Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5634] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will begin by thanking the Minister for her speech earlier for the way in which she clearly explained the process that this bill has been going through and for her cooperation throughout that process. After 4 years this Parliament is about to pass some of the amendments to the Resource Management Act recommended by Simon Upton. This bill contains the proposals that were reviewed by the select committee after hearing submissions during 2000 and reporting back to this House in 2001. Clearly this bill is not a silver bullet to address everyone’s concerns with the operation and interpretation of the Resource Management Act. It does not contain all the amendments that every party in this House would like it to contain but that is the reality of MMP. Each party advances its programme for change in the ways that it can by participating in this great democracy we enjoy as a free nation. There are proposals that remain from the original legislation promoted by National and one would assume ACT would support those also. 
I refer members to the original Simon Upton bill and the definition of historic heritage which has become such a point of contention. If we read the bill we will discover that the wording is very very similar to what is in the bill that is now being passed through this House in its third reading. Also in 1998 the Department of Conservation historic heritage management review which was— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A good document. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes it was given a covering letter by the Hon Nick Smith the then Minister of Conservation who endorsed that review. In its executive summary that review introduced some terminology that says: “This includes physical historical heritage resources such as historic buildings and archaeological remains and also intangible historic heritage values including Maori heritage values. It includes the ancestral landscapes of iwi hapu and whanau and wahi tapu and sites of significance to Maori.” I learnt today from the Minister’s speech that it actually went back all the way to 1991 but I begin to think that Nick Smith could be called the father of wahi tapu and that really is in contrast to what he has been doing as he has been going around the country complaining about these provisions. 
Wahi tapu provisions were introduced by National. All that ranting and raving is nothing more than political point-scoring. We respect the right of Maori to protect their wahi tapu sites. However it must be defined in a way that does not lead to confusion and expensive time-wasting court delays. 
The Green Party should support this bill. I thank the co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons for her leadership in the select committee and for her explanation by way of press release that the definitions in the questions were not specifically put in by the Greens but that does not mean that a lot of the changes made during the select committee process do not bear the stamp of the Green Party. At the very least those changes were passed by the select committee with the support of the Greens. I am quietly optimistic that even New Zealand First despite its vocal opposition to this bill may be satisfied with some of the provisions in it and will agree with it. 
Obviously the Government gets to implement more of its programmes its ideas and its policies than any other party in the House. That is naturally because its vision for New Zealand was the one that received the most support at the time of the election almost a year ago. However as a minority Government there are times when it must settle for an acceptable compromise between its policies and the policies of at least one other party in the House in order to pass legislation. When the 47th Parliament convened last year United Future made it clear to the Government that we considered the reform process of the Resource Management Act to be a priority. When it asked us for our support to pass this legislation which had been sitting on the Order Paper we gave our support. 
The Government made clear to us the changes it wished to introduce by way of Supplementary Order Paper which involved the reintroduction of limited notification the removal of appeals to the Environment Court for council decisions regarding notification and clarification of the national policy standards. At no stage subsequently—and I want to make that absolutely clear—throughout the process of discussion concerning further developments and our concerns with some aspects such as heritage matters did we withdraw or threaten to withdraw our support for this bill. 
The assumption by the  
Dominion Post  
article which stated: “The Government has been forced to drop references to ‘spiritual beliefs’ and ‘cultural and ancestral landscapes’ to win support for resource consent legislation.” could not be further from the truth and sadly reveals how deeply engrained the cynicism of our political processes is. The assumption is that there must always be the threat and counter-threat “If I give to you what do I get in return?” kind of attitude. MMP will involve negotiation. There is no doubt about that. We in United Future are here in Parliament to promote the policies we were voted in on because we believe they are good for all New Zealanders and will help build a better New Zealand for the future but we have said on a number of occasions that we will not go about that negotiation in the adversarial style of the old two-party system that New Zealand was stuck with for so many years which still hangs around this Parliament. 
Even though MMP has been our electoral system for nearly 7 years it is obvious that old habits die hard especially with some members and some political parties. The National spokesperson for the environment Dr Nick Smith approached me in the corridor outside the Chamber after the House rose for dinner last Wednesday and said he was of the opinion that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was in fact a pretty good bill except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is not in order for the member to misquote a member and if necessary I will make a personal explanation if the member continues to distort the conversation we had. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a debating point. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: That is right. Except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment he said that it was a pretty good bill but he almost begged me to dig my toes in and force the Government to support our amendment—which of course I did not do. What happened on the following day? Did Nick Smith then begin to speak in favour of the bill after he had found that those amendments had been passed? Did he describe the bill as “pretty good”? Did he indicate that now with the removal of those controversial words and phrases from the heritage definitions National would support the bill? No he did not. We may still be waiting for the answer to that as the vote on the third reading is yet to be taken. 
I wish to make it very clear that along with my colleagues from United Future we honour the Queen’s Opposition. It plays an integral part in the upholding of democracy and there is no doubt in my mind that it has a difficult task but being the Opposition does not mean that it has to call black “white” and white “black”. It does not have to oppose everything. The voters of New Zealand chose MMP because they want to see more cross-party cooperation in Parliament. One of the most frequent comments that I hear from people about the debating in this Chamber is why can we not work together for the good of all New Zealanders on more occasions. 
In conclusion I reiterate that I honour the Opposition parties and respect their role in this House but my question to them—and in particular to Dr Nick Smith—is whether he will dishonour himself and the party that he represents by continuing to oppose this legislation which has now been amended—not as they suggest because of their pressure because they are really just trying to score points again by claiming that their pretend select committee was worthwhile. In actual fact we had already begun discussions on our concerns with the definitions with the Minister long before the rebel committee got off the ground. Again I ask whether we will see the rebirth of integrity that the leader of the National Party Bill English spoke about as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today. Nick Smith has said that this bill is basically good for the country. Will he now urge his party to support its third reading? United Future certainly does.