Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5319] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 When I observe members of this House who have been here for some time I begin to wonder just how wise it is to remain in this place for a long period of time. After listening to the speech made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith I am left wondering how he has gone through such an amazing change from representing the National Party when it introduced this bill to becoming the leading opponent of the Resource Management Act in this House. It has become far too popular to be engaged in Resource Management Act - bashing around New Zealand. 
I believe that the Act is in need of reform and that is what this bill is all about. It is involved in a process of reform so that it will work better and better as time goes by. The member David Parker made an excellent comment when he said the Resource Management Act is about striking a balance between those with competing interests—those who wish to make the most of economic opportunities on the land and those who wish to protect the land for future generations. The Act takes that challenge and addresses a very difficult situation. 
In listening to some of the speakers who spoke before about what has been known as the rebel select committee process and the submissions that the Local Government and Environment Committee listened to one wonders really whether those submitters were dealing with their frustrations with Resource Management Act per se or whether they were dealing specifically with this amendment bill. From my discussions with a number of people who submitted to that rebel select committee I would suggest that their frustrations were being vented towards the Resource Management Act rather than this specific bill. This bill does contain some excellent improvements to the Resource Management Act process which we in United Future support. However it is difficult for us to know exactly what some of the submitters had to say during that rebel process. 
I am grateful though to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which sent along a reporter and was able to give us some insight into just how much concern there was in relation to this bill. In the 25 April edition of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Irene Chapple wrote: “More than 30 submissions were received and 20 will have been orally presented after the committee continues on Monday.” So it seems that not a great many people turned up to the initial meeting. In fact she said: “All but three of the 20-plus audience seats were left unwarmed as quietly spoken submitters competed with air conditioning to have their views heard by the sprinkling of media.” She went on to say: “At least one oral submission given yesterday however was squeezed from someone who said he was there only because Smith had asked him to be.”—desperate to get the numbers up at the rebel select committee—“Others appeared surprised that the media had turned up one saying he thought it was going to be a consultation meeting rather than a mock select committee. The first-up duo of Beca Carter Planners presented views not always aligned with the cosy threesome running the show. Beca’s Don Lyon suggested that some noise over the inefficiencies of the RMA could be seen as scaremongering.” I suggest that that is a great deal of what has been going on through this process. We need to have rational debate and rational discussion not scaremongering which he concludes “… could create a risk that we ‘turn off investment by picking up a few examples of bad practice in New Zealand … and it is bad practice not necessarily a legislative problem’ ”. 
Two often we hear old stories—it is like hearing old war stories—about things that have gone wrong with the Resource Management Act but they are not necessarily current problems with its implementation. That particular submitter then admitted—and I will read from the article—“a private view that the nod to social and cultural values was ahem quite good really. ‘We should be able to plan ahead’ he said. ‘For our major infrastructures for the future of our towns and cities ... We are meant to be creating a society 50 years out.’ ” 
I truly believe that the people of New Zealand are more interested in progress in the reform of the Resource Management Act than in the process we are going through. I believe they will welcome the passage of this bill through the House in the next few days so that we can get on to some other very important amendments that we know need to be made. Some people have expressed concern and frustration that this bill does not go far enough and I have met various groups that have expressed that frustration. United Future agrees. That is precisely why we have cooperated with the Government to pass this legislation finally so that we can work on the next Resource Management Act amendment which will address more business and community concerns. 
One of the things we in United Future are very interested in comes from one of the recommendations referred to earlier—that is that we may have direct referral to the Environment Court for projects of national significance such as power and road projects. I am sure Meridian Energy will be very interested to see that passed into legislation so that it can get on with the provision of power for business and communities across this nation. 
We have heard a great deal about heritage sites. I understand that as part of the original bill heritage sites would be given a prominence of national significance. Changes to some of the definitions surrounding heritage issues occurred during the select committee process but the idea that heritage sites would take on a position of national significance was there in the original bill and we in United Future agree with that. The preservation of our natural and historic heritage is of very great importance to us as a nation. Recently through coverage of the war in Iraq many of us have seen some very awful images of the looting of Iraq’s national museum and the destruction of priceless possessions that have lasted for thousands of years. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting that we should allow those kinds of historical cultural or spiritual values in our country or sites that represent them to be wiped out. Nick Smith talks not about spiritual sites but about spirits and that was never intended in this bill. The bill talks about sites of spiritual significance which occur in nations all across the world. Surely Jerusalem would be considered a site of spiritual significance. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Mecca. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes Mecca also. I certainly would also agree that the birthplace of Jesus Christ or the tomb from which he arose would be sites of spiritual significance. When one listens to Nick Smith and his rantings and ravings one wonders whether he would want to see the sites bulldozed down and a condominium built in their place. It is very short-term thinking not to take into account these issues that are addressed in this bill. Of course a balance needs to be found and of course we do not want more frivolous objections going to the Environment Court but we do need to take notice of the things we have now so they do not disappear and are no longer there for our grandchildren. 
United Future believes that as these sites are of national importance—and I think we will find that that was part of the original bill as I have said already—they should be paid for out of the national purse. We will be promoting in the next amendment to the Resource Management Act the protection of private property rights. However we cannot move on to the next amendment bill until this bill is passed. We supported the introduction of this No. 2 bill into the House as a reformat of the No. 1 bill because the issues it contained had already been the subjects of submissions. It therefore made no sense to use the very important and costly time of the House on an unruly 18-part bill when the legislation could be handled in a much more compact and concise way in two parts. 
The concerns that Opposition members raised regarding the lack of their opportunity to debate the bill have already been addressed by the Speaker’s ruling that extra time will be given to them in the Committee of the whole House. I support their right to be able to say everything they wish to say about this bill but it would be ludicrous to spend 40 hours of the House’s time in passing the bill in its 18-part format. 
The select committee as it was empowered to made some changes to the definitions in the No. 1 bill. The only way a member of the public could have had input into those changes in the previous bill would have been via the MPs themselves making amendments during the Committee stage. That right will still be afforded them as we enter the Committee stage under this new rewritten bill. Other matters that have been addressed and that other speakers have referred to will be dealt with as we go through the Committee stage. They include such a matter as clarifying the national policy standards.