McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak against this bill today. Everyone in this House if they haven't personally confronted situations like this they certainly would have had representations from constituents about the frustration of long and drawn out consenting processes. There's no doubt that the Resource Management Act (RMA) as it was originally formed had become costly and it had become cumbersome. I personally think of the example of the proposed water storage scheme in Wairarapa which despite getting significant levels of support from the previous Labour-led Government was unable to get through what was a long and winding consenting process and I think that is regrettable for the region. But it was still important that a process was followed.It is important that the local community has the opportunity to have a say and I simply do not accept the argument from the Government that the RMA which they themselves have decided to go back to let's not forget—there was a replacement that considered all aspects of planning in this country and took on board the perspectives of those that submitted. They got rid of that they've gone back to the old system and now they're saying that the country's being held back by the system that they have reintroduced. It is absolutely counter-productive.I also do not accept that their Ministers are a better process than giving communities a say. What is stopping vested interests from wining and dining Ministers to encourage them to support their application? What is stopping them?Joseph Mooney: Oh that's—Grant McCallum: Scurrilous!Hon KIERAN McANULTY: And they scoff at that but they don't have an answer to it. There is a reason that New Zealand consistently rates among one of the least corrupt countries in the world—because we have processes to keep elected representatives away from decisions like this. They are opening themselves up to these accusations and if they don't like it don't support the bill because that is what this bill is doing.While they're at it I invite them to speak to the residents of Makomako Road near Pahiatua who have been getting in touch with me lately. They are concerned that their views and concerns about the proposed windfarm right above their properties—they are not going to have their voice heard. They don't even know if their project is included in those that will be listed in the Schedule because this Government is keeping it secret. If they wanted to be upfront if they were so confident that this was a better approach if they were so confident that they were happy to have public submissions in select committee why on earth are those schedules not included? They are doing it deliberately I believe and I think it is disgraceful.The good people that live near Pahiatua who have already done their bit have already got a windfarm near their farms so close that they can hear them working are now potentially facing another windfarm with turbines twice the size just as close. The Tararua district an area just north of Wairarapa is perfect for windfarms in many places. There are huge swathes of land that don't have people living near them. Why on earth are these people having to face the prospect of having a second windfarm right on their doorstep when there are more suitable places for it? No one here is saying that windfarms shouldn't be built; in fact there should be more of them. But they should be in appropriate places. They certainly shouldn't be next to people who already have them surrounding them on one side of their farms.I also think of the people of Mt Munro near Ekatāhuna who now may face the possibility that their views and the processes that they've been engaging in over weeks and months mean absolutely nothing because Ministers on that side of the House want to dismiss their views and think they know best. This isn't about a better process; this is a worse process. This is about doing what they think is better and what takes no consideration whatsoever of the local views. It would have been very simple if they were that confident. If they really believed that this was a better process why the hell aren't they publishing the things that are going to benefit from this bill?Debate interrupted.