Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22326] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to respond to some of that nonsense because it really encapsulates the difference between what the Government has carefully done over the period since 1999 and the extraordinary contradictions we are already seeing in what National would offer to our community. I was a city councillor in Dunedin during the time of the last National Government and I recall only too well the appalling “we know best” attitude that was shown by Dr Smith and his National Party colleagues. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much did rates go up? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can recall that Dr Smith was part of the Government part of the executive indeed that made the council and the community of which I was a part sell the Waipori power station. Dr Smith should not talk to me or the Dunedin community about talking to people. We have seen the same arrogant unconsultative behaviour in terms of the development of the National Party’s policy. Labour inherited a shambles with the Environment Court in 1999 because of Dr Smith’s incompetence. Since that time we have resourced the Environment Court. It has reduced its backlog by 50 percent since 2000 and currently it mediates 80 percent of cases. We have put in new judges to cope with the workload that the court could not cope with because that member and his incompetent colleagues did not resource it. 
One of the most satisfying things as part of this process is the way we have worked with local government—a way that Local Government New Zealand describes as an exemplary collaborative exercise. Is it any wonder that that level of cooperation could not be achieved with our predecessor in Government National because it was making cities sell power stations and was even embarking on a lunatic proposal to privatise our roads? That member cannot talk to me or my community about working with people. 
The most telling comments I can contribute to the debate are not my words but come from two articles that were in papers in this country in the last 3 or 4 days. The first comments come from an article by a senior planner in Auckland who is writing on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society. I will read just a few comments from that article: “The National Party’s policy proposals to ‘rebalance’ the Resource Management Act are a direct attack on people’s rights to have a say on what happens to their environment… That provision removes significant rights of people to protect their property interests and the environment. It is backward move… This is because National proposes to abolish legal aid for RMA cases so there will be no financial support available for those without financial means… So what will be the result of these provisions if they are implemented? They will mean poorer quality decision-making greater degradation of our environment more procedural litigation and huge frustration in the wider community at the new system. This is in no one’s interests apart from second-rate developers who will be able to get their proposals approved more easily.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did Business New Zealand say? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well what did Business New Zealand say? I am afraid that Dr Smith has walked into that one because the Business Council for Sustainable Development has written to me and said that it got six out of the eight things it approached us for. While Dr Smith is accusing Labour of bribing people I can tell him that we do not bribe the editorial writers of the  
Otago Daily Times 
. I will repeat for him comments from the document I tabled yesterday. The editorial from last Friday’s  
Otago Daily Times  
states: “The Government wants faster decision-making for resource consents more power for local councils to work with developers to speed things along and national guidelines to avoid the conflicting standards between regions. National wants to go much further—too far in fact … Under National’s proposals we very much doubt whether for example the campaigns which succeeded in Lake Manapouri being saved from destruction or Aramoana from smelter construction would have been more than pipe-dreams. National’s proposals … are a bare-faced attempt to erase basic rights of dissent while its measures intended to diminish the rights of local government in resource consent matters would actually extinguish a basic premise of the Act which is that communities most affected by applications should have the principal say in decision-making.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just your mates. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: That member cannot talk to me and the Government about mates when he is advocating a “chequebook wins” policy in resource consent applications.