Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5488] 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting conclusion through to the Committee stage of a bill that has been rushed through in only a month. If we were to go back to the previous National administration when we had a review and came up with the 1999 Resource Management Amendment Bill there were 400 submissions and a huge input into that whole process. But what do we have today? We have a bill that has been languishing since 1999 now coming through as the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) with only 4 weeks in which to go through what were 18 parts but have now been reduced to two parts. There will be a truncated debate on 18 parts— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: A truncated debate on 18 parts taken down to two parts. We will be arguing to spend as much time on this debate starting with the title as if it were 18 parts. I tell members that this bill has been a means by this Government to bring through legislation just like we saw last night with the customs and excise legislation brought in under extraordinary urgency. The debate that we are having now could have been held under urgency because it is significant and I will come to the title. 
The Government is ramming through this legislation without the proper consultation process. So when I talk about what the title of this bill should be I have major concerns. I will call this the “Banana Bill”. Banana stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody” because that is what this bill does. This bill is so prescriptive that one will not be able to do a thing about it. There will be that many laws and costs. It is interesting is it not? Everybody has said so and the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs has also made some interesting comments. I hope she will take a call. She has been quoted as saying: “The RMA is a beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation.” That has a ring about it does it not? “A beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation” has a bit of a swing about it. She went on to say: “I don’t think the RMA is a particularly friendly Act for the average New Zealander.” 
So what do we have? I have a quote from the Hon Jim Sutton in a primary industry management magazine and I am a member of this organisation. He stated: “One thing about the RMA let me say straight away. We do not believe that wholesale revision of the Act is needed. The Government considers that sustainable management of our unique natural and physical resources is vital to New Zealand’s social economic and environmental well-being. Agriculture is dependent on the sustainability of natural and physical resources such as soil water and biodiversity and the Government strongly supports the RMA because it provides an integrated participatory and transparent approach to planning and sustainable management.” 
That is what the Minister said in this magazine some time ago. But when we look at the compliance costs and I am getting back to the title the ministerial panel recommended 52 changes to the Resource Management Act and I will talk about that at a later date. That is why I am suggesting that the title of this bill should be the “Banana Bill”. It could be the “Banana Split Bill” if we would like to call it that. 
An Hon Member 
: Yes well it has got two parts! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is why it should be called the “Banana Bill”—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. The bill is just so prescriptive. Week in and week out developers and farmers—and I represent a farming community—come and talk about the consent process and how difficult it is to be able to build. The big one to deal with at the moment is chicken sheds. Chickens—factory-farming—are a big industry in my area and this bill does nothing for them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 What is in a name? What is in a title? Well this legislation is called the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) and it looks and sounds so innocuous but in reality it is not at all. I first want to make some comment about the absolute delays in bringing this bill to the House. In May 2001 the Minister said that this bill would be passed in that year. It was not passed. In August of that year she said that the second reading would be in September. It was not. In October 2002 she said that the bill would be passed that month under urgency but it was not. So maybe the title of this bill should be the “Resource Management (Delayed Action) Amendment Bill.” That has been an issue for a lot of people who are wanting to proceed with development. In Auckland in particular with its infrastructure issues and its roading issues those things are holding up the economic growth of that city and of this country. Therefore we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Delayed Action) Amendment Bill (No 2)”. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs must take full responsibility for the delays. She should be ashamed of herself for signalling time and time again that this bill was coming to the House when it has only just reached us in Committee in 2003. The way that the Minister has described this bill and my colleague has already referred to it was as a beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation. What sort of a description is that? This is serious serious stuff. New Zealanders should have the ability to develop resources where that is proper while ensuring the sustainability of our environment. So what on earth has that sort of comment got to do with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)? What on earth has that comment got to do with it? 
Then in another breath the Minister said: “Increased flexibility for business and more opportunity for public participation are the major aims of the RMA.” Has she talked to business about this? Has she been worried about the delays that have occurred? Maybe in the title there should be the word “delayed”. Has she honestly really considered whether there will be reduced costs? Because that is not what we are hearing from business and that is not what we are hearing from Maori businesses either. Are not Maori also developers? Maori are in business. They want to get on with business. They want to get on and develop and show that they are major contributors to the economy of New Zealand. Who pays for the delays and the costs that are imposed? The prescriptive nature of this legislation and the added bureaucracy which is a feature of this Government in everything that it has done results in a build-up of bureaucracy here in Wellington and at local government level. Who pays for that? It is the very people who have been wanting this bill to come through and wanting appropriate changes so that we can see development but in the context of a sustainable environmental programme. 
So hopefully the Minister will take a call and let us know how she reconciles statements about the intention that she has made comment on—the intention in the policy statement—with all of the complaints we have heard around the country and particularly the complaints about bureaucracy and added costs stifling business. 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I was told that it was intended that the titles of modern legislation from this House should be more descriptive and more informative so that when readers look at the title of a bill they will get a better feel for what the legislation is about. Because of that I suggest that the Minister should look seriously at being upfront and informative in respect of the title of this bill instead of calling it the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which I suggest is very misleading. 
The National Party originally passed the Resource Management Act in 1991. National was a very responsible Government and after the legislation had been in place for a couple of years it consulted and listened. The Hon. Simon Upton responded to the feedback from the community in terms of implementation problems and drafted a raft of amendments. Those amendments were intended to simplify the Act and reduce the delay in compliance. This bill pretends to fix those problems and in actual fact does not deliver. So I suggest that the Minister should accept an amendment to the title and correctly call it the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Act.” It is deceptive in a sense that it continues to try to tell the business community and the public that this amendment would make the legislation easier to implement reduce compliance costs and reduce delay. It will not. 
I hope the Minister will take a call to confirm the feedback we have had from the business community the public and the councils that the consultation process under this bill would mean that nobody will be able to put any significant projects through under this legislation. In effect interested parties and people who are opposed to any project would tie up the application for a very long time. I suggest that the Minister after collapsing an 18-part amendment bill into two parts should at least attempt to answer some of the valid questions that have been raised by parties on this side of the Committee. I invite the Minister to take a call to confirm whether it is true that the requirement for consultation under this amendment bill will be long and arduous. I hope the Minister will make a change for this Committee process and prove that is not true that Labour Ministers never answers questions during the Committee stage by taking a call. 
I would also like to invite the Minister if she refuses to take the call to accept that the title should be anything but the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). It could also be known as the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Bill”. Everyone outside the Labour Government is convinced that the implementation of this amendment would increase bureaucracy. Apart from the Minister and a few people close to her people are convinced otherwise. However everybody else would get a better feel if this legislation had the title of either the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Amendment Bill” or the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Bill”. The title could also be the “Resource Management (Missed Opportunity) Bill”. This is the biggest lost opportunity for this Parliament to prove that we can work in a bipartisan way and that we are serious about economic growth. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with some regret that I find myself having to stand to speak in opposition to this bill and I say that sincerely. There is an expectation out there amongst New Zealanders that this legislation will bring about the change that they have desperately been asking for. I suggest that we look back at some of the old clichés that have been said about socialist Governments over a long time. One of them is that if business is moving tax it and regulate it; if it keeps moving tax it and regulate it a bit more; and if it stops moving subsidise it and regulate it to get it moving again. That would be a very good title for this bill—“If it’s moving tax it and regulate it if it keeps moving tax it and regulate it a bit more and if it stops moving subsidise it and regulate it to get it moving again.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: When it dies hit it for death duties! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That would be absolutely right as an appendix to the end of that title. I suggest that an amendment along those lines would be very suitable in terms of naming this bill. 
This is serious legislation. It was with some fascination that I noted the Minister described the bill as beautifully written and beautifully balanced. If we look at the bill we see that it initially had 18 parts which have now been reduced to two and the general policy statement is in a subpart. We can only conclude that the Minister is right. The bill is beautifully written and beautifully crafted. That is the only way one could describe it. She is right. 
I suggest that never in the history of the New Zealand Parliament has there been such ingenuity in terms of the way that the Government has been able to truncate the debate and bring the legislation down from 18 parts to two parts. So in that sense the Minister is absolutely right. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: What about innovation strategy? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I have some questions for John Tamihere and other members of the Committee and in particular for the Minister. I hope the Minister will take a call. I know that this Minister has spent some years over two Parliaments promising these amendments. At every campaign meeting she has ever been to in her life somebody has raised the Resource Management Act as a major barrier to growth in this country. I am sure of that because that is what happens at every campaign meeting I have ever been to. I know that Wellington Central people are just as concerned about growth and development in New Zealand as anybody else is. I know that the Minister will have been exposed to that. 
I ask the Minister why it is that after the 400 submissions were presented she turned down absolutely the 16 recommended changes that were brought forward by the original Simon Upton bill. Why did she turn those down? After a long period of consultation with a wide community in particular those who were involved in environmental and development issues why is it that this Minister absolutely in an arbitrary way put a red pen through each and every one of those recommendations? Only under political pressure from the Government’s new-found friends over here—the Christians who have been fed to the lions—did she capitulate on one particular item and then only half-heartedly and not in a way that will bring about the changes that are necessary. In a half-hearted way she actually backed down on one of those things and changed it. 
The Minister might care to take a call to explain to us why that is so. She might also explain to the business community out there why this legislation which was described as important legislation by many Ministers in the current Government sat on the Order Paper for over 100 weeks. This legislation was described by the Government as significant and as very important by this Minister. She assured people that it was important to them and that the Government would do what it could to bring about the changes they were asking for but it sat on the Order Paper for 100 weeks. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Some very good points have been made in this debate on the title Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). The real question we should be asking ourselves is what on earth happened to the No. 1 amendment bill. The history has just been outlined very well by the member for Taranaki - King Country. That bill was introduced way back in 1999. Unfortunately we needed the No. 1 amendment bill long before that and I regret having to say that. 
The original bill was introduced in 1991 and it was blatantly obvious quite early in the piece that it was fundamentally flawed. I say that as one who was closely aligned to the resource management law reform process through the late 1980s and indeed co-chaired the first Resource Management Bill along with Philip Woollaston before it was passed. We did not pass it as a Government as we went out of office in 1990. Thank God we did not pass it. It was fundamentally flawed and that was why that Government did not pass it. We were philosophically deeply split on it by that time on the basis of the evidence heard. However it went for 9 years without amendment when it was screaming out for amendment. Simon Upton I have to say was very thorough. I had a huge respect for his thoroughness. He consulted widely but in a way he never got the job done. 
He spent too much time talking about it when he should have driven those changes through. Perhaps he did not anticipate the change of Government. None of us anticipated how bad it would actually be with the change of Government. The Government then referred the bill to a select committee chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons I believe. The 16 recommendations that Simon Upton came forward with—which were all necessary and important but not sufficient to the extent that they did not address the fundamental flaws in the Resource Management Act but were just process measures—were all overturned. I think the Greens had a huge influence on that because as members will remember they were holding that Government to ransom. The committee reported back in May 2001. We are talking about the No. 1 bill which sat there week after week after week languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper bouncing along the bottom. From time to time members might recall we used to ask questions. But oh no the Government was deep in thought. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was going to be passed by October. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh yes the Government promised at one stage that it would be passed by October. It did not happen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was going to be passed by October 2002. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes 2002. The Governmentpromised it would be passed by Christmas but forgot to say which Christmas. Clearly the Government knew there were problems and it knew that the select committee had been captured by the Green influence and all the measures had been overturned. This relates specifically to the title because this is the No. 2 bill. My question is: why is it the No. 2 bill? What happened to the No. 1 bill? That is the key point. 
Then all of a sudden the Government found a cosy new friend United Future. They were green—not in the sense of this lot of Greens but in the sense of wet behind the ears. The Government knew it could use this little bunch of patsies and it did. So immediately that it knew it promised United Future members they would get standing. 
I remember Peter Dunne bailing me up in January—I think it was before the House started—and saying “I’ve got standing I’ve got standing. Fantastic. Isn’t this wonderful?”. I think he was confused with limited notification. He was totally confused. But he sold it to his wet-behind-the-ears new chums whose numbers in Parliament astounded the whole country I think. Anyway that is why the passage was cleared for the Government to ram the bill through. Then the Governmentsaid it had a problem because there were actually 18 parts. It knew the Opposition parties would oppose it so it wondered how it could be sneaky. It cancelled the No. 1 bill. That bill disappeared and the Government came up with the No. 2 bill which states on the front page under “Background” that it is virtually identical to the No. 1 bill as reported by the Local Government and Environment Committee. They are virtually identical but a whole new bill needed to be introduced—but then the Government did not refer it to a select committee. There was no select committee process. 
Judith Collins 
: Why is that? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Government did not want it exposed to scrutiny. What other reason could there be? While the Government claims that there have been all those weeks of submissions the new measures were never heard by a select committee. 
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. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First had an influx of new members after the last election and we moved up from 5 to 13 members. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Worse for it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Worthwhile? I thank Mr Tamihere very much. That is the first time I have agreed with him since I have come back to the House. Sometimes he can say the right thing though it is a pity that when he does say the right thing he does not follow it up as often as he might. The eight new members of New Zealand First have taken some considerable time to find out what is going on in the House. We have familiarised ourselves with the legislation and we have been trying to come to grips with this resource management legislation. 
There was a resource management bill before the House before the election and we have heard much about it today. We heard about it before when this bill was introduced and I am sure we have all gained the clear impression that what we have here on the part of the Government in terms of the way in which it is ramming this Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) through the House is an absolute breach of what we would call the rule of law. This bill should really be called the “Resource Management Act (Abuse of the Rule of Law) Bill”. When one is in doubt one tends to say something is a breach of the rule of law but the ultimate principle of the rule of law is that Governments should not act arbitrarily. 
If there is a better example of the Government acting arbitrarily than the manner in which the Government is acting on this bill then I would like to know it. This Government has arbitrarily rejected all 400 submissions on the first resource management bill and has arbitrarily introduced the No. 2 bill. It has arbitrarily given no select committee time for the consideration of that bill and now it is arbitrarily ramming it through the House over the best intentions of all the members of the Opposition. There is no better example of the breach of the rule of law and its requirements for a Government not to act arbitrarily than the way in which the Government is acting on this bill. 
