Carter David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5539] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to ask the new Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Agriculture the Hon Damian O’Connor the same series of questions I asked the Hon Marian Hobbs. [ 
Interruption 
] No and I can remember the questions. What I want to know from the Associate Minister of Agriculture is whether he has had submissions personally from Federated Farmers listing their large concerns with this bill. I mentioned to Marian Hobbs earlier that the rebel Opposition select committee of which I was proudly a member for one day had a substantial presentation from Federated Farmers and if in the event the Associate Minister of Agriculture has not had the time to give them an audience so that they can express their concerns about the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) I will take this opportunity of doing so to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. He after all has a duty to represent the concerns of the farmers. 
So what Federated Farmers said to us I say to Mr O’Connor is that this particular amendment bill will be worse than the current legislation. They have spent years and years and years telling Governments of both colours that there are problems with the Resource Management Act—as it exists tonight—yet the Labour Government supported by United Future advances legislation the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which in their opinion will make it worse. One of the most telling comments we heard from Federated Farmers was their concerns about significant natural areas and the way they have been imposed on private landowners all around New Zealand. But then they commented that the historic heritage provisions of this bill will make those problems associated with significant natural areas look minor. 
I have to congratulate Marian Hobbs on making a contribution finally but I want the Committee to reflect on the comments she made. As people criticised the definitions of historic heritage listed in this legislation the Hon Marian Hobbs got to her feet and said that she was also concerned about the definitions. The Minister in charge of the bill was concerned about the way we are defining historic heritage and basically told the Committee tonight that it will be for the courts to sort out. How can the Associate Minister of Agriculture support legislation that the Minister in charge of the bill says that she herself is concerned about then pass the responsibility from parliamentarians to the courts to clarify? I say to Damian O’Connor that it is our job as parliamentarians to pass law that is clear and concise. It is not our job to pass nebulous rubbish like this and hand it to the court. 
In my closing moments I point out to Damian O’Connor that the most telling comment made by the Federated Farmers’ submission was that unless we get it right the incentive will be on farmers to destroy sites of historic significance on their farms. If farmers feel that this legislation will unreasonably restrict their ability to earn a living off land they own the threat made was that they will have little choice but to destroy areas. 
Stephen Franks 
: And they will be serving New Zealand’s interests. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Stephen Franks says they will be serving New Zealand’s interests. I happen to farm on Banks Peninsula and was afflicted with the Banks Peninsula district plan which had huge swats over my land of significant natural areas. They missed the most significant part of the farm. I say to Damian O’Connor that I would not be so irresponsible as to destroy it. But it just goes to show that if we want to advance laws that protect our landscape we have to do it with cooperation.