Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6204] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am truly gobsmacked that Labour would put Chris Carter on his feet to defend the ministerial veto on coastal consents after the way in which he abused his powers in the previous Parliament as Minister of Conservation. In one foul act he destroyed confidence in the law and actually created the constituency in which this bill occurred. 
Let us just go through the history of what occurred with Whangamata. Environment Waikato dealt with the resource consent on that marina. It received hundreds of submissions and it heard submissions. The decision was appealed to the Environment Court the Environment Court heard evidence for 6 weeks and then the Environment Court judges made their decision. Then what happened was that a few of Chris Carter’s Labour mates particularly Bob Harvey— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is this relevant? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will tell him why this is relevant. It is because we are removing the ministerial veto on coastal consents over decisions of the Environment Court because of the way that Chris Carter abused the law. Is that what I said? No it was what the High Court of New Zealand said in overturning his abuse of the law. You see the High Court found out that a few of Bob Harvey’s mates went around the back door and sent him some quite appalling emails. They were people who had not bothered to submit before the council committee. They were people who could not be bothered with going to the Environment Court but thought they could get around it and with subterfuge affect the process by being able to overturn the decision. 
What was even more interesting was that the Environment Court considered the matter for 6 weeks. How long did Mr Carter take to overrule the decision of 6 weeks of consideration in the court? It took less than a few hours. I simply ask Mr Carter and other Labour members why they do not trust the Environment Court. Why does Mr Carter not trust the Environment Court? You see what members on my side of the Chamber are saying is that we have faith in the Environment Court and we do not think we should retain the power to overturn decisions of that court. Effectively Labour members are arguing that they do not trust the Environment Court and that they want politicians to be able to veto those decisions. I think that is appalling. I make a simple point to Mr Carter. I wonder what the attitude of Labour members would be if a coastal consent an application for a marina a marine farm or a big port went all the way through a resource consent hearing and went to an Environment Court hearing and a National Minister said that even though the Environment Court said no to the consent National says yes. I will tell members what would happen. Labour members would be crying foul from the rooftops. I bet every member of the House—and frankly every member of the House knows it in his or her heart—that that is exactly what would occur. 
That is why we ask from quite a principled point of view why Ministers should overturn decisions of the Environment Court. We say they should not. We say that when Chris Carter vetoed the decisions of the Environment Court he actually brought both politicians and the judicial process into disrepute. That is why that provision should come out of the law.