The person who protects Parliament from that sort of behaviour is the Attorney-General. Yet I have not heard the Attorney-General say anything about that on this particular bill or for that matter on any other piece of legislation. It is that person’s role to protect Parliament and to act as the supreme law officer of the country in a way and to advise Cabinet as to when it is breaching things like the rule of law. But that Attorney-General the Hon Margaret Wilson deafens us with her silence. She has no concern for the principles that the Westminster system the New Zealand constitution and suchlike would require an Attorney-General to follow. One can hardly in a way blame the members of this Labour Government if they are not receiving that advice from the Hon Margaret Wilson. She is so busy ramming through her “republic of New Zealand”—her Privy Council bill—and all those other things that she is not interested in anything else. Perhaps there is a pay-off. Perhaps she takes the view that if she keeps quiet on the resource management bill then other members of the Labour Party will keep quiet on her wish to make this country a republic. 
But this bill is clearly an abuse of the rule of law. Does this minority Labour Government not have any regard for the fundamental principles on which this country was based—the rule of law? It has none whatsoever and this bill is a classic example of that from this Minister Marian Hobbs. I understood that once upon a time Marian Hobbs was one of those protester types and that she earned her stripes at one of those places down in the South Island to prove how much she supported democracy the rights of the individual and all those things—and perhaps even the principle of the rule of law if she understood that. But here she is today—[ 
Interruption 
] Strangely enough I saw that station being built in Washington in about 1982 when I happened to be there but that is a separate story. But there was Marian Hobbs opposing all that sort of thing and giving the impression that she stood up for the rights of New Zealanders and here she is now with the Resource Management Act which affects every New Zealander. 
The Resource Management Act affects the ownership of land so any New Zealander who owns or rents any property is affected by this bill. This bill affects the way in which a person’s current property and any future property of that person can be developed. This bill affects every New Zealander whether an owner a renter a tenant a future owner or whatever he or she is. This minority Labour Government supported by United Future is ramming this legislation through the House without any regard for the views of the public of New Zealand. There has been no select committee hearing on this bill; it is just being rammed through. 
Something that upsets lawyers considerably when they read this type of legislation and see a bill in two parts is that they wonder why there are all those subparts. I had to speak to a member of the New Zealand Law Society the other day and explain the reason for that to him. 
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. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I recommend the title of this bill to the Committee. This bill is about amending the Resource Management Act in a very positive way. In fact I am tempted to consider as an alternative title the “Resource Management Reform Bill” because we are moving in the right direction albeit slowly and with some very small steps. Unlike the Prostitution Reform Bill which is going in the wrong direction and does not have a right to use the word “reform” in its title in the case of this bill that would be good. 
I want to begin by thanking the officials who have helped us through the process on this bill. It has been an informative process for me and continues to be in this Chamber. This bill has opened my eyes to a whole new gamut of power plays and political stunts as we have sought to serve the public of New Zealand by getting this bill finally through the House—and that will happen. We are very encouraged by the progress we are making today and we look forward to the bill finally passing later on. 
The title of the bill is significant. This is the No. 2 amendment bill. We look forward to the continuation of this process with perhaps the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3). I do not know whether the bill will be called that but we will continue the process of reform. We are constantly thinking up and generating ideas for how the Act can be improved in response to our consultation with people across the business and planning communities and with the general public. 
I want to make a quick response to something that the Hon Nick Smith said earlier. He questioned our claim that we were getting limited notification into this bill. Nick Smith needs to understand that just drafting something does not necessarily get it through into the legislation. The Hon Nick Smith could write things all day long and he still would not change a single dot of the law. We fully understood that the Government had already drafted something but we are assisting in getting that part of the legislation through in this bill and we are very proud of that. People have wanted limited notification. Even the National Party itself which initially put forward the idea should be thrilled today that limited notification will finally be seeing the light of day in law. 
We have enjoyed the cooperation we have had from the Minister Marian Hobbs and I commend her today. We will continue to enjoy working with her and working on improvements to the Act. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It was most enjoyable to listen to the last few lines of that fairy tale from United Future. I am always very positive about United Future because I think that its members are just slightly wayward and will come back to the right path in time. As I address the title of this particular bill I think what a disappointment it is. I have to take up some of the suggestions of my colleagues. I will even at this stage mention the suggestion from the United Future speaker when he drew some relation between this bill’s name and that of the Prostitution Reform Bill. I think both bills should be put in exactly the same place which is in the rubbish bin. They are both rubbish and that is where they both belong. 
This bill could have many particular titles and we have talked about them this afternoon. I would like to talk about a new title. What about the “Cunliffe Bill”? Let us call it the “Cunliffe Bill”; it is all promise and no action. I think that I could probably move a non-controversial motion of support for that name. I think that my parliamentary colleagues in all parties and particularly in Labour would probably agree with that. This is the “all promise no action” bill. Minister John Tamihere is very positive about that one and I thank him. 
I take resource management issues very seriously as the MP for the great electorate of Clevedon. Just recently on Monday I held meetings with Auckland business people. A lot of those people were either developers of properties or businesses or lawyers involved in working for thoe people. The No. 1 issue that they wanted to speak about after the Privy Council and the denigration of this country’s rule of law was the Resource Management Act. This bill will not address their issues. 
I would like the Minister to take a call but particularly I would like to hear from Jill Pettis the MP for Whanganui who I know always wants to be included in the debate and never gets a chance. That is just not fair because she is a good member I am sure—but probably not for Wanganui. That particular member should get a chance to address the title. 
I will come back to the point. This bill named the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) will not address the issues of the developers and it will not address the issues of the environmentalists who were also at my meeting. This is a patsy bill. It is a “Cunliffe Bill”. It will not achieve anything. Nowhere in this bill does it state that objectors will not be able to hold developers to ransom or that a developer on one particular site will be unable to demand money from the developer of another site just to go away. That is what happens all the time in Auckland and everywhere else. We all know of instances in Auckland in particular where that has happened and a developer on one side of the street turns round and is paid—sometimes up to $1 million—to go away and not object to the building that another developer wants to build. 
The people who lose as a result of that are the ordinary people of New Zealand who have to pay higher prices. So this bill could be named the “Higher Price Bill” or the “Bureaucracy Bill”. The ordinary people of New Zealand the Joe and Janet Bloggs of New Zealand are the ones who have to pay more. They have to pay more in rent more for services and more for their rates—more for everything. It is the farmers too who miss out—the farmers of Clevedon—and the people who own property. Why should they not be able to put up a chicken coop on their property without a namby-pamby wimpy white liberal from the local council or from the Labour Government telling them what they can do on their own land? For goodness’ sake! 
This bill should address people’s property rights. It should state that people are able to do pretty much what they need to do on their property as long as it does not harm or affect badly either the environment or other people. But this bill does nothing to address that issue. This is a nonsense bill. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No there cannot be any points of order. There is no debate on the closure motion. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is because you speak so fast that it is not possible when you take the closure to raise relevant points of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member well knows that there is no debate on the closure motion. That is solely the decision of the Chair. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A very unusual parliamentary process has gone on with this bill. There has been no opportunity for public submissions. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to try to explain that parliamentary process. I would be happy for him to explain the truncated process that the Government is putting this bill through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is debating the closure and it is not for debate. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 47 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are five amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1. They are amendments to the title in subclause (1). They are all out of order as they are not serious amendments. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 47 
Abstentions 8 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Green Party 8. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You have just ruled five amendments by my colleague Dr Nick Smith out of order because they were not relevant. I would have thought that Parliament this Committee would decide whether they are relevant and that we would have the chance to put that to the vote. What has happened is that you have ruled out of order five of his amendments. I want to know what the position is and how you can justify that. I would have thought that under the democratic process—if we have one—the Committee would determine whether those amendments were relevant and vote accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The process is very clear. It is the Chairperson’s call and obviously—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell the Hon Nick Smith that that comment is not in order. He needs to look at the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We received many submissions from individuals who agreed that this bill will increase the costs the uncertainties and the delays to members of the public in respect of the Resource Management Act. I challenge the view that an amendment that includes those words cannot be put to the vote of this Committee. It is for the Committee to decide what it wishes to call this bill—it is not for the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is not correct. If he reads Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement) he will see that it is very clear: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.” 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We have seen bills introduced— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but we cannot relitigate that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a different point of order? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of order in respect of what amendments you will consider in the Committee stage of this bill and those that you will not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The decisions on the amendments are made by the Chair. The Speaker’s ruling is very very clear on that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Speaker’s ruling is a matter of whether the amendment is relevant and whether it is not serious. I have to tell you that members on this side of the Chamber are absolutely serious in saying that this bill will increase the costs the uncertainties and the delays for those who use the Resource Management Act. I suggest to you that we have had before this House bills that are according to what the Government has stated about compliance cost reductions. It has been acceptable within the Government for the titles of bills to make reference to compliance costs so why is it not possible for the Opposition to move amendments to include such words in the title of a bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Speaker’s ruling is very clear on that and we have had clear rulings on that before. That is the end of the matter. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it on the same point? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It is a new point of order. I seek clarification. This is not a time-limited debate and I want to know when speeches stop if someone has new information. We have heard that this bill the No. 2 bill is a very truncated version. I want to know if I never had a call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have to rule the member out of order. She is debating the closure again. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I am seeking clarification Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The clarification was clearly given in the Speaker’s ruling when this bill was introduced. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling on 26 March when the bill was introduced. The Speaker made it very clear then. He said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case. This is something that I will discuss with the chairpersons when the bill is scheduled for its Committee stage.” The Speaker has discussed that with the presiding officers as has the Business Committee. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 and 63/2 which make it very clear particularly in the second ruling that in Committee the chairperson is the sole judge of the question of relevancy. It would be helpful to members to read the rules of the Committee particularly that Speaker’s ruling because it establishes clearly the responsibility of us all to accept the appropriate judgments of the Chair when they are made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If they’re fair. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member cannot keep saying that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. The point of order has been dealt with and it cannot be relitigated. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The acting Leader of the House has raised a point that I wish to elaborate on as I think it is very important from a procedural point of view. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order because we are not relitigating— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes. Mr Burton—I presume in his capacity as acting Leader of the House—stood up and drew our attention to Speaker’s rulings 63/1 and 63/2. I think they were the references he used. He said that those rulings refer to the matter of relevancy. Now the point is not one of relevancy. That is the key thing. Lynda Scott was not raising an issue of relevancy; she was seeking a clarification from the Chair on how this matter would be dealt with. We are here for a long session tonight. We know that; we accept that. A number of closure motions will be taken and members have a right to be quite clear on how that issue will be dealt with on future occasions. It was not a question of relitigating and it was not a question of relevance; it was simply a question of seeking an indication from the Chair as to how it would be dealt with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes and that has been given. I will now call clause 2. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? We are not relitigating. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I accept the ruling you have made but I want an assurance from the Chair that you understand that we have speakers in this team who have been members of the select committee. They have taken an active part and they understand the issues. Right from the word go when we started this debate at a quarter past 4 there have been members on this side of the Chamber who have been seeking the call. They are speakers who have an understanding and who have made a commitment— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but I am going to rule the member out of order. He is relitigating the closure. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I accept what you have done. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: He is relitigating the closure. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I want some assurance for the future that the speakers we are putting up will be given a fair go. I am not relitigating what you have done. We accept that we have gone through the closure motion—I am looking forward to the rest of the debate Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling that was given when the bill was introduced and I also refer the member to Standing Order 138. That is the end of the matter. 
Clause 2Commencement 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 What we see with this clause is so typical of the fiasco that the Minister and the Government have brought about in terms of resource management law. I need to remind the Committee of just how long the history is in respect of this commencement date and of just how often this Minister has broken her word. The Local Government and Environment Committee in considering the Simon Upton bill that was introduced in May 1999 set about listening to 400 submissions all around New Zealand. The committee worked its little butt off. It heard long submissions. It spent 6 weeks on deliberation. A huge amount of work went into that part of the process. Then in May 2001 that bill was reported back to the House. National members did not necessarily agree with all the amendments adopted by the select committee. The report sets out what we agreed and disagreed on. We have never been given the opportunity by the arrogant Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to debate that work of the committee. Never has she given this House the opportunity to debate that select committee report back. What does that say about this Minister’s respect for the institution of Parliament and its select committees? It says that she has no respect at all for her fellow parliamentarians and the work that they put in to that sort of process. 
The Minister in the chair promised that the bill would be passed by October 2001. She went on the public record when speaking at the Resource Management Law Association and said that the bill would be law by October 2001. And was it? Has the Minister ever provided an explanation to those thousands of people who work in the resource management area to the members of this House or to anybody? Or is it that we cannot take her word on anything? Is she a Minister who just says things then provides no explanation when she moves away from them? My first question to the Minister is this: why did she not keep her word and pass that bill by October 2001 as she said at that time? Then more recently—in August last year—the Minister said: “The bill will be passed next month.” Was that commitment by this Minister followed? Was the bill advanced? I myself and others who were on the select committee said “Good! At long last we’re going to have the opportunity to debate the work of the select committee.” But no that did not happen. It was not dealt with before Christmas even. Then there was the sneaky dirty trick of introducing a bill that even the mover says is near identical. Rather than have separate parts whereby members on this side of the Chamber can debate those issues part by part she put them all into one part of the bill. I say to the Minister that I have never seen such a devious trick in all my years in this Parliament. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: And he’s seen a few. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I probably have seen a few but I have never ever seen a trick as dirty as that one. Why is the Minister not prepared to debate this bill part by part? I shall tell members what the Minister did do—and this is unheard of. The Minister gave a directive to parliamentary counsel that the bill was to be in only two parts. I thought that we had respect for the institutions of this House and that when parliamentary counsel draft a bill they would determine the parts on the basis of the content. That is a pretty fair judgment. So how far are we going to go? Does this situation mean that we will now have Ministers who will always instruct parliamentary counsel so they do not have to front up for their dopey decisions? Is that what this Minister is on about? I have to say that her predecessor Simon Upton was a person of integrity. It was not particularly convenient for the previous Government that there were 18 parts in the resource management intermediate bill. 
Jill Pettis 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Are we not discussing the commencement clause? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes we are discussing clause 2 the commencement. 
Jill Pettis 
: It would be useful to have some reference to the commencement. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue of commencement is absolutely relevant to this. The Minister in the chair promised that the bill would commence in October 2001 but it did not. She promised that it would commence in October 2002 but it did not. What is more the dirty trick the Minister has pulled by putting this bill into just two parts rather than 18 parts is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to this Parliament and to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The really ironic part is that this Minister is passing legislation that is purer than pure in respect of process. If poor old Joe Average wants to build a cow shed he has to go through all the processes—but not the Minister. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I follow on from the Hon Nick Smith also to talk about the abuse of process here. Have members ever seen anything like this? Part 1 has been condensed down to 14 subparts. We know that the Minister has had difficulty in getting the No. 1 Resource Management Act Amendment Bill organised into this House. It has been delayed and delayed. The commencement date of the legislation was October 2001 then October 2002 and now it is supposed to be 1 August 2003. 
