Leary Ingrid; Brownlee GerryINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look it's just really crazy to hear the arguments from the Government about wanting to repeal something that has had so much consideration so much work—not just in the six years as alluded to by the Green member but for many years by real experts in this field—to leave us with a big fat nothing. It would be one thing if they had a plan but to have a big fat nothing is going back to the future. That is exactly what's happening and it's crazy because what we are going back to this big fat nothing in the meantime leaves this very discredited 30-year-old piece of legislation that absolutely nobody is convinced can do the job.If we think about 30 years that's a long time. That's 1991 that this legislation came in. That was when the Soviet Union was dissolved and we had Russia come back in when we had Yugoslavia still in existence. We had the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as being one of the best Christmas presents in that time. The apartheid laws: there was an announcement that apartheid laws in South Africa would be repealed.This is how old the piece of legislation is that we are going back to while the Government sits there and tries to dream up a plan as a stop-gap measure to fill that hole. And I can tell you what kind of impacts it has had. In the Auckland Council it is written in one of their planning documents that they have been using the consenting process under the Resource Management Act (RMA) as a money-making activity for the council. Now that's absolutely abhorrent to anybody who hears that but it is written in their documentation and I have seen it when we have been discussing this and the need for reform.In my own electorate of Taieri with the Brighton landfill which very sadly has been granted consent that whole process was so distorted in my view and so beholden to this 30-year-old legislation that meant that there were submissions that were 30 years old that talked about the impacts of the landfill and that were accepted because they were from neighbours and there was no other process by which to gather that evidence. There were huge questions over whether this should have been a notifiable event or not. Under that very old legislation it wasn't.But not only does it leave a big fat hole the problem—as the previous Minister my good friend and colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has referred to—is that the legislation is being rammed through with no due consideration. And if we look at what happened with the Act that is being repealed that was the result of—Hon Member: Two bills.INGRID LEARY: Two bills thank you. That was a result of not only the six years of work that went in by a really really hard-working committee but also there were people like Rachel Brooking who sat on there who had previously been on the panel that did years of work on the Randerson report leading up to the six years of work in this House. There was a huge amount of work done by the Hon Eugenie Sage in her role as chair of the committee.Hon Rachel Brooking: A very fair chair.INGRID LEARY: A very fair chair as Rachel Brooking says and also hours and hours of listening to evidence. Now that is due process. What we are seeing here today in this House is just a complete—you know it's doing the middle finger to the due process that this House really should be doing when considering legislation that is impacting all of us.The other thing is the terrible impact that it is having going forward. Already in my electorate in Taieri Rachel Brooking and I have been quoted in the Otago Daily Times asking the council to please reconsider that it's putting the kibosh on the planning documents and the planning that it has been doing for the freshwater plans around the region. It's such a shame because it has taken a long time to get to the point where there are freshwater plans. There's been a lot of politics there. There has been a lot of water that is being used pursuant to historic mining permits that now farmers are using and the consequence is the terrible degradation of the Manuherikia catchment. Suddenly because this Government is saying it's going to repeal the legislation that council has chosen to put the pause on which means that once again we won't have a requirement for that river to be swimmable; it will go back to being wadable. There's a massive difference. The degradation will continue. Farmers will be able to continue taking as much water from the catchment as they like and all the reasons for this legislation that was put in originally to be able to find a better balance around our waterways and around our natural resources has simply been forgotten. So it's a really sad day to see so much hard work done and so much consideration—I apologise on behalf of myself and this House to all those people who submitted and put so much thought and care and time and money into making submissions on the previous legislation. It's a terrible day. It's being rammed through and we do not support this. SPEAKER: Could I just say that the member resuming her seat has got about 4½ minutes available after the dinner break if she wishes. Thank you very much for concluding.Debate interrupted.