O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): This bill is nothing less than the most serious attack on New Zealand's democracy in my lifetime. It seeks to so limit regional and local government that local councils and communities will become—Hon Dr Nick Smith: In the Northland election you said you'd back us.DENIS O'ROURKE: —planning and policy slaves of the Government executive and its bureaucracy. Nick Smith is protesting but in fact that is the truth of the matter—councils will be dictated to by ultra-powerful Ministers especially Nick Smith intent on their own agendas with no regard to regional needs for development and with no regard for the diversity of values held by regional communities. It is an anti-regions bill and it is an anti-democratic bill. That is it in a nutshell. There is only one way to stop this and that is to get rid of this awful National Government this year and also to get rid of the Māori Party which is the only reason why the Government can even contemplate this horrible legislation. It is a 1 percent party—a tail trying to wag this dog of a Government.Marama Fox: Two percent at the last poll.DENIS O'ROURKE: It was 1 percent—a 1 percent party.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: How about we get back to the bill?DENIS O'ROURKE: It is a party not actually interested in preserving local democracy or in regional self-determination on environmental standards such as the freedom to adopt a regional genetic engineering - free region as a regional development initiative. Instead the Māori Party has done deals with Nick Smith behind the scenes so that the Government gets its anti-democratic way while the Māori Party gets the influence it wants for some Māori iwi with useless and unnecessary Māori participation agreements and mandatory Māori appointments to a raft of boards panels and committees to further hamstring local government. The Māori Party has shown by supporting this bill that it is willing to accept a thimbleful of special rights for iwi and in return is gifting a bucketful of ministerial power to this Government.New Zealand First rejects the parallel governance provisions promoted by the Māori Party in the bill. I am supported in this by a leader by a caucus and by a party that includes very significant degrees of Māori participation and representation. The whole part of the bill on these matters as far as I am concerned amounts to a significant constitutional-level change for New Zealand reached only by way of a shoddy deal between the Minister and the Māori Party and we think that is a disgrace. For that reason alone—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but I should just draw to his attention the fact that if he feels so genuinely enraged about all these things he should not have to read his speech. So I ask the member to carry on with his speech. He has another 6—nearly 7—minutes to run but I would appreciate it if he delivered it without having to read it.DENIS O'ROURKE: When the bill was introduced New Zealand First had an open mind and was willing to consider it constructively. New Zealand First wanted to reduce costs and wanted less bureaucracy. In fact the bill adds more bureaucracy—not less as has actually been claimed by the Minister. The whole part on special rights for Māori will add a huge cumbersome expensive and worthless layer of bureaucratic nonsense to an already overcomplicated piece of legislation. The Act is already adequate to ensure Māori have the consultation that they need and deserve. It is already adequate for those purposes.New Zealand First will never compromise the fundamental purposes of the Act and therefore is not willing to admit the parallel governance provisions of the bill. And we are not willing to admit the marginalisation of local government either nor the introduction of excessive ministerial power in the place of local decision-making. We also deplore the loss of many important appeal rights to the extent for example that airport companies are validly worried about not being able to do anything about reverse sensitivity issues which often arise as far as their activities are concerned.The idea that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is behind the housing shortage is an extreme absurdity. It is grossly excessive immigration that is in fact the main driver of that and it is the failure of this Government to actually directly invest in the housing shortage that is behind it. The Resource Management Act has never been one of the major drivers of that. That does not mean that it cannot be improved—we agree with that—but this particular bill will make no difference whatsoever.The Minister in charge of the bill Nick Smith in his rambling and largely incoherent speech last week used Christchurch as an example of why the bill is needed but in fact the greater availability of residential land as a result of the earthquake had much more to do with this because it led to huge developments in the Waimakariri and Selwyn districts. The lower prices have got much more to do with the availability of insurance money in Christchurch than anything the Minister claimed.The RMA is our environmental management legislation. It sets the terms for our planning system so changes to it need to be very carefully—very carefully—considered and that is not what has happened in this case. Changes need to be based on a high degree of community consensus and with as much cross-party support as possible. The Government has been intent on proceeding with the support of only the Māori Party and no others. The changes represent crude National Party ideology with the witless support of a self-centred Māori Party.The new ministerial regulating powers in new section 360D in clause 105 and sections 360F and 360G in clause 151 are thoroughly objectionable unnecessary and excessive. They were vigorously opposed by most of the submitters that I heard. They compromise local government so that local government itself will be significantly emasculated. The Minister will be empowered to override local and regional plan making with major ramifications for regional development. New section 360D empowers the Minister to remove and replace parts of the plan. That overrides the right of communities and local authorities to regulate land uses such as for example the use of a genetically modified - free zone for a region that wants to do that. Why should they not be permitted to do so if that is what they see for their future?A one-size-fits-all approach is apparently intended but it is not suitable for most parts of New Zealand. Regional diversity is one of New Zealand's great strengths. As Fonterra said in its submission: These provisions can detract from local decision making on local issues; compromise the principles of natural justice for stakeholders; and compromise robust resource management decision making."Three-quarters of submitters supported a national planning template but not mandatory content in plans. The bill significantly limits public participation rights in both plan making and consenting decisions and that is the flaw. Similarly the streamlined planning process gives the Minister the power in plan making while restricting public involvement. The Minister determines the process. He can make sure that there is no hearing. He has the final approval rights and there are actually no appeal rights. It could not be a worse process as far as local communities are concerned.Collaborative planning processes are simply not properly developed in this bill and are likely to create local problems more expense and delays for local councils and that is not the objective of this bill nor should it be. This bill is extremely bad for New Zealand's local democracy. It is even worse for a comprehensive and robust and fair resource management system especially for regional New Zealand. It is actually worse still because it provides for special rights for Māori which should never be incorporated in a bill of this kind. That is against and totally contrary to New Zealand's local government and democratic position. This bill for all those reasons should not pass. New Zealand First will vote against it."