The bill had the opportunity to improve the Resource Management Act. When major legislation is brought in there will always be problems. We will get some things right and other things wrong. Simon Upton identified a lot of the things that had gone wrong but there are good parts. Some people say that the whole bill should be thrown out but Simon Upton decided that the best way to deal with things was to make serious and significant amendments to the Resource Management Act. But what a huge waste of opportunity this Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) is. Fourteen amendments have been thrown out and this Government will not make the significant changes to the Resource Management Act that will be needed to stop the delays in development and the delays that will cause our roading to be congested or to address the lack of development in energy generation that is causing problems in infrastructure in this country. 
The fact that the commencement date was originally October 2001 then October 2002 and now August 2003 shows us how long it takes to get a bill through this Parliament. This Government has taken credit for the fact that it has all those fiscal surpluses. This bill shows the lag between the time someone brings a bill to the House develops it and gets it through the select committee and the time the effects are felt. That time delay has been really significant in terms of the Resource Management Act. 
I am the member of Parliament for Kaikoura and many people have come to see me with their concerns about the Resource Management Act. Absolutely they have been waiting for changes to be made. They will be extremely disappointed with this bill. Marlborough is at one end of the Kaikoura electorate and the Hurunui is at the other end. Marlborough is very good. The council there has done a great job in terms of managing the Resource Management Act. But in the Hurunui farmers have had massive problems in applying its council’s interpretation of the Resource Management Act. One could not get two councils with two such different approaches to the Resource Management Act. The people in the Hurunui have been hanging out for changes to improve the Act and they thought that those changes would happen much earlier on. 
National had significant amendments it wanted to make to the bill. But no the commencement of this No. 2 bill has been delayed until August 2003. I can use a few examples of how this has affected people I know. One of the things that National wanted to do was to allow applicants to choose to go direct to the Environment Court if that is what they wanted to do. That would have been an extremely good thing because councils really like that. They did not really want to be clogged up with things that could go directly through. I shall give the Committee an example of someone I know who was doing a small development and how it cost them $20000 extra— 
Jill Pettis 
: Relevance? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I am talking about the commencement date. They wanted to see this bill get through so much earlier. They wanted to see the bill commence. The problem the people I know had was that their development cost them an extra $20000 and an extra 3 years. They were very keen to see National’s bill go through—not the bill before us now but National’s bill with its 16 significant amendments to the Resource Management Act. That is the bill they wanted to go through and commence. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Clause 2 refers to the commencement date and in Supplementary Order Paper 86 we have made a distinction between the dates. Members will notice that clause 2 has two subclauses. In the bill as introduced subclause (1) had a commencement date of 1 May in respect of clauses 18 to 23. The Supplementary Order Paper amends subclause (1) so that those clauses will come into force the day after the date on which the royal assent is given. The reason for the distinction between those two dates is that clauses 18 to 23 refer to the national environmental standards. I can just hear Opposition members bemoaning how long this has taken. They are not the only ones to be concerned about that. 
Opposition Members 
: Well we know that. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Absolutely. I have been doing work on a national policy statement on biodiversity that has been totally held up by this process and waiting for this bill to come through. The only comment I really want to make about the length of time it has taken is that this bill is very much a creature of a minority Government and a mixed-member proportional representation Parliament. It is a bill that is a child of democracy. I have never had to horse-trade so much as on this bill over the last 3 years. To just give one example it is not only the trade that goes on inside. Simon Upton did a great job and came in with a number of ideas and as Jeanette Fitzsimons has pointed out many of them are still in the bill before us. That legislation itself then had a business compliance cost panel look at it. So the bill came back from the select committee the panel looked at it and from there came a Supplementary Order Paper. I then had to win support in the House for horse-trading for that Supplementary Order Paper. That is why this bill has taken some time. 
I could not help but notice that the National Party was always absent in coming forward when it came to trying to move this bill forward. So when I hear National members complain about delay I know it is the parties to the left and to the centre that have done the work to get this bill on the move. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the commencement date I agree we have all wanted to see some substantial progress with the Resource Management Act but we have been let down in that regard and so I do not support the commencement date put forward in this bill. 
The Minister says the bill is a “child of democracy” but that is absolutely wrong. This bill is not a child of democracy. Democracy is being denied. People are being denied the opportunity to make submissions on a bill that is significantly different in content in such a way that the impacts will be huge and have great social and economic consequences on this country. That material difference is so huge that the bill should have gone back to the select committee. The public of New Zealand should not have been denied an opportunity to make submissions on this incredibly different legislation. This is reflected in the submissions that we did get on the bill. I shall read out some of them. There was one from St Heliers Glendowie Community Committee which was: “Thank you for recognising the importance of public participation in relation to this important area of the law in offering to represent our views in the legislative process.” Those people said that to Nick Smith Ken Shirley and Jim Peters for giving them the opportunity to be heard because the Minister in charge of this bill denied them that opportunity. 
This Minister denied the people of New Zealand the opportunity to be heard on this bill and that is why National opposes the commencement date. The people of New Zealand should be heard. They should be able to respond to what has been a huge single change in legislation that will have a huge impact—that is the definition around heritage provisions. The changes to that definition will have far-reaching social and economic consequences. Those concerns are also reflected in the submissions received. You may well laugh—you who call this a child of democracy. This is actually a complete— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind the member not to bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The Minister who calls this bill a child of democracy could not be more wrong and it is a flagrant disregard of the public’s involvement in substantive changes to legislation that will affect them. I think of the grannies who will have to pay for this and the families. They will pay through their rates and their taxes. We oppose the commencement clause because of that. We oppose it because those changes should be debated. The cost of them will be significant. When we have a definition for “heritage” that includes cultural and ancestral landscapes and the word “spiritual” one will not be able to avoid costs. 
We have numerous submissions that identify the hold-ups for all infrastructure including roading and that is particularly significant. The Minister might smile. She is quite happy to see those added costs going on to ratepayers and taxpayers. I could read out the things that have been pointed out to her by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The commissioner found that “existing opportunities for Government intervention through the Resource Management Act had failed to achieve the desired results”. So the Government is going to interfere. It is also looking at new non-regulatory options. These will allow organisations like the Department of Conservation and the Historic Places Trust not only to make submissions to resource consents but also to take appeals to the Environment Court. Not only will resource applicants have to pay for their own applications; they will also fund through their taxes and rates the process by which the department and the trust will challenge those applications through the Environment Court. I personally think that is an atrocious breach of justice. 
This bill is supposed to be a child of democracy yet the Minister is giving nobody the opportunity to debate those issues. She has closed down that debate. That is why it is a breach of a person’s democratic right to participate and challenge those substantive changes. I want to talk about the compliance costs of this bill because they are relevant to the commencement date. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: A lot of what has been said is not relevant to the commencement date. I call this to members’ attention.. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
:  
The coming into force of this bill in 2003 lies at the heart of the anger many of us feel about the process that has occurred. Nearly all the measures in this bill which should have come into force in early to mid-2001 were in the No. 1 amendment bill. The Government’s obsession with limited notification caused it to sit on the bill for 2 whole years until it could get support from United Future for the Government’s earlier decision to shut the public out of many resource management decisions and ensure there would be no challenge to councils that do not comply with the law on notification. 
There are many sensible measures carried over from the No. 1 bill that councils applicants and submitters have been crying out for over the last 2 years and that could have been in place and working during that time. As there was no debate on the No. 1 bill before it was discharged and as I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee for a whole year looking at the No. 1 bill I want to go through some of those measures—measures that are entirely relevant to the commencement date. 
Currently extra cost and delay are caused by the requirement to consider an application under both an operative plan and a proposed plan. This practice is confusing as well as time consuming. The amendment we agreed to in 2001 which has remained unchanged provides that if a provision in a proposed plan is beyond challenge if submissions have closed and either there have been none or they have been resolved then that rule becomes operative even before the proposed plan as a whole is operative and there is no need to consult the older operative plan on that matter. Applicants and councils could have had the benefit of that for the last 2 years if the bill had been passed when we reported it back to the House. 
At present if a consent authority finds part-way through considering an application that it needs more information the time allowed for processing the application starts again from scratch once that information is provided. That provision can be abused by councils by keeping a developer waiting. Simon Upton’s bill proposed that the applicant could refuse to provide further information but would have to live with the consequences if the consent was refused because of it. The committee felt that was potentially a waste of effort for everyone and instead provided that if more information is required the clock stops while it is collected but then restarts from the same place. In other words we hit the pause button rather than restart. This will save developers time and costs during the processing of a consent and it could have been saving them that time and those costs for the last 2 years. 
Combined regional and district plans as well as combined regional plans and policy statements are now allowed turning two documents into one where that suits the council and streamlining the consultation process. That has also been held up for 2 years. Consents that have not been acted on currently lapse after 2 years. We extended that to 5 years recognising that many large projects take some time to raise finance and get started after a consent is issued. How many people have had to apply specifically to have their consents extended because that clause was delayed for 2 years? Appeals under section 274—typically made by those who agree with the decision of the first hearing but then want to join an appeal when the other side lodges one in order to protect their position—can currently occur right up to the time of the appeal hearing. That creates uncertainty and costs for everyone. Now they will have just a month to lodge a section 274 appeal but they will be full parties so that if the party they joined pulls out they will not be affected. That is another useful measure for everyone which we have had to wait 2 years for. 
Those are the sorts of sensible measures that reduce costs and delays for applicants and that the previous committee—far from gutting the bill as the Opposition claims—worked hard to implement. It is unreasonable that we have had to wait 2 years for the House to progress them and there are many applicants and councils that will remember who caused the delay. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a few brief comments on the commencement clause particularly in response to Jeannette Fitzsimons’ comments. I think what we in this Committee are still not understanding—and this is what we in United Future are delighted to try to bring into the Parliament—is an understanding of how MMP really does work. The reason this bill was sitting around for so long was because two parties would not give each other any ground at all. The Greens held the process up because they refused to budge on their ideology on the issue of limited notification. They could have had the good measures that the people of New Zealand are waiting for if they had been simply willing to give a little. 
United Future is able to introduce this bill with the Government now because we do not hold the Government to ransom. We acknowledge that we are eight members in this Committee that we have only a certain percentage of the voters of New Zealand behind us and that we do what we can to advance the things that are of benefit to New Zealand. We will never get all we want in any negotiation but I have lived a great deal of my life on a very very good principle and I hope members in this Committee might listen to it this evening. It is based on the idea that if we give it shall be given unto us. If one gives first one may get back something that is very very valuable and rewarding. People may treat us differently if we are prepared to meet them halfway. That is something we want to introduce to this MMP Parliament and this bill is an excellent example of that. The people of New Zealand will not get everything they wanted but they will get some improvements to the Resource Management Act which they have long been waiting for. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this part of the debate but I have been provoked by Mr Baldock—I want to say Mr Baldrick as something about him reminds me of Baldrick; I cannot remember what it is but it is something in my past. 
The Greens do not realise they have been duped. The speech we just heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons really epitomises that. Let me just walk members through it for those in the Committee who have perhaps not been following this process. The first bill came in here in Simon Upton’s time. Labour then put it to a new select committee which did a very thorough job—I think Nick Smith was involved and Jeanette Fitzsimons chaired the committee. The select committee heard a lot of submissions all around the country and did a very thorough job. It reported back way back in May 2001 and the bill then sat languishing. Why? Because Labour had an absolute obsession with the limited notification which the Greens and the chair of the committee were emphatically opposed to. 
I support limited notification and would actually go a whole lot further. I believe in full standing. [ 
Interruption 
] No I believe in consultation but there is a point where consultation debases democracy and we end up with so-called participatory democracy where everyone just talks to each other for ever and nothing actually gets done. However I do believe in appropriate consultation. But that is an aside. 
Although I disagreed with them the Greens stuck to their principles—and that is to their credit. The bill did not go anywhere. All of a sudden there was a new Parliament. We got the babes in the wood United Future which is happy to say that it will go with limited notification. It will support that. So the Government then cancelled the old bill and introduced a whole new bill. It has been truncated from 18 parts down to 2 parts and Mr Baldock has just put out a press release about how he is emphatically opposed to terms like “spiritual” “cultural landscape” and “ancestral landscapes”. I agree with him—they are absolute nonsense and he should be opposing them. He should be standing with Opposition parties and opposing the whole bill as the Greens did in principle. It really shows that United Future does not have the same principles as the Greens—United Future will go with anyone. Having been as quiet as a lamb through the process the member has the audacity to vote for it now that it is going through. He does not realise that he is the instrument of passing into law the very measures that he rails against in the press release he put out just this afternoon. Is that a lesson in politics or what? 
As I say I was not going to get up and take a call but the member was so full of puffery and was so pleased with himself—as though he had been such a good politician in doing all the work— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member of the commencement date. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is all about the commencement date—that is the point. It would not be going anywhere if it were not for that member. It would be going nowhere—which is all about commencement in any bill—just as it went nowhere when the Greens stuck to their principles as misguided and confused as they were. 
This member is right on the issue of limited notification and he could stop it going anywhere. Instead it seems that it could well be passing through over the next few days and possibly even receiving the royal assent. That member and United Future have to realise that they have been duped. They are being manipulated by the master manipulators over there. We had a term for them before which was “deceitful” was it not? 
Pansy Wong 
: Devious. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Devious. They have been very devious in this process. It is a lesson to that member and his party that Government members are a very devious lot. I say to United Future do not be duped again. Mr Baldock has definitely been sprung. If Mr Baldock were sincere in not wanting nonsense terms like “cultural landscape” “spiritual landscape” and “ancestral landscape” melded into the Resource Management Act—and they are terms that can only compound it and make it worse—he could stop the commencement date from being what it now is in this bill. In effect he is the author of this legislation. He is the instrument for it being passed into law. 
The Greens knew how to play the game—they are quite canny. I disagree with them philosophically but I have a sneaky respect for them. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will speak on the commencement date of the bill which is 1 May 2003. I note the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to delete the expression “1 May 2003” and to substitute the words “the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent”. Obviously 1 May 2003 has passed and this bill will be rushed into law as soon as the Government can get it through the House and get a signature on it. 
