling as sections became available without the imposition of years and years of delay and years of complaint from people who want the status quo. The absolutely natural tendency of humans is to want the status quo all around them but also to have the freedom to do what they wish on their own property. The whole idea of property rights promised in the treaty was that within one’s boundaries one could do what one wished even if the authorities did not like one’s disturbance of the status quo. 
What New Zealand has done with the Resource Management Act is to re-communalise property decisions and we are paying an enormous price for it. We are paying for it with our risks of electricity shortage and we are paying for it in our roading paralysis. My executive secretary 35 years ago was buying the land to complete the Auckland roading network. He looks at it now and sees that the roads are still not built. That is not just because of political paralysis; it is because of the absolute despair that people feel when they know they will have to go through this palaver. 
I heard from someone working in the authority responsible for fixing up that death-dealing road between Hamilton and Auckland that the authority did not dare build a new bridge because officials could not stand the thought of the consultation processes they would have to go through in order to build it. It was considered to be far better to build wings on the existing bridge—but less safe less long-lasting with less capacity with millions more in costs and with more disruption while being built—than to go through the hassle of having to apply to build a new bridge which would have gone alongside the old bridge. The Government should be absolutely ashamed that it has not moved to make that sort of outcome impossible. 
Sure Supplementary Order Paper 389 is now doing the sensible thing of involving iwi consultation—at the risk of mysterious taniwha being discovered—and restricting it to the planning stage. But of course plans can be changed—and need to be changed frequently—so we will not see an end to that little irritant in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. 
Unfortunately this bill is a huge missed opportunity. There are sensible things in it but what has been missed out is of much greater importance so ACT will be obliged to vote against this part of the bill in order to mark what has been lost. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Abstentions 5 
ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for the Environment 
: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
divided into Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3)  
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 388 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.