Hutchison Paul: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17114] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Part 5 “Amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991”. To think that the Hon Michael Cullen and his Government said that they would simplify the Resource Management Act! Fortunately the member from the West Coast is here. His electorate has one of the longest stretches of coastline. The Resource Management Act has to be one of the most difficult processes as it stands particularly after the amendments of the Labour Government. What has the Government done to the people of New Zealand? It has put this Part 5 in the bill.  
The really basic test behind this bill is whether it would be simpler just to stick with the Court of Appeal’s Ngati Apa decision or to go down the line that the Labour Government has gone down. On just about every criterion—confusion complexity cost and many others—there is absolutely no doubt that it would have been much simpler to stick with the Court of Appeal’s decision. After all yesterday this document that I am holding—which is the redline edition according to Michael Cullen—was red-hot off the press.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He’s gone home to sleep. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He probably has gone home to sleep. Yesterday it was red-hot off the press. We notice in this redline edition that huge parts of the bill have already been deleted. I will speak on clauses 85 and 86. In the redline edition there is indeed a clause 85 and 86. But if we look at the Supplementary Order Paper we see that there is no clause 86. Where is it? I hope the Minister in the chair the Hon Damien O’Connor can explain to us where the missing clause 86 is. That clause happens to be of all things about the imposition of coastal occupation charges. I hope the Minister will take a call to tell us where clause 86 of the redline edition has gone to in the definitive Supplementary Order Paper because we do not see it there. Maybe the Government is just trying to deny the existence of the imposition of coastal occupation charges which to most New Zealanders is hugely important. Judging by those criteria of whether this bill of the Labour Government is more complex more confusing and more costly than if the Ngati Apa decision had been upheld here we have again—as it looks in the redline edition supplied to us yesterday by Michael Cullen—a complete cover-up. It is an absolutely classic example of why the Labour Government should not be passing this bill under urgency.  
 The Labour Government has in the secret of the night one of the most important bills on the parliamentary calendar which is being done under urgency and it gets it wrong. It gets it absolutely wrong.  
Let us just have a look at clause 84 “Matters to be considered by regional council”. Once again—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Maori members opposite might be looking jocular but it was they who suggested that 10 percent of the coastline is likely to be involved in these reserves. What else is the Labour Government doing? It is putting 10 percent of the coastline in marine reserves by 2010. That is 20 percent of the coastline. Now those members have suddenly gone quiet. Dover Samuels has suddenly gone quiet. [ 
Interruption 
] It is up to 50 percent now. Whatever the figure is there is no doubt that the Labour Government is imposing on New Zealand complexity confusion and considerable cost.  
Let us just look at matters to be considered by the regional council. “A regional council when preparing or changing a regional policy statement must … take into account any relevant planning document …”.