As I think has been explained by Mr Shirley and other members of the Committee who have spoken in opposition to this bill it will be coming into effect only because of the support of United Future. As Mr Shirley said one has a grudging respect for the Greens. They have abstained from voting on the title. They will not be voting on this so it means that the Government must rely on United Future to get this bill through—that is the clear message that is coming through to the people of New Zealand. This bill will come into force only if United Future supports it. 
It is typical of United Future that on the one hand it says by way of a press statement that it has some criticisms of the legislation while on the other hand it is willing to give effect to the legislation and to let it become law. One cannot really have it both ways. United Future was calling this bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill” when it was being discussed in the first reading. I am very pleased that it has stopped using that sort of expression but it is taking full credit for this bill. So when it comes to the next election if United Future is still around then will it take credit for the fact that terms like “spiritual” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” are in this bill or will it vote against those clauses? That is what we really need to know. Will United Future be voting against those clauses? If it does vote against them this bill will not come into force. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s why they’re doing it in parts. 
DAIL JONES 
: But if they are going to do it in the first part and if they try to vote against it in Part 1 are they assuming that the Greens will support words like “spiritual landscapes “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes”? Are those words to be deleted from the bill because United Future is going to stand up and be counted—so that this bill will not come into force because the Government may decide it will not proceed with it any further? That is what needs to be made clear by United Future. No doubt it will be made clear shortly. 
Of course the United Future member said that “you give and it shall be given unto you”. That is a nice trite phrase. OK United Future members have given but what will be given unto them? Will we find out at some stage? Limited notification is something the Labour Party has always wanted. The Greens said they did not want it and resisted any pressure to continue with the bill. We would like to know what has been given unto United Future. We have heard one part of that trite saying but what is the other part? What have United Future members got in return? So far we do not know that they have ever received anything in return for anything. 
Maybe this is an example of a psychological relationship between United Future and the Labour Party. United Future members like their psychological relationships. I think it will be a new phrase. In the Families Commission Bill they have this psychological relationship and maybe this “give and it shall be given unto you” is part of the psychological relationship that exists between Labour and United Future. It is a relationship whereby Labour gets something and psychologically United Future gets something in return. Just what it is psychologically we do not know; but psychologically it is getting something back—psychologically spiritually or in some other way or another. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Give and take. 
DAIL JONES 
: Labour gets it and United Future psychologically receives in return. I think that is a wonderful relationship for any Government to have with its minor party. Psychologically or whatever way this bill is going through this House only because of United Future’s support. Despite United Future’s objection to terms like “spiritual landscapes” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” and probably to matters to do with the heritage aspects of this bill—despite the fact that it says it opposes them—it would seem in practice that its members will lie down and agree with the Labour Party. They will be like lambs to the slaughter—a nice biblical phrase. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put. All those of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My colleague Dr Nick Smith was trying to raise a point of order before you put the question. He had risen and asked for a point of order. That is true is it not Minister? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I think so but to be fair I doubt that the Chair could hear because there were so many people seeking the call. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I am trying to help the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Did the Hon Dr Nick Smith call for a point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I tried to Madam Chair. My point of order is that I have a number of amendments on this specific clause being printed. I assumed that because the standard practice of the Committee of the whole House is that there is about an hour per part or clause the debate in respect of this part would be pretty typical and we would stick to that custom. What has happened is that because you have not given any of my three colleagues who have been seeking the call the opportunity to speak you have removed my capacity to be able to table those amendments and for those amendments to be voted on in this particular clause. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I recognise that coming after this very narrow clause 2 debate will be the body of a wide-ranging debate. I sought the closure because the contributions that had been made thus far were all over the place. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure cannot be debated. I refer to Dr Nick Smith’s point of order. As he knows the amendments have to be on the table. We have not received them. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I explained why that was the case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Does the member want to seek leave in respect of the late tabling of the amendments? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the Committee to rise as it is only 4 minutes to the break and for it to resume at 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Does the member wish to seek leave for those amendments to be tabled late? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the vote begun yet? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The closure has been accepted. I am listening to the member’s point of order on the amendments. I have suggested that he seek the leave of the Committee to table the amendments now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to sign and table my amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If anybody requires those amendments they can get them from the Table Office. 
Shane Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know that you noticed that right throughout the whole period of the debate on clause 2 I was seeking a call. I sought every single call right from the start. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is now relitigating the closure and that is not possible. 
Shane Ardern 
: My point is this: is it going to be the practice in the House once we get into the main part of this bill for you to accept closure when there are members who are clearly seeking a call and that you will deny those members an opportunity to speak on that particular clause? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. As I said previously there are two things that are taken into account on this and they come under Standing Order 138. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It is a procedural matter Madam Chair and I am trying to assist the Committee. Given the proximity to the dinner break and that many of us were here to 5 o’clock this morning no one is of a mind to vote through our dinner break on the amendments. I note that the Standing Orders provide that if voting has commenced we continue voting even if it is through the dinner break or after the House would normally have risen. I am wanting information or clarification from you that there are two discrete votes. One is the acceptance of the closure vote as distinct from the commencement of the voting on any amendments. I would hate to think that we got ourselves trapped. It is getting very close to 6 o’clock now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. I am going to put the closure. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 47 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no option but to recall the Speaker. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled. 
Motion agreed to and House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Speaker the House has recalled you because there is a dispute over the continuation of the vote. The closure had been taken before 6 o’clock. That was disputed in several points of order and then when I commenced the voting that was contested. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 There is a step missing in that sequence as it has been reported to you Mr Speaker. There was a point of order on a procedural matter that I took prior to the putting of the closure motion. We had about a minute to go until 6 o’clock many of us had been in the House until 5 a.m. this morning and tempers were perhaps a bit frayed. Some of us were in a fractious mood and looking forward to our dinner break. I sought clarification on the fact that there were two discrete votes. In other words the House could take the closure vote only which would mean that we would not have to vote right through the dinner break. The Chair indicated to me that that was the case and that there would not be a problem. At that point we acquiesced with the expectation that we would then suspend the House have our dinner break and come back at 7.30 to take the vote. At that point the Chair said no the rules had changed what she had indicated to me was wrong and we therefore had to continue to vote through the dinner break. I thought that was a rather extraordinary situation to be placed in. I attempted to remonstrate and at that point sought leave to recall the Speaker. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 140 “Effect of carrying of closure” states: “(1) When the question for the closure is agreed to the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” The question under debate at that point was clause 2 and the amendments to that. It was put immediately and in following that Standing Order it has been the practice of this House that the subsequent motions are all put and continue through till the House rises or if the number of amendments is sufficient to get past 7.30 the Committee simply continues on to the next item of business in the Committee stage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I wanted to raise a further concern on behalf of Opposition parties. It is a parallel to the events that caused a great deal of disorder last Thursday when the House rose at 6 o’clock which relates to the reluctance from the Chair to take points of order as we approach a dinner time in order to try to rush through a vote as though the Chair has some interest in the vote being progressed at a particular pace. It seemed as if the way in which the Chair conducted the matters that were raised by my colleague Mr Ken Shirley would have been quite different had he raised the same point of order at 5.30 or at 5.45 solely because there was a rush to have a particular motion put before the House by a particular time. That and the neutrality of the Chair is of serious concern to the Opposition parties. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would just like to respond to the reference by the Leader of the House to Standing Order 140(1). I believe he is quite right when he says: “When the question for the closure is agreed to the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” I was not moving an amendment or debating that issue. I was seeking a point of order to clarify the procedural matter of whether the two steps were discrete which would allow us to then have the dinner break and come back to vote at 7.30. The Chair indicated to me that that was the situation but subsequently changed her mind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am bound by the Standing Orders. I refer members to a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling: Standing Order 51 “Interruption deferred when vote in progress” and Speaker’s ruling 54/5 made by Mr Speaker Gray in 1991 which covers the situation. That states: “[Standing Order 140] on the closure requires that a closure motion once accepted be put forthwith without amendment or debate. If the motion is carried the main question and any properly proposed amendments tabled before the closure are also put forthwith and decided without further amendment or debate. The Standing Order does not allow the closure to be moved only on an amendment followed by further debate or amendment to the main question. To do so would defeat the purpose of the closure.” I rule that the closure had been properly put and that we must now therefore proceed to the voting on this particular clause. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clause 2 Commencement  
(continued) 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 45 
Amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 45 
Abstentions 8 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Green Party 8. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note on a column by the Labour members that there is a quite inappropriate sign in the Chamber. I think you should ask that it be removed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If there is an inappropriate sign in the corridor I ask that it be removed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is a large sign. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It shall be removed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We come to Part 1 which includes a total of 93 clauses. You will be aware that they are in 14 subparts. There is a very difficult dilemma and we have a very unusual process. Originally the bill had 18 parts. Members such as myself who have a strong interest in the bill would normally have had if it were not for this very unusual process 18 opportunities to debate each of those parts. They concern very substantive and different issues and I want some clarification. This is the largest part of the bill. Can I for instance indicate that there are major issues in respect of historic heritage notification and the definitions of environment and amenity value. There are about eight different issues on which I wish to speak. The normal Standing Orders of the House are that members have only three speeches. I would appreciate some indication— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There are four speeches—three on the title. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is correct. I want some indication from you at the beginning about how the debate will be managed with this very unusual large part so that a member such as myself who wants to make a substantial contribution on issues that are of very great public interest is able to participate properly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I inform the honourable member that a point of order was raised on 26 March with Mr Speaker in connection with this bill and the decision was that given the nature of the bill the Chairperson should take that situation into account in Committee. Mr Speaker said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case.” The member has indicated that he will speak eight times. If the member were to exhaust his number of four calls he could seek leave to have more calls. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is quite unsatisfactory because with the number of issues in this bill—and I note there are 14 subparts to Part 1—I need some indication at the beginning of the process. For instance if I give a 5-minute contribution on a particular issue knowing that I will get only three or four calls I will have a very different view about whether they will be effective. There are actually 14 substantive issues but there are certainly eight on which I wish to make a contribution. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask you as Chair to be more specific about your interpretation of the instruction that has been given by the Speaker of the House noting the very unusual process in the bill and the fact that it has not gone through the normal select committee process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a Standing Order that limits the member to four calls. I would suggest that the member test the Committee now and seek leave to have more calls. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Then I thereby do just that. I seek leave for the Chair of the Committee to have the discretion to grant more calls to members than the normal restriction of four providing members are making new points and are relevant to the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That sounds sensible. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I speak in support of Dr Smith who has made a contribution in this bill understands the issues and is our spokesman on this issue. If you were to give the call to one other member in the Opposition I would seek that that person could concede to Dr Smith so Dr Smith could speak in that member’s place. I do not know whether it is possible to do that but maybe the Clerk can assist us in this matter. I think it would be only fair in the normal course of events that if a call was given to myself I could concede. Would I have to seek leave; is that what you are telling me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I have to seek leave. If leave were denied would that mean that I took the call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Because the Standing Orders are as they are it means that the maximum number of calls any one member can have on this part is four. I am in the hands of the Committee when that decision is made so it is really up to members to seek the will of the Committee. I cannot overrule the desire of the Committee or its will. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Then I seek leave that if a call is given to a member of the National team who wishes to concede that call to Dr Smith this Committee approve that action. I seek leave along those lines. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 At the Business Committee yesterday this matter was canvassed. At the suggestion of John Carter the senior Opposition whip there was a suggestion that there be a structured managed debate around the central themes of the contents of the two parts of the remaining discussion. That was something the Government was prepared to agree to but it was not agreed to by the ACT party. You can obviously check the minutes of the discussion should you wish Mr Chairman and take advice. Given that reluctance by ACT to agree to that course of action the Government’s position is that we proceed in the normal way under the Standing Orders on the ongoing debate of these matters. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my intention to be extremely generous with calls but it is still a matter for the Committee of the whole House to decide how many calls there will be and it is up to the member to seek leave. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 What is going on in this Parliament this evening is a damn outrage. That David Benson-Pope and Jill Pettis have denied leave on such a critical bill to this Parliament just shows the lack of respect they have for good quality law and no amount of excuses that Mr Benson-Pope makes can hide that fact. He has a moustache like Hitler and we may as well call him that. This bill and the way it is being progressed is quite wrong. 
I firstly want to object to the heritage provisions of this bill which will create a huge amount of uncertainty for New Zealand. There are four particular points on which I wish to focus. This bill and this part provides for and requires as a matter of national importance the protection of this notion of ancestral landscapes. The Local Government and Environment Committee asked officials to define what ancestral landscapes were. They said they did not know. We have asked resource management experts what protection of an ancestral landscape requires. I will give the Committee the advice of one expert: “Put your finger on a map of any block of land anywhere in New Zealand and it could be deemed to be an ancestral landscape.” My first question to the Minister is this: when has the public had an opportunity to debate putting that into law? How is it acceptable for this Parliament to make such a significant decision without any input from the public for the select committee to go through a rushed process and for there to be no public debate at all? What sort of draconian Government do we have that we are prepared to pass laws of that sort? 
Back in 1998 I chaired the Historic Heritage Management Review. It is a matter of some disgrace that the key recommendations in that review have not been followed through because there was a very strong consensus amongst the members of that review that the Historic Places Trust at the moment plays the role of both judge and jury. It is able to be an advocate for heritage and at the same time have regulatory powers. So the original Resource Management Amendment Bill stated that we should integrate heritage decisions into this legislation but also that we should repeal the regulatory powers of the Historic Places Trust. The Prime Minister wrote to the select committee and said that those powers were to be removed supposedly with the approval of the Minister for the Environment. This Government said: “We want to do half what the heritage review said but not the other half.” 
Therefore we have a double-banger. We have a situation where the Historic Places Trust gets to participate in decisions under the Resource Management Act and also at the end gets to put in place a regulatory control such as a heritage protection order. I want the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs to give some justification for that. We have not heard from a single person within Government how that double regulatory model in some way will serve the purposes of New Zealand. 
We then have the new spiritual provisions. We are to put into law a legal requirement for all decisions under the Resource Management Act as a matter of national importance to protect spirits. I want the Minister in the chair to explain how that is to be done. How do we protect a taniwha? Is this Minister effectively condoning the fiasco that occurred over the Ngawha Prison site when over $1 million in consent process was wasted on trying to find out where the taniwha lived? Can the Minister in the chair explain to me why the Prime Minister says that we shall not have prayers at State luncheons because we are a secular State yet in the next moment she proposes a bill that will require every decision maker under the Resource Management Act to take into account the protection of spirits? The Prime Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways. Either we are a secular State and are consistent in that or we include the recognition of all sorts of persons’ spiritual beliefs. 
