Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5493] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I take this call with a huge amount of disappointment about the title. We have in the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs a person who when it comes to resource management law is absolutely pure on the process. She says we should do this and do that but when it comes to Parliament that Minister repeatedly comes in here to the Chamber and cheats on the rules. She cheats on the rules by repeatedly going about the process of— 
Jill Pettis 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That word is not acceptable. Would you withdraw it please. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us be plain about just what the Minister has done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will not have any member of this Committee accused of cheating. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Even when she is cheating on the rules? Well I have to say that I withdraw. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw as the Chairman asked. The Minister is going to get sensitive about this but there is absolutely no way around it. She has not respected the processes of this Parliament. 
I want the Minister to answer a question. When she became the Minister the Resource Management Amendment Bill was before the Local Government and Environment Committee. She let that committee go along and do work on that bill consider 300 submissions and sit for over 100 days—[ 
Interruption 
]—my colleague tells me there were 400 submissions. But when are we to have the report back of all that select committee work? Can the Minister tell me that? When are we to debate 2 years of hard slog by that committee? I say we will not do so because she has dorked it and thrown that bill in the rubbish. If she wanted to do that it is the prerogative of a Government to do so when it changes but she did not do so then. She told our select committee to get on with the job. We did just that and the Minister then abused the process in respect of that bill. Having worked our little guts out having heard submissions all over the country and having put 400 organisations to the work of making a submission then she said that she wanted a No. 2 bill rather than the No. 1 bill. That is why I say this Minister has absolutely no respect for Parliament. 
But the issue is more serious than that. Do members know what we should call this bill? Its title should be the “Take Delight in Big Traffic Jams in Auckland Bill” because without substantive changes to the Resource Management Act the people of Auckland will carry on having congested traffic. That is not a laughing matter. People die in Auckland because of that traffic congestion and this Minister does not give a hoot. 
This country is in the middle of an energy crisis so I will put another proposal forward. Perhaps we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Ignore the Energy Crisis) Bill”. I propose that title because it is not just National but also the Government’s own State-owned enterprise that says there is a problem. I have tried twice to ask the Minister questions in the House about the submission by Meridian Energy a Government State-owned enterprise and New Zealand’s largest producer of electricity which has identified 24 clauses in this bill that it states will create additional obstacles in granting the necessary approvals for the construction and operation of electricity generating stations. The Minister bunks Parliament and does not answer my questions. She does not come here to answer them but I will continue to ask her those questions because the issue matters. 
It matters that people are having cold showers and it matters that 500 people in Nelson were put out of work for a day because there was not sufficient electricity generation. That is why the title of this bill should be changed; we should be upfront about just what it is. This bill should be called the “Dirty Tricks for a Parliamentary Process Bill” the “Extra Delays in Roading Bill” the “Ignoring the Electricity Crisis Bill” the “More Compliance Costs for Business Bill” or the “Dupe United Future Bill”. I will explain the latter title. The United Future party said it had got limited notification put into this bill and that that was its big gain. We asked officials at the select committee when they received the drafting instructions for limited notification to be added to the bill. It was in October 2001. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No 2002. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sorry October 2001; it was indeed then. How can the United Future party wave and say it had limited notification put into the bill? How come Cabinet agreed to it— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: United Future sold out for nothing. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It sold out for absolutely zero. Then the ultimate hypocrisy was—I withdraw and apologise. The ultimate contradiction was for United Future the party that believes in proper parliamentary process and in common sense to then arrogantly—[ 
Interruption 
] Larry Baldock refuses to listen to anybody—not to a soul. Perhaps Jeanette Fitzsimons who listened to the 400 submissions on the No. 1 bill can say she has a pretty good understanding of the range of opinions but did Mr Baldock listen to anybody before he came to his decisions on this bill? He listened to nobody—absolutely nobody. In fact he voted for this Minister’s motion that refused to allow the select committee to receive submissions from anybody other than the Minister and that is a disgrace.