Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): We have today at long last learnt what has been the price for the Māori Party capitulation to vote for this appalling piece of legislation which further complicates the RMA which does little if anything to cure the housing crisis and which I think brings this House into disrepute. This piece of legislation is opposed by everyone in this Committee—Labour the Greens New Zealand First United Future ACT. The only ones in support are National with two votes from the Māori Party.The Māori Party was said to have been voting for this in all future stages. In its form as it came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee it was evident that the Draconian ministerial powers that are conferred by this legislation which have been described by amongst others Sir Geoffrey Palmer as being on the spectrum of the National Development Act and the regulation-making power under the old Economic Stabilization Act 1948 abused decades later by Muldoon—those regulation-making powers allow the Minister for the Environment to by ministerial action override rules and plans that the Minister says in his opinion overlap other pieces of legislation. Rather than amending those other pieces of legislation and saying they are codes which would be a proper way for the Minister to achieve that purpose the Minister has granted himself ministerial powers under this bill to by regulation strike out rules and plans that the Minister thinks should not be there because they conflict with other regimes. The most controversial example of that has been in respect of GM rules and plans.The Labour Party position on this which has been consistent throughout this is that rules relating to GM safety or the release decisions should be taken by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) and that medical decisions in respect of clinical uses of GMOs should be for clinicians and not councils but that there is an economic decision that can still be taken by a council as to whether it thinks it is in the economic interest of its district to have for example GM crops. That is the current law as found by the courts following attempts to strike out rules to that effect in a plan up north. The Minister does not like those and so his stated objective in respect of these ministerial powers was to get rid of that sort of rule by overriding it by regulation.We cooperated with others running a campaign in the Hawke's Bay area. We successfully brought to the public attention the inconsistent statements that were coming from the Māori Party and the National Party on this issue and in response we now see a Supplementary Order Paper from the Māori Party limiting in a minor way—better than no limitation but in a minor way—that ministerial override power so that it cannot apply to GM rules and plans. I am very interested to hear calls from the National Party and from the Minister on this because I have heard the Minister rail against that very issue saying that was the reason we needed this ministerial override power in the first place. We had Paul Foster-Bell amongst other people saying it was ridiculous to have rules relating to the use of GM crops in one area and not another so I am wanting to hear from the Minister as to whether he now supports the proposition that you should be able to have different rules in different areas because he is now if I am to understand supporting the Māori Party Supplementary Order Paper to that effect.Can I congratulate those in the regions who have run I think a very successful campaign including—Meka Whaitiri: Pure Hawke's Bay.Hon DAVID PARKER: —Lawrence Yule from Pure Hawke's Bay the National Party candidate current Mayor of Hastings. So that is one area of unprincipled—oh I see the member for Tukituki smiling up the back there. He is welcome to take a call to explain the Government's current position on this which is contortionist to say the least. I would like—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I intend calling the member again for a second call but I omitted to draw members' attention—I would not normally draw members' attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Papers are on the Table but members who went round and collected Supplementary Order Papers before about 5 minutes to 4 may have missed a significant Supplementary Order Paper. I want to warn members who did that that there is another one on the Table of the House and is currently being debated.Hon DAVID PARKER: I actually have come into the Chamber for this debate and I note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister in respect of this issue that runs to about nine pages which I certainly have not had time to digest—so perhaps that is for a later call.The next issue I want to talk about is in respect of subdivisional consents. The Government through this bill is preventing both public notifications of applications for subdivisional consents and appeal rights. Both of those measures were criticised roundly at select committee by local government by developers by environmental NGOs and by lawyers. Everyone said the right of public participation should not be forgone in respect of subdivisional applications just because the Government has got an out-of-control housing crisis in Auckland. The applicants included the likes of Fulton Hogan. It said that it thinks that people should have a right of participation and it is going too far to exclude them. It also noted—it and others—that if there is no right of appeal against a consent for a subdivisional application councils are without constraint as to lots of and sometimes silly conditions being imposed on the subdivision.The reverse sensitivity objections from the likes of the major owners of infrastructure include examples given by both quarries and airports. We need our airports; I do not know that the Minister has noticed that but most people who go between cities fly out of our airports. Every house in New Zealand that is built needs aggregate for the concrete that is in it and for the chip on the roads that lead to the house and yet those quarries and airports face a less certain future because they have got no right to participate in a subdivisional application that impacts upon their interests. So the quarry comes along and it says it has been there for 30 years and a subdivision has been put in next to it. In 10 years' time the people who are in that subdivision will be complaining: There's too much noise or dust from the quarry. We don't think you should be able to carry on that activity." That is one of the effects of this.If you think that these concerns are ephemeral or not practical I would refer the Minister to his amendment in 2013 which came into effect on 3 March 2015. This was another botched attempt by the National Party to amend the RMA. What it did was it added to the things that an applicant for a resource consent has to list. Everyone who applies for a consent to do something in New Zealand or in a plan has to include in it an assessment of the environmental effects which is sensible. But then what National did in this recent amendment is say they have also got to now include an assessment of the impact of the application against the objectors and policies of the plan. This was another layer of bureaucracy added on applicants which has choked up the planning system and added to cost. It is largely chucked in the bin because the councils do their own assessment and then it is that assessment that is argued about by the applicant and the objectors.These ad hoc amendments that we are having to the RMA which are adding to its length and complexity do nothing to achieve the purpose which the Minister says is to simplify the RMA and make it more efficient. I also want to say something about the extent to which the Minister can use rules that purport to be about form and standard definition to change the content of plans which is still not properly constrained in this bill. The Minister can use those powers which we agree is sensible in respect of standard plan formats and definitions. He can use those powers under this Act to do more than just that in ways that go to the substance of plans and that is not right either. I want the Minister to justify—again—that intrusion which is another example of the change in the balance of power between councils and central government with central government saying once again that it knows best and it is going to override other councils.You can see that I have just about taken two calls here. I have addressed so far only three of many many deficits in this bill. It runs to 250 pages in the form that is reported back from the select committee and because the Government has chosen to have this as one part covering every amendment to every part of the RMA it is very difficult for us to bring all of these issues to the attention of the House."