We on this side of the House are very clear. We respect people’s spiritual beliefs but we think it is a gross error of judgment to have courts of the land and Parliament putting them into law. We make a mockery of the whole resource management process. New Zealanders are angry about this stuff. Why has the Minister not given an opportunity for members of the public to make comments on these provisions and to participate in the decision making? It is a tragedy that the public has not been given that opportunity and it is a disgrace for this Parliament. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from my esteemed colleague Nick Smith. He presented the case very clearly with regard to the poor process of this bill. It is an absolute shocker. It has completely denied the people the opportunity to make submissions on a very significant part of the bill—that is the heritage provisions. Those provisions are really far-reaching given that they now include ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and—that ever-faithful from Labour—the spiritual definition as well. 
Could the Minister please define the area around cultural landscape? What does the Minister mean by “cultural landscape” and “ancestral landscape”? It also includes all of those areas surrounding cultural and ancestral landscapes. What piece of land in the country is actually exempt from being able to be held up through a resource consent process by this one definition that was not in the previous bill? That particular definition of heritage now affects every single piece of land in the country. I would go further and say that it also covers the marine environment. Is the marine environment included as part of those cultural and ancestral landscapes and can it be made to be included in that definition? As it is pretty broad we can have it mean whatever we want it to mean. Any objector to a resource consent can now hold up that consent on that basis for any length of time. The chief executive officer of the Ministry for the Environment said that extortion was just pub talk. We can give members plenty of examples—and some have already been given here tonight—where that is not the case. It is not just pub talk. The examples are out there in reality and they are very numerous. This particular definition will have significant effects. 
People have not had a chance to make submissions to this bill because the Government has denied them that opportunity. We have plenty of submissions from people and I have read one out tonight. Here is another one from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society thanking the committee of Nick Smith Ken Shirley and Jim Peters for recognising the importance of public participation in relation to this important area of law. The society has recognised that there needs to be an opportunity to make submissions to this bill because of the very significant changes from the previous bill but having gone through a considerable process at the 11th hour it has been all for nought and a complete waste of time. That is one submission saying thank you very much for recognising the society’s concerns about the denial of its right to make submissions to this bill—particularly to the heritage provisions and definitions which have been changed and are not the same as the previous bill. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation. 
I also have another submission here from Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. It states: “If the Government passes the amendment to the Resource Management Act it will derogate from the public’s right to participate in decision-making. The Resource Management Act is New Zealand’s most significant environmental legislation and you have denied them the right to participate.” The Minister has called this bill a child of democracy but we have all these submissions stating that people have been denied the right to make submissions. The heritage provisions in the first part of this bill are a significant change and you have denied people the right to make submissions to them. 
That particular provision will be the result of the backlog of consents for every single project going and for the important roading infrastructure we need in this country which is absolutely vital. We will spend more money on consultation process and delays as a result of that particular definition and because the Minister could not get her act together to allow people the right to make submissions and have that full democratic process accordedthem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next person can I just say to the previous speaker—who is a new member and I did not want to interrupt her speech—that she used the word “you” on several occasions. That is not in order. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I just want to take a brief call. I have done this because there seems to be a huge hang-up on the word “cultural”. That hang-up could be based on a lack of understanding and empathy towards things that are not necessarily contained within the world in which some people move. The word “cultural” is a very wide and flexible term. Members who are interested in historic buildings might want to read the fine Historic Places Trust magazine that comes out on a regular basis— 
New Zealand Heritage 
. In its spring edition there is a significant story called “New York Rebuilds its Cultural History”. I draw the attention of members to that because I know they have access to that as well. That story has no prejudice to it; there is no bigotry. The word Maori is not mentioned in it at all so I suspect that people look at it more openly and inclusively. 
As New York seeks to rebuild its cultural history from the terrible tragedy that occurred there it is talking about significant cultural sites such as the Woolworth building an art deco skyscraper commissioned for the New York Telephone Company in 1927 the Greek Orthodox community building and other similar icons that are important to the people of that city. I suspect that while we in New Zealand might be far removed from New York—some of us might have never been there—we would applaud the rebuilding of a city’s cultural history. But tragically in our country there are people who live and move in a very narrow world where everybody they associate with looks just like them—their skin is white they are middle class and are no different from themselves. 
I draw the attention of members opposite to the fact that cultural history is a very flexible thing. I applaud what they are doing in New York. They are not governed by prejudice bigotry ignorance or lack of trying to repair the damage of the past and move forward into the future in an inclusive and holistic way. I suggest that we in New Zealand could emulate some of the attitudes prevailing in New York given the terrible disaster and awful events that its people have had to recover from. If we in this House could open our hearts and minds and think inclusively about what the term “cultural” might mean in a New Zealand sense learn from what other countries are doing and try to replicate that in our own indigenous way here in New Zealand I suspect that we could end up being slightly better than we are today. Let not prejudice be the governor of what we are trying to do here tonight with a bill that is farsighted far-reaching and positive in the outcomes it can have for New Zealand today and into the future. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to indicate that I will need a number of calls given the complexity of this bill. Speaking to Part 1 I would firstly like to rebut some of the comments just made by Jill Pettis. She clearly does not understand what this bill is all about. Her plea for an “inclusive” and “holistic” way forward sounds wonderful but it is bumper stickers. We are talking about the Resource Management Act here. It is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and therein lies one of the fundamental flaws in this legislation. It has been captured by interest groups over the last 10 years and its scope has been broadened to such an extent that it means whatever you want it to mean. It is something out of  
Alice in Wonderland 
. Things like kaitiakitanga are undefined and the question we should be asking ourselves is whether this amendment bill before us tonight will improve the situation or compound the problem? I put it to you that it will compound the problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring me into the debate. He should put it to the members. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I put it to “you” in the collective sense. That is not addressing you in the second person Mr Chairman. OK I put it to you once more—all of you; I put it to you all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can you say that you will put it to members? That would be more appropriate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I put it to all of you members—not “you” in the second person. I put it to you that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members. “I put it to you members” if you must Mr Shirley. If you just use the word “you” it is referring to me. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders make quite clear that you cannot use the second person. The word “you” can be used in the third person. It is not confined to the second person. 
What we have in this bill is the introduction—under the definition of historic heritage—of terms like “spiritual and cultural”. How do they fit with basic legislation that is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources? Spiritual by definition is metaphysical. How on earth does that belong here? That will just compound the problems we already have with the Resource Management Act. Then we clip on further definitions in clause 3(7) such as “cultural landscapes”. What on earth is that? We do not have it in the definitions so that does not help. Then we have “ancestral landscapes”. What on earth is an ancestral landscape? I have forebears who were here before the treaty but does that help me? Not a lot. It is nonsense; it is gobbledygook. 
The member for Whanganui had a lot to say about how we should be “inclusive” and “holistic” as we move forward. When we are producing legislation that is just gobbledygook. 
Jill Pettis 
: I am at least trying to be forward-looking. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: What does it actually mean though? When we are acting as legislators as we are in this House we have to be very careful how we use words. How will our legal frameworks interpret that? We know that we have had 10 years of agony with the Resource Management Act—given the lack of case history and case law and the litigationassociated with that—and here we are tonight throwing in a whole lot more ill-defined nebulous concepts. Fine they have their own merits but they do not belong in this legislation; they belong somewhere else. I would actually be critical of the last Government. I believe that it was a mistake in public policy to clip “heritage” on to the Resource Management Act. That was not a smart thing to do and that is really what triggered us down this path. 
We then come to “biological diversity”—another bumper sticker. What on earth does it mean? I was part of a United Nations process culminating in the Rio process which signed up to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It started out as a country report and it was meant to protect macro-fauna like the Bengal tiger and the white rhino but now we are applying it to property rights. That is a nonsense. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I would like to make a contribution to this debate particularly on the issues that have just been discussed. As a Maori obviously I have a little bit of a direct interest in some of this stuff but the reason I am taking a call is that I want to state that the way this Government goes about this whole process is designed to bring Maori people into disrepute. I want the Minister to think about that. 
Jill Pettis was endeavouring to make some ground here and I certainly appreciate some of the points she made but the issue is that in the end we are the legislators. It is very easy to sit here at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday night discussing these notions but in the end we are not the ones who are out there wanting to see development proceed and wanting to see a level of sustainable development proceed. We are not the ones who have to interpret or cope with the ideas in the bill. That is the problem in my mind. 
So what happens? Because the concepts are ill-defined or not defined and they are not well understood by a great many people—mostly non-Maori—who gets the criticism? Maori people do. That is wrong because it is the job of the legislator the job of us here in Parliament to make the law as clear as we can. Now in the process local bodies out there the Environment Court as well and so on will be tackling this stuff. So we will have this whole thing just being compounded where Maori people will always get the blame for a lot of this stuff. 
That is so wrong because in fact we have a Government that is not prepared to give proper clarity and proper definition to some of these concepts. It is very ready to include these concepts in legislation partly for the fact I suppose that somehow it has to hang on to the Maori vote in the face of a New Zealand First party that probably will increase its share of the vote. So all in all unfortunately we give room for politicians in a sense to look like they are taking it out on Maori people. That is very unfair. I am a Maori person and I have to sit here a lot of the time and listen to that and it is not always easy to do so. 
The problem here is that without any public input this Government has extended the historic heritage provisions to include the notion of spirituality. I personally have no problem with that. I also know that it will be the case in the future that it will not be only Maori spirituality that we come up against in this provision because Maori are not the only ones who might want issues of spiritual interest protected. But the way all of this is always framed and the push and the way this Government approaches Maori issues is to bring the focus on Maori people alone and as I said at the beginning that is unfair. 
I refer now to cultural landscapes and ancestral landscapes. There is nothing in there that suggests that that is only Maori either. I know Pakeha people where I live who hold that concept very dearly. I know a Pakeha family on a farm between Taupo and Rotorua out in the Reporoa area. They have a long association with the farm. There is a part of that farm that they would hold as dearly to them as I would a wahi tapu where ancestors of mine are buried. I would say that that probably qualifies as a cultural landscape or an ancestral landscape for them. So again the approach of this Government I think is first of all to bar anybody from having some input into this. That is not the way legislators should be behaving. We should be behaving in a far more responsible manner. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the issues in clause 3 and the matters surrounding the definition of “historic heritage”. I wish to draw members’ attention to the amendment I have put on the Table to deal with some of the things that have been discussed. We have heard a great deal of concern regarding these definitions and they also refer to clause 4 where the matters of historic heritage are given national importance. This also relates to the debate. We have received a number of comments from people and letters about the possible ramifications of this. 
I want to begin by making something very clear. Simon Upton’s original bill contained the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance. The wording was slightly different and it was amended by the select committee but the concept was the same. I agree with Simon Upton. I believe that matters of historic heritage have to be of national significance and national importance to us as a nation. If we agree that these sites of historic heritage are of national importance then it does lead to the next question as to the issue of private property rights who pays for compensation and the cost of protecting those sites and that will be a matter for further discussion and perhaps another amendment bill. But let us be clear: there has been no substantive change to the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance. 
The second issue that has caused concern is the definition of historic heritage. The words “spiritual” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” have really stirred up the concerns of many. These words were added by the select committee in the last Parliament. That select committee was entirely entitled to do that and it happened after the select committee had listened to the submitters and made amendments. This happens all the time in the parliamentary process. Select committees are entitled to make changes to the bill after having listened to submitters. It does mean though that the public did not have a chance to say what they thought about those definitions. I do not even know whether any of the original submitters requested those definitions but the select committee put them in. 
To be entirely clear here though I point out that by the rewriting of the bill from the No 1 version to the No 2 version and sending it back to the select committee without public submissions no rights were being denied to the public of New Zealand. It would have been exactly the same if the No 1 bill had been presented to the committee in its 18 parts. The only opportunity for the public to comment would be via their elected MP as he or she spoke on their behalf during the Committee stage which is what we are doing right now. 
But people’s concerns are always important and that is why I have moved this amendment. There does need to be a distinction however between genuine concerns and frivolous nonsensical ones like the ones that Dr Smith raises when he pretends that he cannot distinguish between protecting sites of spiritual significance and protecting spirits. The definition in clause 3(7)(a) makes it very clear that this means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and an appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures. It is dealing with natural and physical resources and to begin to suggest that the bill would be protecting taniwha is frivolous. In fact it goes as far as scaremongering which was what the reporter from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said they were about when they had their rebel select committee in Auckland. I would hate to have that member as my neighbour if I was applying for resource consent because he would raise all kinds of frivolous objections to anything I proposed to do and he would be part of the problem of the resource management process not part of the answer. 
The truth is that there are places that have spiritual significance like sites in the Middle East: Jerusalem Mount Zion and Mecca. Here in New Zealand there will be similar places. The idea that this bill was going to be used to protect taniwha is ridiculous and should be discarded. My purpose however in moving this amendment is not to ignore the relevance of spiritual places cultural landscapes and ancestral landscapes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: A war memorial would be one. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: That is right. War memorials would fall into that category. My purpose in moving this amendment is to remove any confusion over the use of these terms and to recognise the fact that these categories are adequately covered by other definitions already included. For example I have had difficulty in thinking of a spiritual site that is not also an historic site and of course that would be the case in the international examples. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 It is incredible having the opportunity to follow that contribution from the United First member of Parliament Mr Larry Baldock. 
Larry Baldock 
: United Future! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: United Future—God help us if that is our future! Mark my words: as United Future supports the passage of this legislation through the House today—and members should remember that it will be passed only because United Future supports it—we are creating legislation that before too long will be back in this House for tidying up. This bill will haunt the “Labour and United Future Government” until the next election. Mark my words. 
I want to comment firstly on the abuse of process. If we look at the way in which the bill has been drafted we can see that a substantial piece of legislation has now been designed so that it has two parts to it as a means of limiting debate. I think that that is an absolute abuse of parliamentary process and I am disgusted that United Future could be party to that. 
The second thing I want to comment on is the abuse of process whereby Mr Larry Baldick talked throughout his contribution about the submissions that have been made on this legislation. He is not correctly portraying the situation. The Local Government and Environment Committee was not allowed to hear submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) and consequently submissions were heard by a rebel committee which Mr Baldick decided he would not be part of. But if he had been part of it he would have heard a very valuable contribution from Federated Farmers which expressed a very genuine concern about the heritage provisions. 
