Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5495] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I have been waiting so far for something to debate in terms of what this bill is supposedly all about and the effect of its title. That is actually very difficult because although we have heard assertions that this bill will cause bureaucratic costs and delays that it affects the ownership of land and that it will be responsible for a heap of terrible things we have not heard a single reason for those assertions. We have not heard a shred of evidence for that view. We have not heard reference to anything the bill actually does that would support those claims. Dr Smith got closest to it when he alleged that this legislation was responsible for the energy crisis. This bill apparently is the reason that Maui Gas will run out 2 years earlier than it was going to otherwise and is apparently also the reason for the faulty electricity market set up by the previous National Government. This bill is apparently the reason that it has not rained. I think that New Zealanders will take a bit of convincing of some of those allegations. 
The fact remains that most of this bill is based on the issues that Simon Upton introduced in his bill in 1999. There have been amendments to it and we have got rid of some silly ideas. Some members who have been here a little bit longer than others might remember the proposed scam of contestable consent processing where a developer was supposed to be able to go out and choose from the market a planning consultant to process a resource consent application for him or her. The council was then to have only the information provided by that person paid by the developer on which to base its decision. We got rid of that in the Local Government and Environment Committee. I will call that the No. 1 committee because it dealt with the No. 1 bill and I am proud of the fact that we got rid of that proposal. But most of this bill actually retains many of Simon Upton’s quite sensible ideas. 
As the report back to the No. 1 bill stated—which we have not had the opportunity to debate in this Parliament and I concur with the Opposition in its anger about that—“We support the retention with amendments of a number of provisions in the bill.” That referred to Simon Upton’s bill. The report back went on to state: “Some of the more significant provisions include:” and the report back listed 10 major issues. There was a whole host of other issues that we did not have time to list. So let us forget the idea that our committee somehow gutted Simon Upton’s bill. There are in fact only five changes to the No 1 bill that are introduced by this bill. It is just as well that this bill did come to the No. 2 committee because we were told in the explanatory note of the bill that there were only two changes when there are in fact five. But never mind we fixed that up in the report back. One of those five changes actually puts back something that was in Simon Upton’s bill: limited notification. The Opposition ought to be pleased about that although I am not. 
I am rather flattered by suggestions from the Opposition that I single-handedly gutted Simon Upton’s bill. Well I have sat on a few select committees in my 6½ years in Parliament and I have never yet been to one where one person exercises a vote that outweighs the other 11 votes on the committee. A majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee chucked out the silly ideas in Simon Upton’s bill and that was the right thing to do. 
The fact is that this No. 2 bill actually reflects two things. First of all it reflects the Government’s panic at the thought of spending 2 weeks in the Committee stage on this bill and it has therefore collapsed it into two parts. I actually would have supported collapsing the bill into perhaps five or six parts but I think that collapsing it into two parts is completely over the top. Secondly the bill reflects the Government’s loss of nerve during its first difficult winter when business revved up its anger and fury at public participation in consent decisions and somehow threatened the Government that if there was to be any democracy left in the Resource Management Act business would not be pleased. And that is responsible for two of the big changes: the putting back in of limited notification and removing the democratic opportunity to have notification decisions reviewed by the Environment Court in order to bring into line some of those councils that have already been found by the High Court to be seriously abusing the fact that there is no review of their decisions.