Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am happy to take a call and I just want to thank our chairperson who has just resumed his seat for taking about 3 minutes on a very comprehensive bill.Hon Member: Two.MEKA WHAITIRI: Oh 2; was I being too generous? Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you give some guidance? This is a very contentious bill and the Government is clearly under pressure we know but my question to you is this: is it acceptable in this House for the person who chaired the entire process to take only 3 minutes of a 10—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. That is not a point of order. Members can take as much time as they wish. That is a tradition of this House. I am calling Meka Whaitiri.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The clock is ticking and it has not stopped so I am calling Iain Lees-Galloway.Iain Lees-Galloway: That is my point of order—a member from New Zealand First interrupted our member and she should not be penalised for that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No; well I am listening very closely but on these points of order that have got nothing to do with the process of the House then the clock continues and I am the sole judge of that. I call Meka Whaitiri.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think if—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will not be penalising Meka Whaitiri.Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Right. That was my—MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to respond to the chairman of our select committee Scott Simpson in following his acknowledgment of the submitters. I want to say that of the very broad range of submitters who came in front of the Local Government and Environment many of them were opposing including Local Government New Zealand and a great many regional and district councils. We had major land developers including Fulton Hogan; we had major corporates including Fonterra; we had infrastructure owners including airport and quarry owners; we had all environmental non-governmental organisations; and we had the New Zealand Law Society and numerous others. Even among those who purported to support the bill some were guarded in their words. They used words like We support the intent of the bill." before criticising much of its detail.I also listened to the Minister's opening address in this third reading of this important piece of legislation and I follow on from the point around streamlining planning processes through national templates and definitely around standardising terminology. I listened intently to the Minister's reasoning for why this has been brought in this bill but then he stopped. I was hoping the Minister would explain standardising templates and terminology and then extend himself into the content and the planned provisions themselves. That was the bit that I was hoping the Minister could explain: why he feels the need to take those decision-making powers from democratically elected councils. That was what I was hoping that I would hear but he never gave that.So what is the upshot? The upshot is that local and regional plans are now out. Instead a National Government's plans—propped up by the Māori Party—are in. So every council around this country should fear the communities and the environmental groups that it represents. Even the National Party members' children and grandchildren should have real concerns around the protection of our environment which is what the Resource Management Act (RMA) is doing. My colleague David Parker spoke about new section 360D and the overarching broad-based powers and for me and for many listeners I do not think we got a justifiable reason for them from the Minister. This is a fundamental issue with this bill as I read it. I never heard from the Minister why he requires that amount of power in this bill. That sends a clear signal to councils: "We don't trust you to do it yourself. We don't trust you to actually set these boundaries." Of course we want clean water—and actually the Government can start by actually raising the standard of water quality from wadeable to swimmable. We could do that—we do not need this. You could do this tomorrow—but no you do not. We have given the Minister the powers to override local plans. It is a sad day in this country when we do that.The Minister also made some statements during the debate in this House that this bill helps to not only streamline planning provisions but take out the confusion. In an article in New Zealand Farmers Weekly today Gerard Hutching stated that actually the debate for this particular legislation is so important to New Zealanders that it is even watched overseas. He made the point that the law that we are passing will create a mess. They are his words: "a mess". His article says: "It creates a lot of uncertainty which will have to be cleaned up."—that quote was made by the Federated Farmers president William Rolleston. That is what he said when he watched the debate on this bill while he was over in Rome. So there are actually National Party supporters who have real deep concerns with this bill. It is not going to lead to clarification and clarity for people out there in New Zealand; it is actually going to lead to a lot of confusion. Mark my words: I believe it is going to lead to litigation and when it goes to court as the Minister well knows they are actually going to take the debates from this House when proving their case. I want to just take the House to that point because when we were asking the Minister or the Māori Party what was meant by the definition of "crops" we actually got two different answers. We got that it was restricted to cereals fruit and vegetables.Marama Fox: That's not what he said. Stop lying to the public.MEKA WHAITIRI: That is what we got from the Minister. The Māori Party came back and said: "Actually no it includes grasses and forests."Marama Fox: You are lying. Clarify.MEKA WHAITIRI: So when those parties—yes—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Meta Whaitiri but Marama Fox's repeated interjection that she was lying is outside of the Standing Orders—Hon Dr Nick Smith: She just said: "Not true."Grant Robertson: There are many many Speakers' rulings on that and I ask it to be withdrawn.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I deal with that matter I am going to ask Nick Smith to stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting during the point of order.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Marama Fox did you use those words?Marama Fox: Yes I did. I withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): A bit of you know seriousness might have helped. Before Meka Whaitiri starts again—I was going to interrupt her at the 2-minute bell but just to indicate that the clock is running about a minute behind time. On the advice of my predecessor in the chair there were what he regarded as frivolous interjections earlier and 1 minute will be added to her time at the end of her speech. So she actually now has almost 4 minutes to go.MEKA WHAITIRI: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying I heard in this House two definitions when asking members to define the exclusion clause that the Māori Party presented in the House. I heard two different versions which is not going to help those parties whose only recourse to challenge the Minister's overarching plans is to seek remedies in the court. That is where debates in the House are going to be clear. The point I am making is that there is some confusion and it will not lead to clarity as the Minister purports.That then leads me to the Māori Party which will have to stand and be accountable to the many kaitiaki around this country. In fact one just returned back to the Napier port having sailed out on the Te Matau-a-Māui to protest the seismic ship. The Māori Party is going to have to stand and defend its position of supporting a piece of legislation that will allow the Minister to override regional and local plans. That is it—I cannot say it any more simply. It is going to have to defend that position.But when I listened for the reason why the Māori Party in its secret deals with the National Government is supporting this bill we got told it was for iwi participation plans. That was the gain. Again in this House I heard from the member from the Māori Party that it included not just planning but also consenting and monitoring—and I thank the Minister Nick Smith for getting up and clarifying that iwi participation only involves planning at the front end. It does not involve monitoring and it does not involve consenting because he said it remains with the council. [Bell rung] Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—2 minutes.This is the humbug that we are getting from the Māori Party for its support of this plan: iwi participation plans which were already in the RMA. Over 124 hapū and iwi already have some arrangement with local councils. In fact 83 percent of all councils throughout New Zealand have some sort of arrangement with local hapū and iwi be it through a memorandum of understanding or joint planning committees. So when you pull back the argument and the justification for what deal has been done here it is not obvious. There has been no gain for iwi Māori because many of them have them already. That was a point made here earlier. There is confusion around how much input iwi are going to have through this clause. The Minister has clarified it: all you are getting is what you already have. How is that a gain? How is what you already have—what was already there but you are getting it now—a gain? That is where the Māori Party is going to be held accountable.I do want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to also acknowledge the officials who supported the select committee. The committee had screeds and screeds of submissions—700 submissions—and over 130 submitters appeared before the committee. It was a very complex bill that we had to endure so I do want to acknowledge the work of the officials in supporting us. But there is a real concern I have when we are doing any contentious definitions and terms in legislation as to whether it is the role of our Parliamentary Counsel Office to make that determination or whether it should be done at the select committee. I believe it should be done at the select committee level. In too many instances in this bill that did not occur and that is unfortunate.But this is a bill that Labour is definitely not supporting because the Minister has not outlined the support and I—thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."