Larry Baldock 
: I have heard their submissions. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Baldick now says he has heard their submissions. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I do not normally take offence at people making a slight mistake with my name but it is going on pretty frequently and I would like  
Hansard 
 to record my name correctly. “Baldock” is my name. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. Can I just say to the member on his feet— 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I apologise to the member. I thought I was pronouncing his name correctly. I certainly meant no offence. [ 
Interruption 
] I assure members that I meant no offence to Mr Baldock. I was saying that Federated Farmers appeared before us to say that the heritage provisions which Mr Baldock supports will cause catastrophe amongst the farming community. They made the point that they have just had significant problems with the previous legislation—passed by the National Government I admit—that created the opportunity for district councils to create significant natural areas. I come from Bank’s Peninsula and I can say that there would be no other council that has created so much controversy around the declaration of significant natural areas—a declaration that occurred without consultation with private landowners but greatly restricted what private landowners could then do legitimately with their land. 
The point I want to make is to repeat what Federated Farmers said to us. They said: “If you thought you had problems with significant natural areas you now have huge problems with this historic heritage provision.” There is simply no definition to it. Mr Baldock read out that “historic heritage provision” means natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and culture. I ask Mr Baldock what that means. It seems to me that it means that anybody can make a claim on any piece of landscape of New Zealand and say that it has historic significance to them. John Carter who spent time on that rebel select committee with me pointed out that he had a great uncle who had ploughed a piece of land in the Hokianga and he may therefore think that that land has historic significance for him—and it may in the meantime have reverted to indigenous bush. I ask Mr Baldock who is going to win that argument. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: The lawyers. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Tisch is absolutely right. This bill will mean that the lawyers will have a field day sorting it out. But in the meantime who pays? It is the farmers of New Zealand—the 34000 of them who pay in excess of 20 percent of all the rates levied by local government now—who will pay. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that is just so offensive to those of us from rural New Zealand who as I am sure has been pointed out in this Chamber earlier on have a huge historical and cultural attachment to the land. As one who has sold land I say that I still have a huge attachment to the first farm I bought in Balfour in 1972. When I drive past the gate I still have this feeling of attachment to the land even though I was paid a substantial sum for it and I moved on. But it does not mean that I can then go back to that property and demand of the new owner that he should not transfer his property from a sheep farm as it was to a dairy farm as it now is. What gives me the right to do so? 
Hon David Carter 
: This bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: This bill will give that right and that is what is so offensive. I have a property in Roxburgh. I make no apology to the Committee or to anybody else for using personal examples. Part of the reason I am here in this House is the Resource Management Act and the impact it is having on the farming community. I have a site and I am sure the Green Party will be pleased to know this of some cultural significance to Ngai Tahu. It is an old quarry site that I have ensured I did not put the cattle in there and I did not put the bulldozers through it. I have looked after it. But here is the rub. I said to Edward Ellison of Ngai Tahu that I understand that this 5 or 10 acres next to the main road is of such importance to him and that I would sell it to him and to Ngai Tahu for $1 so that he can reaffirm his spirituality with this land. Do members know what the reply was? The reply was: “No thank you. You are to continue with the responsibility of this asset and we will accrue the benefits.” 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You pay the rates. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: My colleague is absolutely right. “You pay the rates you have the responsibility you make sure the fences are absolutely correct and you make sure that nothing is disturbed. You have all the responsibility; we get the benefits.” That is what the farming community rural landowners landowners throughout this country feel so grossly offended about. We are perfectly happy to ensure in many cases that the cultural and historic significance of much of our properties is maintained. But the offensiveness of this bill which comes in and takes away the asset without any compensation is just outrageous. 
What will happen is that we will create an attitude in rural New Zealand that does not exist today that this is no longer mine who cares. Who gives a stuff? I am not going to make an effort to protect this. So I have also to protect the natural area of my property where the goats constantly eat some of these herbs and high values. I go down there and chase them away or shoot them to make sure they do not destroy these values and I do it for nothing. 
As soon as Chris Carter’s Department of Conservation takes away that area from my control I will not give a damn. It is the Government’s responsibility. This is what this bill is doing to every farmer every landowner in this country who has had the good sense—and it is good sense—to ensure the high values that so much of society today values remain with that property with that farmer and with that natural attachment. I say again that that is why this bill is so offensive. It ensures that the farming community picks up the liabilities but the asset is taken away for nothing. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I have some clarifications that I would like to offer particularly on this area of historic heritage. Dr Nick Smith asked me in his first speech after dinner why the Government did not devolve the decision making to local government as the review said in 1998. The review said firstly: “Put historic heritage into matters of national importance in this Act.” The committee agreed with that at that time. Secondly it said: “Would you devolve the notion of what is historic heritage to local level decision-making?”. 
The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage in the newGovernment—in 1999-2000—signified to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I understand this from reading the notes of the report back that the Governmentdid not think that local government had the expertise at all 77 council levels to make that decision so it wanted that power to remain at the national level. I was asked about the two parts of the double. That is why the two parts were not given over. The committee did put “historic heritage” into matters of national importance in the Act but it left it to the Historic Places Trust to handle definition at the national level. 
I think there is still work to go on that particular issue and I understand from my colleague Judith Tizard that there is continuing and expanded work in this area. However the select committee agreed with the 1998 review and I want to read from the report of the committee on the No. 1 bill because some people are intimating that this issue has just come up in the No. 2 bill. It stated: “Government and Green members recommend that the definition of historic heritage be modified to refer to natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures. We also recommend including the phrases spiritual qualities cultural landscapes wahi tapu and ancestral landscapes. However we recommend that the phrase historic gardens and reference to the contents of historic places be omitted from the definition.” That was not something that came out of the blue; that was as a result of submissions and argument and it was reflected in the report back on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 1). 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When did the public comment on it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: It came out of— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s 2 years old— 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Excuse me! Have I the floor or not? It came out of the discussions that were had and submissions to the bill that the committee reported back. That is no different. Had we continued with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 1) it would not have been sent back to a committee because the committee arrived at this decision and reported it back to the House. We amalgamated it by taking that decision into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The third point I want to pick up on and I really agree with my colleague Georgina when she made the comment about the notion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister must use the person’s full name title or portfolio. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am sorry. I really agree with my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. I want to make a comment about the definition of the word “spiritual”. I have to admit that I too have difficulties with the definition of this word. “Spiritual” is different to different people. The interesting thing about it is that when I have discussions with people from the Historic Places Trust they say that “spiritual” is a church. Looking at a good friend and colleague of mine in the gallery I would have to say that “spiritual” is a community that may use a building as a church. It is not necessarily the actual building itself. But there are definitions in the bill—namely about cultural and historic—that may well include the preservation of a church so I am kind of interested in the discussion occurring in the Chamber tonight on this issue. I wanted to clarify some of those issues with members and make a response to them. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to cover a number of issues as a result of what I hope will be Mr Chairman’s generosity in allowing me multiple calls. But first I commend the Minister for being present in the Chamber during the Committee stage of the bill. Certainly National has high aspirations in respect of this Minister. We hope that she will be able to remain for the entire Committee stage and that she will be able to contribute at various parts of the debating process with regard to the issues that arise in the multiple subparts of Part 1. 
If I may for a moment I would like to traverse the history of the town planning and resource management legislation that we have had in this country because it is relevant to the issue that speakers have spoken about to date in connection with Part 1. The history of town planning legislation in New Zealand has been chequered; there is no doubt about that. We had the first Act in 1926 and it had a very curious feature. When land was down-zoned the citizen whose land had been blighted was entitled to make a claim for compensation. When as a result of up-zoning a property had an increase in its inherent value then the landowner came under an obligation to pay compensation. Those provisions were not continued through in the legislation but they are relevant as we look at this bill and reflect that in the argument that is taking place on historic heritage we are seeing the potential for there to be significant blight on a number of private properties. 
I know that the Resource Management Act is all about striking balances in pursuit of the purposes of the legislation. But one thing that this Government will not grasp is the critical importance of striking that balance in a way that protects private property rights to the greatest extent possible. Georgina te Heuheu has made a very valuable contribution to this debate and I hope that Government members will not overlook what she has said about the definition of historic heritage. I am alarmed by the Minister expressing doubt about the wisdom of including reference to the word “spiritual” in the definition of historic heritage. In entering that reservation she identifies what will be a fundamental problem for those who are tasked with interpreting this legislation. Whether that will be a burden on lawyers on the Government on the Minister in the discharge of her responsibilities or on the Environment Court which is similarly tasked with interpreting this legislation we will see. But it is an appalling start as we commence the debate on Part 1 to have such a significant reservation entered by the Minister. I can only echo her concern as to what the word “spiritual” means. 
Georgina te Heuheu has wisely identified that the provisions that touch the definition of historic heritage will give a real opportunity for those who take the view in this community that Maori are privileged. When Parliament is involved in defining terms in legislation of this type it is really important for it to erect signposts and to give indicators about what words like “spiritual” mean. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I notice that the Minister’s head has been down for most of the evening and I say that she should hang her head in shame. I think this is some of the worst legislation that has been perpetrated in this Parliament since I have been here. The dribble that came from Jill Pettis was no better. It was the cringing type of lounge-bar liberal muck that we get from members on the Government side of the Chamber who sit around while they sup their Chardonnay and try to frame this type of legislation which has caused the divisiveness that she is now taking exception to. 
While I am on that tack I say Larry Baldock that you are a political vigilante. You know this legislation is wrong— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairman into the debate. The member used the word “you”. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept your direction but I ask you please to apply it even-handedly. I heard the Minister when she was on her feet refer to “you” and you took no action. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You are right. That escaped me at the time but you are absolutely right and I agree with you. But at the same time two wrongs do not make a right. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am a relatively new member in Parliament and I look for direction from those people who have been around for a long time. I assumed because you let that go through that it was acceptable. 
I am desperately concerned about in particular the heritage provisions the cultural provisions and the cultural landscape provisions. I respect people’s right to be concerned about the environment. However this amendment bill just does not do that. In the way that the present legislation is framed at least it has genuine aims. What is being suggested now will put us into reverse. It will not just be a handbrake on growth; it will put us into reverse. 
One of the great lies that comes from this Government— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not use the word “liar” in this House. It is totally unacceptable and that is a longstanding convention. The member will withdraw. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: One of the great mistruths that has come from this present Government is that compliance costs— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I asked the member to withdraw when he used that word. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not hear you Mr Chairperson. One of the great mistruths that has come from this Government is that compliance costs will come down and that that must be true because the Government has told us that. This is the same Government that told us that we live in a benign strategic environment. The current instability in the Solomon Islands East Timor and the Middle East suggests that Helen Clark has probably been spending too much time with Nandor Tanczos. 
The linkage between sustainable use of our resources and our standard of living is there for everybody to see. Companies are closing their doors and sacking workers because the Resource Management Act means that projects that once took months to get approval for are now taking years. I have spent considerable time working in and visiting Singapore for example and that country has a highly regulated society. However it turns around all its environmental consents in 7 days. We can now take years to do that. We cannot afford to say goodbye to the wealth creators who sustain our standard of living and to drive away those sorts of people and those sorts of jobs. The wealth creators are the people who support our hospital system and underpin our education system. They are the people who will help to drive down our crime rate because they will keep people employed. 
I accept that National introduced the Resource Management Act. I accept also—[ 
Interruption 
] Did it? I apologise. 
John Carter 
: We passed it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I accept that we have that Act and that its intentions were well founded. I accept that it needs to be amended now. However the amendments that National has put forward have been completely ignored. Instead we have been forced to bow to an unholy alliance of bureaucrats Greens and lounge-bar liberals who say that nature comes first and people come second. That lot on the Government benches think that people should live in urban ghettoes surrounded by wilderness. If one suspected all along that the Act as it has been suggested now would result— 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I shall take a very brief call to acknowledge the debate as being predictable tonight. The grizzling about the length of time that this bill has taken to come before the House is a bit rich given that the members currently in Opposition when they were in the various forms of Government during the 1990s had quite some time to deal with amendments to the Act during their time in office but did not. So that has been addressed. 
I really want to acknowledge the work of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of the last Parliament not all of whom are still members of this House. Most of us—and I was a part of that select committee—were the people who heard the submissions that have been talked about. I acknowledge the input of a member who is no longer in the House Mr Joe Hawke. He was very keen as far as the Maori issues in this bill were concerned—and this is in response a little bit to Georgina te Heuheu’s comments before. It was quite an achievement small though it may seem that we increased the status of iwi planning documents. Instead of local authorities being required to “have regard to” those documents in their planning documents the wording has been changed to “must take account of”. That may sound small and insignificant to some people but it is quite significant in many respects to the credibility of iwi planning documents and things like that. I acknowledge Joe Hawke and I say many of the other members of the select committee did not object to that. 
On the issue of wahi tapu ancestral historical sites and things like that I remember citing an example of a situation that occurred when I was Mayor of Carterton District and had to do a hearing application for a coastal area. Often some applicants would find it advantageous or otherwise when Maori would use the last straw. Sometimes Maori were seen as the saviours because of being iwi who could stop something going ahead by being prohibitive or who could slow things down. On that particular occasion a Maori person who was objecting to the application concerning a matter in the Carterton District sort of spread his arms wide and said it was all wahi tapu. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s a worry. 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: It was so I think trying to make some definitions and to bring some clarity to what many Opposition members are arguing for and against is helpful despite one’s opinions about the Opposition. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 National and ACT members have been asleep for the last 2 years. The terms they are objecting to in this bill have been in front of this House for 2 years. All the words to do with cultural and historic heritage were in the Resource Management Amendment Bill reported back 2 years ago this month. They have been sitting in front of Parliament for 2 years. There was ample opportunity for anybody who thought those terms were a mistake to do some negotiating and to have some discussions with the Government about putting forward some alternatives but none of that happened. Opposition members have now gone around the country persuading people that these are new ideas that those words have just come in through the No. 2 bill and they have not been consulted on them. They are relying on the fact that most people have not actually read the bill. 
The consultation that happened on the No. 1 bill happened so long ago that most people have forgotten they were consulted. Some of the angriest letters that we have had about the lack of consultation on the No. 2 bill were from people who presented at length to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the No. 1 bill on the same issues. As has already been remarked when a committee makes some changes to a bill before it it does not send the revised version of that bill out for consultation again. If it did no bill would ever get back to this House because there would always be somebody objecting to the changes that had been made. But the changes in this bill were made by the committee and I do not remember a huge rumpus on the committee over those issues in the No. 1 bill at the time. Those issues certainly did not hold us up for a long time and I do not remember alternatives being put forward. 
