Connell Brian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5581] 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to make a further contribution to this debate on Part 2. I say at the outset that I am desperately concerned that legislation that was previously in 18 parts has now been condensed into two. I am desperately concerned about that because this legislation has far-reaching consequences. This could have been very good legislation. It is very significant legislation but now we have lost our opportunity to do something worthwhile for the people of New Zealand. 
In particular I believe that fixing up the Resource Management Act is the most critical thing that underpins our economic prosperity. Constituent after constituent has approached me and asked me to go and see the nice people in the Government in Wellington and to talk sense to them because my constituents believe they will surely listen to a reasoned approach. 
Shane Ardern 
: Those constituents are misguided. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They are. What has happened is that we now have the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) going through this Parliament and that is an abuse of the powers of this great institution. Fixing the Act would have done more for decongesting our roads for new electricity generation and for sustainable irrigation than any other thing that I can think of. 
I shall use sustainable irrigation as an example of why my constituents are so desperately concerned about what is transpiring here today. They understand that water is the lifeblood of their economy. They understand that and they have beseeched me to come to Wellington to take that message to this Parliament. Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears. There is a body of opinion that says that people who want to exploit water in a sustainable way are bad. That is absolute nonsense. The people of Rakaia are some of the best conservationists that I can think of and they deserve better from this Government than what is happening. 
Fixing the Resource Management Act would underpin our hospital standards in terms of the hospital care that we have all come to expect that we deserve. It would underpin our education system and enhance it. It would do a lot to reduce our crime rate because people who are actively engaged in society and who are stakeholders do not wreck things. It would put us back in the top half of the OECD. We have lost our opportunity to do something significant for the people of this country. We know that we have an electricity crisis but what is happening? We are thumbing our nose at it and we are telling the people of New Zealand to get used to incompetence because that is what they will get from this Government. When Bill English is Prime Minister I can tell members that those things will be fixed and we will do what is right for the people of this country. 
The Minister has made a lot of claims that businesses have been consulted and that they are happy. I would say “insulted” not “consulted”. I have taken the opportunity to do a little bit of research and I have come up with a couple of press releases. A fairly significant business body Federated Farmers had this to say: “Federated Farmers of New Zealand’s national board member Neil Barton says the federation is outraged that the parliamentary committee considering the bill will only hear submissions from officials.” That is disgraceful. That is not justice nor is it parliamentary democracy. That is not what I came to this institution for. I had thought better of the people on the Government side of the House until I heard that. 
Federated Farmers went on to state: “Contrary to the Minister for the Environment’s claim that the bill has been discussed to death there are significant changes to the intention of the original legislation. Mr Barton says that Federated Farmers does support limited notification and changes to the bill that will reduce the cost for consents that have little environment impact.”—and we endorse that; we think that is sensible. “However”—and this is the piece that really made my antenna go up—“this will not offset the likely increases in cost if changes are made in the way the Act is administered or if proposals to increase the importance of historical heritage sites are implemented.” I understand that we have made some progress on that today and I commend the Government for that.