Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Smith Nick: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17323] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This is a case of the Government again cheating on process to try to advance its particular programme. It is a sign of arrogance from this Government that it is prepared to override the Standing Orders of this Parliament to advance these particular law reforms. 
What happened was that the Business Committee rejected there being an omnibus bill. Rather than accepting the decision of that committee the arrogant Mr David Benson-Pope has rolled into this House with a motion that says: “Let’s throw out the rules; let’s suspend the Standing Orders.” because this Government is not prepared to follow the rules of this House. Standing Order 259 which this Government wants to breach is very simple. It states that a bill must relate to only one subject area. Now if what the Minister said was correct and this is all just a matter of simplifying resource management procedures then he would be allowed to do it. But because the bill breaches the Standing Orders he has to bring this motion to say that we are going to break those rules. National is very clear: we should simply follow the rules of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] That is what we are saying I tell Mr Mallard who is not a member known for being particularly interested in doing that. 
Let us review this Government’s history in respect of the Resource Management Act—because it is a shonky history. Let us firstly look back to 1999 when National introduced a substantive reform bill—a reform bill that said there were very real problems with the Resource Management Act that needed to be addressed. But this Government said that it was going to throw that bill out because as Marian Hobbs said the Resource Management Act was “beautifully crafted and beautifully written” and not in need of reform. [ 
Interruption 
] I will remind Mr Benson-Pope of what occurred last year. Not only did the Government introduce a resource management bill but it bypassed having any public submissions on that bill at all. It fast tracked that bill through the legislative process. 
What was particularly arrogant of the Government was that not only did it bypass any submission process in going through the amendments to that particular bill but it rushed it through under urgency. At the end of the process Marian Hobbs—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister does not want to debate the issue does he. I am not surprised that he does not want to debate the Resource Management Act because on that bill his Government has a shocking record. Mr David Benson-Pope said that the resource management bill would be introduced in September but I have checked my calendar and I tell the member that the date is 1 December. I say to him that this Government simply cannot sort out its policy. Why is it that because the Government cannot sort out its policy we now have to fast track and break the rules of this House? 
Then we have the barraging member from Labour Mr Trevor Mallard who along with the Government wants to break the Standing Orders of this House in terms of this bill. Last year Marian Hobbs as Minister for the Environment said after the passage of the last resource management bill that it was now all OK. Yet within 6 months we have a new Minister rolled into the role and promising another reform bill and another lot of change. It is very interesting. 
Yesterday I attended a nationwide forum on the Resource Management Act. The Government’s very good friend Mr Dick Hubbard was one of the guest speakers. Mr Hubbard said that Mr Benson-Pope’s package of reforms for the Resource Management Act does not go nearly far enough to allow Auckland to deal with its substantive infrastructure issues. That is what the Government’s friends say about David Benson-Pope’s failed package of reforms that was due in September. We still do not know what they are. Now we are passing a motion in this House to breach the Standing Orders. 
We have to ask why the Government wants to change the rules to suit itself. One reason may be that normally all the electricity regulations go to the Commerce Committee but by packaging these two bills together the Government has been able to avoid that process and just hide these electricity provisions in its resource management bill. It is simply short-changing Parliament of its proper process of debate and scrutiny of the Government’s latest round of changes. 
National is not necessarily opposed to the changes—we do not know what they are. The Minister has not even given Opposition members the dignity of seeing the bills that the Minister wants to bring together. He will not even do that. I do not know whether he has provided other parties with them because there is a mates’ rates game played in this House but we have not even seen the amendments that the Minister wants to include. So we cannot honestly say whether we support or oppose those amendments. But we do say that we should not be fast tracking the process by which those changes are being made. 
The further point I would make based on the comments that the Minister has made is this: if there is a problem in respect of the major electricity lines—because we are assured that this legislation is only about those lines that are over 110 kilovolts—and it is only in respect of roads then this is an issue only between public authorities. Where has the Minister made any case for urgency? [ 
Interruption 
] Can Mr Trevor Mallard explain to the House why we need some special process and to bypass the Standing Orders about this issue? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member should sit down and yield. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would be pleased if Mr Mallard would take the next call and explain this because there was absolutely nothing in the speech from the Minister that justified breaching the Standing Orders. If the Government had a competent Minister of Energy and there was a problem for Transpower in getting consents for new lines and it was only an issue between Transpower and Transit then because he is the Minister of Electricity and also the Minister responsible for transport surely those issues can be resolved without abusing the process of this Parliament. 
National’s position is very clear in respect of the Resource Management Act. I heard Labour members ranting on earlier and asking where National’s policy was. We have had three very specific statements of policy about the Resource Management Act. There have been so many flip-flops from the Government in respect of the Resource Management Act that it is remarkable. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It’s your Act for God’s sake. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr David Benson-Pope’s latest burst of energy his sudden tweak in the cheek has led him to say that somehow it is National’s fault because the Resource Management Act was passed by us in 1991. That member forgets that in 1999 his Government rejected the substantive amendments that were introduced by National and that would have resolved many of these issues which nearly 6 years after the Labour Government was elected are still outstanding. Labour does not know how to fix the Resource Management Act. The only way that New Zealand will see addressed the substantive and important issues with electricity the issues with roading and the issues with added-values industry within the Resource Management Act is through a change of Government. 
For 5 years Labour has failed to make the reforms that are required. Even Dick Hubbard one of the best friends of the Prime Minister is saying that the Government is incapable of delivering in this area and no amount of fast tracking the process or cheating on the Standing Orders will do in terms of that process of reform. Again I tell the Minister to follow the rules. He does not need to cheat to be able to make substantive changes to the Resource Management Act. It is not Parliament’s problem that he is 4 months late in his programme of reform. Parliament deserves better. This is just another step by an arrogant Government that is treating this Parliament with disrespect.