The reasons for upgrading the cultural and historic heritage provisions stem partly from a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a few years ago pointing out that we are failing dismally to protect Maori cultural and historic heritage. We are doing OK on buildings put up by the early settlers but we have serious shortcomings when it comes to Maori heritage because it takes a different form. There are not very many old buildings where Maori heritage significance lies but there is intense significance attached to places. Those places may be a rock a coastal promontory a stand of trees or a hill and they are highly significant because of the things that happened there sometimes over hundreds of years and because of the people who are associated with those events and the significance of those places. The significance of those places will have to be argued to the satisfaction of a court which will not just buy any line that is being peddled. The fact is that Maori will have to make their case and now they can do so. 
I am glad that Georgina Beyer has raised the issue of iwi management plans because although the attacks on those plans have not yet surfaced tonight they will—as they did in the committee. The upgrading of the status of iwi management plans from the words “have regard to” “take into account” was put in the No.1 bill by Simon Upton. Simon Upton was not a Maori-basher; he was actually quite focused on solutions. He could see that if planning is done without any great reference to Maori there will be a pile of objections delays and hold-ups when matters reach the Environment Court. So he said we should let Maori lay out in a decent planning document what is important to them let them discuss that with the local council and let that have some influence on the council’s plan. He argued that then Maori could hardly turn round and raise a whole lot of issues at the Environment Court stage that they had not raised when they put forward their iwi planning document. 
The committee was presented with some very good examples of iwi planning documents. Ngai Tahu has done a really good iwi management plan on water for the South Island. It makes it really clear what is significant to Maori. The committee strongly supported maintaining Simon Upton’s proposal that we should raise the value of those iwi planning documents so that we have the debate upfront. If we get the debate and the consultation into the documents when they are first written we will reduce the amount of controversy and flack that happens further down the track. That is what we have tried to do in the Local Government Act and in many other bits of legislation. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat has misled the Committee because what she neglected to tell the Committee was this. Simon Upton certainly did introduce the Resource Management Amendment Bill—there is no question about that. But then there was a change of Government. The Minister who was then in charge of the legislation—I understand it was Helen Clark but I can be corrected on that—introduced new parts into the bill after the public submissions had closed that introduced things such as ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual values. 
The point is this: the problem with that member’s contribution was that she tended to suggest that the public has had the opportunity to have an input on those issues. That is not so and the member knows that. The member should have said to the Committee that while there certainly were public submissions nobody from the public had an opportunity to make his or her point on those sorts of issues. When the member said no concern was expressed that is true because the public did not have an opportunity to express concern. Was there concern expressed? Yes. Opposition members of the committee certainly expressed concern. But what happened then? The bill lay around on the Table of the House for about 2 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was 100 weeks. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It lay about for 100 weeks until such time as the Government decided that the best thing it could do was to discard that bill jam its provisions down into this two-part bill call it the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill (No 2) and ram it through without submissions. There would have been no public submissions had my colleague Nick Smith not taken the initiative to say that if the proper select committee would not hold a hearing National ACT and New Zealand First would hear submissions from the public. He said that because we thought the public should be able to make a contribution—and they did. 
I will draw one submission to members’ attention: that from Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy is a State-owned enterprise—and does the word “energy” ring a bell with anybody? Let me tell the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs one or two things that Meridian Energy said. The Minister is nodding. There may be one or two people at home listening to this debate on their crystal sets who would like to know what Meridian Energy said as well. Meridian Energy said for example that it was worried that national environmental standards would unintentionally frustrate the Local Government and Environment Committee’s emphasis on providing increased certainty to resource users. That sure as hell does not sound very helpful to people in Northland let alone to those in the rest of New Zealand. Meridian Energy did not know what clause 18 meant and was uncertain as to its effect. It went on to say that consent-holders would be undermined by the lack of certainty. 
Who said that? Meridian Energy said it. What is Meridian Energy? It is a State-owned enterprise. What does it provide? It provides power for hot water for showers and for us to have the lights on with no blackouts. Meridian Energy went on to comment that the requirement to review consent conditions would cause problems and increase uncertainty. It had other technical concerns with the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy provisions and had several concerns about technical uncertainties. Why did it keep using that word? Did the Minister consult Meridian Energy? Let us go on. Regarding clause 54 Meridian said “We do not agree with this proposal.” That comment is from the State-owned electricity generator which provides lights power and hot water. 
Brian Connell 
: Who is the Minister? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think it is someone called “Pistol Pete” Hodgson. Meridian Energy said it did not agree with clauses 7 61 and 63. It said that clause 67 does not provide a remedy and it did not agree with clause 11. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During my colleague John Carter’s contribution he asked the Minister whether she had read the submission and I understood that she indicated that she had seen that submission and that she had had discussions with Meridian. Have I misinterpreted the Minister? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Go on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not a point of order but I am happy to listen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It certainly is a point of order if I correctly understood what the Minister said. I wanted to seek clarification as to whether the Minister had clearly given my colleague the impression that she had discussed the submission with Meridian. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the honourable member but— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have had zero response from the Minister. This is a serious matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Any response is entirely up to the Minister and that is as far as we will go on that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to join with my colleague John Carter and say what a mess we are making of the energy crisis. While the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs tries to avoid questions in the House she is partially responsible for the energy crisis we have right now in New Zealand. What happened with the change of Government in 1999 and her rejection of 14 of the 16— 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Please correct me if I am wrong but I think that members are not allowed to make references to whether a member has or has not been in the House. This is the second time in this debate that I have heard Dr Smith say I avoided question time. I make the point that I am quite sick and that is why I was away during question time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In response to the Minister’s point of order I said she was avoiding questions. She has repeatedly refused to answer questions in this debate. If she wants to put me wrong I would like to put some questions to her right now. She was not present in the House during question time and the question I would like to ask is this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be no reference to a member not being present in the House but it is fine to make references to a member not answering questions. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The question I would like the Minister to answer is why is she ignoring the submissions and concerns about 24 clauses in this part from Meridian Energy which is a State-owned enterprise and New Zealand’s biggest producer of electricity? Why ignore that? This is not some joke; this is the single biggest crisis facing our nation. Here we have Meridian Energy saying that there are 24 clauses in this bill that will increase the obstructions for the generation of electricity in this country and the Minister just smirks. She does not think that is worth worrying about. 
We then hear from an organisation like the Petroleum Exploration Association of New Zealand. It said that the provisions in this part would make it well nigh impossible to expand the gas and petroleum resources of this country. Again the Minister is not prepared to answer questions as to why she has ignored that advice. We will hold her accountable when the lights go out—when 500 people in my electorate are put out of work because of a lack of electricity. The Minister carries some responsibility for that. 
I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in this part that remove any capacity for the court to order security for costs. Let us be clear about what that means. It means that any group of citizens can with absolutely no risk form an incorporated society that can cause huge disruption and costs for those who are trying to create wealth or development in this country and the court will have absolutely no capacity to hold them accountable for it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s appalling. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an appalling provision. This is the Minister who has introduced legal aid for those objectors. I want to know from the Minister from the members opposite and from that fellow Larry Baldock who supports this stuff how that is common sense. It is not. How will that meet the bill’s purposes of reducing costs and uncertainty? That is what the Government said this bill would do. How does removing security for costs increase the certainty around this legislation? It does exactly the opposite. The Minister might as well write to every loopy in the country and say there is a free-for-all to object to cause havoc to shut down and turn this into some sort of— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Every time she sends out an electorate newsletter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister in the chair actually introduced legal aid. Can she tell the Committee how introducing legal aid for objectors reduces the costs the uncertainties and the delays in the Resource Management Act? We know that there are cases where the community is desperately trying to build roads to get rid of traffic congestion and this Minister is funding people to object to them. Even in respect of roads that her colleague the Minister of Transport is on the public record as supporting she is writing out cheques for people to oppose them. What sort of hideous nonsense is that? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It’s a boo-boo. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is one big boo-boo and it would be a joke if it were not so serious. The provisions for removing security of costs—that right from the courts—are the provisions in this law that all our major energy companies object to. For 43 days we have had resource consent hearings over Contact Energy which has been trying to renew its consent for the Clyde Dam. To date that has cost $5 million. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? Will we do what was done in Tasmania and take the dam out? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You’re joking! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. There were 43 days of submissions—$5 million of costs—for a public facility that already exists. That is the sort of thing that this Minister is not only condoning but will make worse. Yet she pretends that she is about reducing the costs and uncertainty of the bill. She is making it a whole lot worse. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I just wanted to clarify the question that Dr Nick Smith asked. I have stood up here at least three times tonight and answered questions raised by him so I have been answering questions. It is a shame he is not always aware of that. 
He asked why I was ignoring Meridian. Today I received a copy of the letter that Meridian wrote. It is now being replied to. It arrived during my absence from this country for the last 3 weeks. The member noted that I had nodded. I was nodding because I have worked with Meridian on a number of issues. I fully recognise Meridian’s and Meridian’s lawyers’ concern about any change that occurs to the Resource Management Act. The previous Government wanted to make a change in redefining the meaning of the word “environment” but the Local Government and Environment Committee advised it not to do that because the resulting legislative change and casework would have brought about too much uncertainty. The work of the select committee over the last wee while has been to retain the language of the Act to reduce uncertainty while at the same time trying to make it a finely balanced Act that really understands the meaning of sustainable development—which is to develop and grow yet allow the community to ensure that it has choices and a future. I think I have answered the questions this morning. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have a serious issue here. The Minister has just told the Committee that she read the Meridian letter this morning. In the House this afternoon the Minister said that she had not seen it. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I wasn’t in the House this afternoon. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No the Minister of Energy answered questions on her behalf because she was not here. In response to a question the Minister said she had not seen the letter. The House has been misled. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I was listening to the comments that the Minister made and I wrote an answer for him. I think the primary question was: “Have you received any advice …?” It did not ask whether I had received a letter from Meridian. The answer I dictated to be read out was that I had received no advice on the current energy questions from my officials. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister Marian Hobbs on being in the chair and taking questions tonight. I will say this about her: I have never seen her knitting while she has been the Minister in the chair. That is a good point and it is nice to be able to say that. I am very sorry to hear she has been sick. I thank her for being here tonight and enlightening us about letters and advice and the difference between them and about officials and Meridian. 
I would like to speak tonight about the spiritual issues in this bill. I take up the point made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu about how constantly going on and on about spirituality in bills like this serves to bring Maori into disrepute. In addition I need to say that Maori are not the only people who have spirituality. Again I think that was something that Georgina te Heuheu mentioned—that the bill was not only about Maori spirituality. I have Irish heritage and if members ever ask people who have Irish heritage how they feel about land they will note that they tend to get very emotional because the Irish were not allowed to own land in their own country. It is a shame they did not have a treaty. 
One of the problems with spirituality connected to land is that sometimes families sell that land. My own family sold its land in the Waikato after about 50 years. That was the only home I felt was mine and my mother sold it just before she died. I feel a deep spirituality towards that land—so deep that I refuse to go anywhere near it at the moment because it would upset me. I know that the land might not be exactly the same as my parents left it and it would upset me to see that. So spirituality is there but I will tell members this: it is none of my business what the current owners do to that land. It has nothing to do with me— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It will after this Act is passed. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. My mother sold the land for fair value. It is a shame she did not keep it for a few more years as it would have been of more value but she sold it for fair value to people who bought it honestly. It is their right to do whatever they want on that land as long as it does not affect other people or unnecessarily damage the property of others or the environment. Under this bill I believe I would have the right to say to the current owners of that land: “You shall not do anything on this land because it is a place of spiritual significance to me. There are things that have happened on that land that mean a tremendous amount to me and my family.” That is not right. We cannot have that sort of silly legislation because once people sell land they have to be able to let go and let other people get on to it. The world does not stop turning because we happen to have an allegiance to land or whatever. 
People who own land or who wish to buy land must know for certain what they are getting. They cannot buy land pay a tremendous amount of money for it put themselves into debt shift their families on to the land and then be told that they cannot do what they want to do because someone whose family happened to own the land 200 years ago is now saying they cannot. That is absolute nonsense. There is no reason even to say 200 years ago—it could be 50 years ago 10 years ago or 5 years ago because nothing is defined. 
I congratulate the Minister on saying tonight that she had concerns about that. Good on her for saying that. She has real concerns so why are we rushing this legislation through? It has not even been back to a select committee or had proper submissions on it since all those new provisions have gone in. If the Minister and the other Labour members who have spoken tonight are right when they say that there was extensive consultation which bill was there extensive consultation on? It was of course the No. 1 bill and there have been significant changes since then. The first bill was the one before the No. 1 bill—Simon Upton’s bill. What has happened is that there have been changes and those were so significant that when the rebel committee set itself up it had over 30 submissions from the very people who had been heard before. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I want to draw to the Committee’s attention tonight the fact that at the same time as we are debating this bill the Government has announced that the Historic Places Trust will receive another $4.5 million of funding for the identification of wahi tapu. I alert the Committee to what happened with wahi tapu in Welcome Bay in my electorate. On 180 hectares of land on the hills of Welcome Bay four families have been making their living and planning their futures. They discovered that the Historic Places Trust had entertained an application from local Maori to have 180 hectares of their land declared wahi tapu. There was a flawed and totally inadequate consultation programme by the Historic Places Trust and as a result those four landowners found that wahi tapu was registered on their property. 
The consequence of wahi tapu worried those people. They sought dealings with the council from which they got the very clear impression that wahi tapu would limit any ability they had to use their land. As a result the Leader of the Opposition and Dr Nick Smith held a public meeting in Welcome Bay which 300 Tauranga residents attended. What became clear was that there was real concern about wahi tapu. It got to the stage of becoming a national issue and the Prime Minister made the comment that statutory protection for wahi tapu could come only from a district council listing as under the Resource Management Act. She said it was up to the council to decide. But at the same time as she was saying that on nationwide television she was in the Cabinet room passing a bill through the Cabinet process that will have wahi tapu declared a matter of national importance. According to the Resource Management Act what that means is that if a matter is of national importance the decision-making authorities shall “recognise and provide for those matters”. That means that if someone has wahi tapu on his or her land it is a matter of national significance and it overrides what the council’s plans say. It becomes a matter of national importance that the authorities must recognise and provide for. 
