Carter David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Carter David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5326] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I will start by saying that the comments made by the Labour member Clayton Cosgrove show just how out of touch he is with this legislation when the mining industry which he said he has some knowledge of was powerfully presenting before the rebel select committee saying that this bill does nothing to assist its industry. Clayton Cosgrove can now go back and talk to his industry. That industry is not happy at all. 
I want to recall the contribution made by Jeanette Fitzsimons today. She said that her party will not vote for this bill. Let New Zealand be aware that if this legislation passes it will pass with the support of United Future. United Future has sold out on what it promised to do about the Resource Management Act. Today that party will assist the Government in passing this bill which does nothing to solve the problems that this country has with that Act. 
I well remember the lead up to the last general election when one of the main issues that was discussed time and time again at election meetings throughout this country was the fact that the Resource Management Act was a hindrance to further development and wealth creation in this country. On every platform that I spoke on at which a United Future member was present the United Future member said that United Future was the common-sense party and it would ensure changes to the Resource Management Act that would fix the problem. Those United Future members are today selling out completely on the commitments they made. This legislation does very little. It is an abuse of process such as I have never seen in this Parliament before and it will pass into legislation because United Future will allow it to do so. 
As we listen to the debate many contributions made by Labour Party people suggest to me that they have forgotten what legislation we are actually discussing. We are discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). David Parker from Otago can stand in the House and talk about the submissions to this legislation and the submissioners. If he does so then he is either seriously mistaken or he is—other words that I will not use Mr Speaker because you might not like them. 
This bill was delivered to Parliament with an instruction that the bill was to be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of the committee receiving a briefing from officials. The instruction precluded the committee from calling for submissions and hearing evidence and the committee was required to report back by 28 April 2003. Never in the time that I have been in this Parliament has such an instruction been given to legislation that specifically said: “Officials can speak to a select committee but other submissioners cannot.” I congratulate the initiatives of my National Party colleagues New Zealand First members and ACT members when they said that this legislation is of such significance that submissioners have a right to be heard. They did the work that the Labour Government and United Future people were not prepared to do. They sat at select committee hearings up and down the country. On one occasion here in Wellington I sat at a hearing through the day. Whilst I sat on that select committee one clear and concise question was put to every submissioner and I think we saw about eight submissioners that day. The question was: “Will this No. 2 amendment bill improve the process?”. Each and every submissioner answered that question by saying: “No this legislation will actually make the process worse.” [ 
Interruption 
] Larry Baldock says that he does not agree with me. He was not prepared even to come to these select committee meetings. That lazy member here doing the Government’s work was not interested in hearing the truth. After National Party New Zealand First and ACT members had done the work and heard the submissions we then went back to the main select committee. We had to fight like hell to have our minority report included. 
In this regard the Standing Orders are quite specific. The committee has a right either to accept or not to accept a minority report but it does not have a right to write the words. However National Party members supported by New Zealand First and ACT had to fight viciously to make sure the minority report was included but not before the chair herself took the opportunity of insulting each and every one of those submissioners. 
The minority report that I wanted included listed the names of the people who had made the effort to come before the rebel select committee to state their views. The chair Jeanette Fitzsimons said that those names were irrelevant to the process. Today in the House I say that AMP Investments Beca Carter the Construction Industry Council the New Zealand Contractors Federation the Employers and Manufacturers Association Foodstuff (NZ) Ltd the Forest Industries Council and the New Zealand Forest Owners Association are not irrelevant. They are the organisations that provide the jobs for this country. 
But they are only some. Another hugely interesting submission was heard from Sharon and David Waine. They came from just outside Nelson. They tried to establish a business called Maze N Maize. These people wanted to establish 4 to 5 acres of maize. As an attraction so that these Kiwi battlers could make some money they wanted to cut a pattern through the maize and make some money by selling tours and entertaining people—both tourists and New Zealanders. They told us of the hassle they had had with the Resource Management Act and this legislation does nothing to fix that hassle. They have spent $23000 on having their application notified publicly only to have it rejected by commissioners who also happen to be councillors on the Tasman District Council. The interesting thing about their case is that if they had decided not to charge an entry fee they could have done this project without even having to get resource consent. However under the Resource Management Act because they wanted to make some money they had to get resource consent and notify. 
I always understood the Resource Management Act to be about environmental effects. How could the charging of an entry fee be significant to the effects that this enterprise would have on the environment? The answer is that it could not. However these people wanted to prove something. They actually opened this attraction on a Sunday for no charge. Over 4000 people descended on the property to enjoy Maze N Maize. There is a lesson there. The environmental effects were increased because they did not charge an entry fee on that day. 
I want to finish very quickly by mentioning the Federated Farmers report to the select committee. They were horrified at the historic heritage positions that have now been put into this legislation. As every member of the Government knows no select committee process has had the opportunity to receive comment on them. Federated Farmers said to us that if we thought significant natural areas were bad enough these heritage provisions would be far worse for the private landowners of New Zealand.