Sage EugenieEUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am really disappointed that Government members are moving closure motions. In terms of this major change to the Resource Management Act (RMA) individual members of Parliament will get only four calls or 20 minutes to speak on such fundamental changes. That is a gross undermining of democracy and it is even worse when the Government is trying to shut down the debate prematurely.I have a few things to say. In terms of all the debate around genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that of course is on clause 105 inserting new section 360D—the regulation-making powers of the Minister—that goes into the Act. There is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name and I would encourage members to support that SOP No. 277 because clause 105 with the major regulation-making powers for the Minister was substantially criticised by everyone from Fonterra to Federated Farmers to Forest and Bird because of the huge increase in the executive's powers. Originally in the bill as introduced that would have given the Minister the power to permit certain land uses and to prohibit or override planned provisions that restricted land uses for residential development. The extent of the opposition was about the concentration of executive power the undermining of democracy and the attack on the rule of law—because you have the Minister able to make regulations that cut across the powers that local authorities have under statute to control land use through their plans developed with their communities.There was major concern as well about the very subjective decision-making criteria in clause 105 because the Minister could make these regulations where he saw certain things as undesirable. But because of the strong opposition the Government was convinced to wind back the powers in clause 105. Now what we are left with is the Minister still having the power to make regulations to prohibit or remove specific rules or types of rules that would duplicate overlap or deal with the same subject matter as in other legislation. Of course this is a regulation-making power around getting rid of provisions in our plans that deal with GMOs and that deal with crops that have been genetically modified. There has been major concern about that. My SOP 277 is much clearer than the Māori Party's one because it strips out that regulation-making power completely so there is no need to argue whether crops include grass because it removes the Minister's power and it returns the Act to as it is at the present time when regional and district councils can include planned provisions that make it clear that areas are to be free of GMOs. That is a much clearer way of doing it.I would like to comment too on another SOP and thank Megan Woods for dealing with SOP 283 in my name around climate change. Once again this Minister was being incredibly misleading with his comments around what Jeanette Fitzsimons did in 2004. He seems not to have read the Jeanette Fitzsimons Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill which was introduced on 15 March 2006 and went to select committee. That did very similar things to this SOP 283 because it put in the ability of councils to control greenhouse gas emissions when they were dealing with resource consent activities for land uses discharges and the like.The Green Party believes that the protection of our climate is absolutely fundamental. We had a cross-party report by GLOBE NZ in terms of Vivid Economics just recently. It is our belief that if you have got our major environmental law and activities happening under that—land uses air discharges water discharges and the like and activities like new gas-fired power stations which are going to generate climate pollution then there should be the ability for decision-makers under the RMA to control those emissions by either declining the activity or putting conditions on it in relation to protecting the climate. That is what this SOP seeks to do.One other thing in the limited time I have remaining is just that even though there have been significant changes to the Minister's regulation-making powers in clause 106 through select committee they may have been stripped away but they have really reappeared under national planning templates now called national environmental standards because the national planning template provisions or standards give the Minister enormous power to put provisions directly in plans. There was a lot of support by submitters for a genuine template around the structure and format of plans and having a consistent definition of terms. The majority of submitters wanted templates now called standards limited to that because it would help reduce planning complexity.But there was opposition to the Minister being able to insert content in plans because that cut across the ability of councils with their communities to develop plans that responded to local and regional needs. So although the Minister is theoretically reducing his executive powers in one section the significant powers that he or she has in relation to these national planning standards mean that he or she has the ability to just override local communities. There was a lot of concern in submissions about the process by which these national planning standards would be developed and the fact that there is no requirement in the bill that the Minister has to have a hearing of submissions. KiwiRail said that there was little certainty as to meaningful involvement in the development process.Minister Smith has not responded on that other than to say that the bill will continue with no provision to require a hearing. There are big issues with the process and time frames around the development of our standards and they can apply to specific parts of New Zealand. So on the one hand the Minister is saying we need national consistency we need the standards to do that but the standards can apply only to particular regions. So are we going to see provisions put into plans so that they favour more intensive land use more irrigation development and water use as we have had in Canterbury? That undermines the argument around consistency.There is also an enormous amount of flexibility in the way the Minister can develop these national planning standards. There is no ability for an independent panel to actually have the final decision-making role. That rests with the Minister. There is no ability to appeal these standards to the Environment Court. There can only be judicial review and that is very expensive. So we have got the national planning standards really picking up and consolidating executive power which is what this bill is fundamentally about.In the remaining few minutes I would just like to talk about another reason the Green Party is opposing this bill: clauses 11 and 12 which change the functions of regional councils and territorial authorities. They remove their functions around hazardous substances. We had a lot of submissions from health authorities and councils highlighting that there is no overlap here between the hazardous substances and new organisms (HASNO) legislation and its role with hazardous substances and the Resource Management Act (RMA). There were submissions also from groups like the New Zealand Planning Institute because HASNO legislation does not address how activities involving hazardous substances affect people and the environment. We have got in the Taranaki for example major new oil and gas wells being drilled there and it is incumbent on the district council to actually regulate those activities so that you have not got the risk of explosions injuring people and communities and damaging property. Yet the HASNO legislation does not deal with those land-use controls. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her June 2014 report on drilling for oil and gas in New Zealand said HSNO controls alone are not sufficient for managing the risk of spills and leaks at oil and gas sites." because they do not cover all the substances that are involved with oil and gas activities.The Minister is shaking his head—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No come back to the bill.EUGENIE SAGE: This is relevant to the bill Mr Chair because these powers allow the Minister to get—well the bill takes out the ability for a council to control these activities. That power is needed so it can control the impacts of hazardous substances on people. It is not duplication."