So what is the consequence of that for the people of Welcome Bay? What it means is that when they thought they would now be covered by the district plan and could chop down the trees harvest the forest build the house and add to the garage—as they could under the district plan—all of that was out of the window. The Prime Minister’s pledge that it would be the council that decided has been found to be a nullity. As the Prime Minister was on the  
Holmes 
 show saying that it was the council’s district plan that would be predominant she was in the Cabinet room shepherding through a bill that makes wahi tapu an issue of national significance and importance and that means it overrides what the council says. That has really big consequences. 
I cannot understand why the Government wants to set the spa-pool liberals of the Historic Places Trust upon the landowners of New Zealand with another $4.5 million of the taxpayers’ money to identify wahi tapu around the rest of this country. We will end up with the outrageous situation where 180 hectares of land has been declared wahi tapu in Welcome Bay and now with the progress of this bill the council’s views will be completely overriden and the wahi tapu will determine the future use of that land—not the landowners operating under the district plan. It will be the local Maori who decide what happens and that is not right. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to pick up an issue raised by Nick Smith a few minutes ago and explain to the Committee the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee went through in introducing new section 284A in clause 80 of the No. 1 bill which has become clause 80 of this bill. When Simon Upton’s bill came before the select committee the committee had recently received a member’s bill in the name of Sandra Lee called the Resource Management (Costs) Amendment Bill. That bill sought to protect from outrageous impositions of costs those persons and groups who were genuinely bringing a case representing some matter of the public interest and who just happened to lose because one can never absolutely predict what the courts will do. 
As I have said in my previous speeches the Act relies on a contest of evidence and ideas between developers and members of the community in order to ascertain what complies with the Act and what does not. Because we had that bill before us the committee decided to call for submissions on both bills simultaneously. It decided that in the interests of good legislation whatever we might decide to do with the member’s bill we would do as part of the amendment bill so that we did not have another little bill sitting out to the side. After hearing submissions and advice the committee members felt that we could not give a blanket exemption to awards of costs to community groups because there must be some sanction for wasting the time of the court and the applicant. If the case has no merit there must be some sanction for failing to comply with directions of the court and there must be some incentive for people to prepare a case properly and observe the normal rules that go with running the process. That sanction is the ability of the court to award costs against any party to the court that misuses the process. 
However what submitters told us—those who had been through the experience of objecting to the Environment Court—was that their main worry was not the possibility that if they lost costs might be awarded against them. That was a risk they felt they could foresee and manage and have considerable influence over. They told us that the much bigger issue was that developers were using the ability to get security for costs awarded at the start of the process as a threat and as a way of preventing participation in the cases at all. 
They cited a number of cases where groups had never gone to court even though they had a good legal case because the developer had said: “Well we’ll seek security for costs.” The court has been known to award up to $30000 for security of costs at the start of a case and that is a huge disincentive for people getting involved in the court at all. It is true that the courts have not done that often it is true they have not done it lightly and it is true that they have not done it frivolously but the fact is that community groups do not necessarily know that. They do not have all the research facilities to find that out and they are frequently told by applicants that they will have to pay the money upfront if they want to take part. 
The fact is that the Environment Court did not always have that power. For the first few years of the operation of the Act they could not award security of costs. It happened only by accident in 1996 when an amendment to the Act gave the court the powers of a District Court; and what happens by accident can equally well be taken away. Environment Court proceedings are so often David and Goliath undertakings where the applicant is backed by millions of dollars. It is true that applicants also have millions of dollars to lose but they have all the resources. The community group has nothing but what it has raised through its cake stalls so it is appropriate that it be given the opportunity to obtain justice providing it abides by the rules. The committee therefore decided to take away the right of a court to award security for costs at the beginning but to leave in place at this stage the ability to award costs against groups in the hope that it would encourage them to run their cases as well as possible. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It has been pointed out in the debate already that the Minister in charge of this bill Minister Hobbs is regretfully rather poorly. She has contracted a flu-type virus and is relatively sick. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that most landowners in this country when they look at what is happening in this bill will be as physically ill as the Minister is. 
The impact of this bill is huge. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Damian O’Connor what price a spiritual value? How much is a spiritual value worth? I ask the Minister whether a spiritual value can be traded. I am not getting any answers here. Can a spiritual value be bought? These are terribly important questions. Can a spiritual value be bought? I am not getting an answer from the Minister in the chair. The reality is that the answer is yes it can. Ngai Tahu put a value on its spiritual values by accepting $1.5 million when it came to ensuring water rights on the Clutha River. It said: “Our spiritual values are worth $1.5 million.” They can be quantified. 
So what then is the worth of the spiritual value of a river to a fisher and his family who have fished that river for sometimes as long as Maori have been associated with it? I have people in my area down in Ettrick and beyond who have huge historical and spiritual association with the river but according to this bill their spiritual attachment is worth absolutely nothing. I ask the Minister to explain why there is a difference. From the way that the bill reads it is only Maori who have spiritual values and Pakeha people from Europe Chinese—wherever people may come from—do not have spiritual values. 
A spiritual value comes from within an individual. It is not found in a river. A spiritual value is not found in a mountain. Society in this day does not believe in the animist belief. We do not worship mountains; we do not worship rivers. Perhaps we understand the life-giving forces within them but they do not possess a spiritual value. The spiritual value comes from within the individual who has the capacity to understand the importance and the significance of those things that are important to us. We each of us have our own value whether we live in the town or the country. At my own property in Roxburgh I have special spiritual attachment to certain areas that I find have a quality that cannot be defined. But that ability comes from within me. It is not recognised by other people. It is not recognised in statute nor can it ever be. It is something that comes from deep within the individual. How then can this bill attempt to quantify a spiritual value? 
I want to shift to a slight different tack. Members have talked about the energy crisis. This bill talks about landscape values. It was not so very long ago that one could not—and one still cannot in many areas—build a shed or plant a block of trees because it would upset the landscape value. According to the Minister of Energy we will now have massive wind turbines placed on ridgelines. That will totally destroy the aesthetic values of scenic corridors such as those on the Old Man Range for example. I cannot put a shed or build anything— 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I want to make a relatively brief contribution to this debate. I was interested in listening to the previous speaker Gerrard Eckhoff. I think it is important to focus on the key changes that this bill introduces. It was my pleasure and privilege to be a member of the previous Local Government and Environment Committee in the last Parliament and to be the deputy chair. My good colleague Richard Worth and I— 
Richard Worth 
: We worked hard. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: It was a very good committee and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to people like Eric Roy and Owen Jennings. I found Owen Jennings to be a good member of that committee and a good member of Parliament— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: A good ACT man. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Yes and well should the member nod. We had some philosophical disagreements but he was a good Kiwi and a good New Zealander. I am not going to say how his party treated him because that is provocative and I think we can have a positive discussion. 
What this bill really involves is the balance between our need as a country to develop and our need not to lose by stupidity or by accident the very special qualities that make us the unique and beautiful nation that we are. It is really sad that members opposite immediately seize on this and moan and groan—but not all of them because there are one or two very good members in the Opposition. Let me pay tribute to Richard Worth who was a very good member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and whom I found personally very helpful. 
One of the things this bill is about is not repeating the mistakes of the past. One of the programmes that I became involved in as a very young environmentalist was lest we forget—and I think we should not forget—the Lake Manapouri campaign. Within our lifetimes and within our generation there was a Government which happened to be a National Government that was going to raise Lake Manapouri. It was going to lose a lake and an ecosystem that had evolved over millions of years for the so-called greater economic good. I wonder whether we could find anyone in this Parliament who would stand up be counted and be identified with that. Yes indeed we have the deputy leader of the ACT party. It is a shame he was not the deputy in terms of his list ranking. But he has made a good contribution and I do not bear any personal rancour against Mr Shirley. Stand up those who would still raise Lake Manapouri! 
The sort of thing that distresses me about this kind of debate and even in the community at large is a very distinct lack of balance. All the blame for some development issues and some processes are laid at the Act’s door as against the resourcing of the Environment Court. But dare I say it one of the dangers of ensuring that balance one of the issues that arises if we are not careful is that bit by bit we will lose what makes this country special. Because it is special it is competitive. It is an attractive place to invest in work in and live in. It is a bit like the whole thing about the loss of some of our public estate our high-country estate but particularly our coastline as it is subdivided and built on. Coromandel is a really good example; Jeanette Fitzsimons will know this extremely well. One day we will wake up and find that the last bit of unplanned development is happening and what was special about that area will have gone. We have lost squandered and stolen from our grandchildren what makes this country special. I think there are a number of members of this Parliament who in their heart of hearts know that to be true. 
Having said that I say that the other balance that we grappled with as a committee particularly around issues of introducing limited notification of resource consents—and I acknowledge the difference of opinion that Labour members have with the Greens on this issue and others—was the balance between what is in the broad community interest and the ability of what one calls the vexatious litigant to hold up unduly and unfairly and potentially compromise what indeed could be very positive development. I have experienced this at the local government level. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to spend a few moments talking about Part 1. I want to start with the changes to notification. 
At the moment about 50000 consents have been approved. Of those 47000 are non-notified and about 3000 are notified. [ 
Interruption 
] The 3000 as Richard Worth mentions that have to be notified are too many. The bill of course brings in limited notification. One would have thought that of the 3000 that have to notified now there probably would be an even split; that 1500 would have to be notified and 1500 would require limited notification. But when we look at this a little bit closer we see that the limited notification consents will be 1500 but the number of notified consents could well go up to about 3000. So here we have increased compliance costs. The point I make is that at the moment there are about 47000 consents that are non-notified and one would have hoped and expected that they would stay at that figure. But no the research that we have done suggests that that figure of 47000 non-notified consents would drop down to 45500 and the balance would go back to being limited notifications or notified consents. 
Government members earlier on talked about how this bill will reduce compliance costs and how this bill would be good for business and good for all those people whom we expect to make investments in the community but in fact that will not work. I want to give two examples. In the rural electorate that I represent Piako there are huge developments with chicken farming. Some have new contracts to supply chickens to Inghams Enterprises and chicken meat to KFC and big firms like that. At this stage many consents are coming forward to the district council. There have been a lot of hiccups and there will certainly be more now that there will need to be limited notifications and probably further notifications. 
For example if I already have a chicken operation and I want to extend that operation I have to let the neighbours know. There is no problem with that and usually because these are established operations they are allowed to proceed. But of recent times there have been people who have objected to the addition of chicken sheds and the operators have had to go through the consent process. What will happen now is that even all those neighbours who have consented will have to be re-notified and the whole deal will have to start again. That will add compliance costs and time and it is certainly not something that we would support. 
Perhaps I have a 200-cow cowshed and I want to increase the capacity to 220. I should have to look only at the increase—the extra 20—but under this arrangement I will have to go back to square one and talk about a whole consent process for 220 cows not just the extra 20. So although there is a role for limited notification the view we hold is that because of the extra compliance cost which is a factor we are really concerned about this policy will probably not achieve what it was designed to do in the first place. 
If we look at some of the opportunities that have been lost in this amendment opportunities that we have talked about before such as having independent hearing commissioners having a contestable process for resource consent applications and allowing direct referral through to the Environment Court we see that those opportunities which we believe are important have disappeared. There is also the issue of the creation of a register of professional hearing commissioners who could hear the cases. Although that would cost a little bit of money at the end of the day they would be professionals in the field who did not have a vested interest and they could sit and hear cases in good time. The Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs wrote 50 recommendations to reduce the compliance costs borne by business as a direct consequence of the Resource Management Act and there were another two that related to the Building Act. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this somewhat iniquitous Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to concentrate on the area of historic heritage. I think it is in the interpretation clause in subpart 1. There were of course 18 parts which have been compressed so skilfully and manipulatively by this Labour Government. 
I want to go over the area of historic heritage with particular reference to one of the most significant developments or consents that have taken place in New Zealand in the last few years. 
I am referring to the Hampton Downs dump—the largest proposed dump in New Zealand’s history. To add insult this dump is next to the prison. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: They put rubbish in both of them. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That may be so but the difficulty is that it is rubbish coming from halfway around New Zealand. I will point out the relevance 
to the historic heritage part of the bill. The extraordinary thing about this development is that it was consented to under this Labour Government—the Government that propounds an interest in waste minimisation. It is allowing the largest dump in New Zealand’s history to take place in the virgin Waikato countryside to take garbage from Auckland Tauranga possibly Rotorua possibly Hamilton and all around yet in this bill the Government is bringing in this historic heritage part. 
I have ticked off the various aspects of the definition. In relation to archaeological value this area was pristine countryside so we cannot say that—nor was it of architectural value. However we then come to cultural value. This is an area absolutely steeped in culture from as far back as New Zealand has ever existed. As for historic value it has been of huge historic importance to Maori and to Pakeha particularly during that very sad period of the New Zealand wars. In relation to spiritual value being next to the Waikato River it is of huge spiritual significance both to Maori and of course to all those who live in the Waikato. It also includes “historic sites structures places and areas;”. Cultural landscapes are undoubtedly there as are archaeological sites and sites of significance to Maori. They are all there. 
But when it is convenient to this Labour Government it does not give a toss. The Minister in the chair the Hon Damian O’Connor might like to take a call. The Minister at the time the Hon Marian Hobbs had the opportunity to use her call-in powers because this area was of such huge significance to New Zealand. However she said that it was a local issue. What is the use of putting all these provisions in this bill when if it is convenient to the Government it takes absolutely no notice whatsoever? That is the absolute hypocrisy of this Labour Government. 
Hon David Carter 
: No objection! The truth hurts. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The truth hurts as the Hon David Carter said. This is a hugely important development in the Waikato. It is hugely important for those people living in the area who hopefully under the Resource Management Act had the opportunity as small landholders to have a reasonable say about this enormous development. They had nowhere near the resources of the applicant. This was one opportunity where a Labour Minister for the Environment could show that she was truly sincere about the environment. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to follow up the issue of Hampton Downs. It is a classic example of the protracted delays that have frustrated development in this country and there is nothing in this bill that overcomes the basic problems or even addresses them. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s worse! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mr Carter is quite right. The bill actually compounds the problems and makes them considerably worse. Hampton Downs is a very good example. Over a number of years I was involved with Olivene’s proposal at the Meremere power site—a decommissioned station. Olivene was proposing a process of high-temperature incineration involving picking up solid waste from Auckland Tauranga Hamilton and Rotorua then vitrifaction of the ash through to the production of roading material. One would not believe the delays and the frustrations that the company encountered associated with the Resource Management Act in dealing with the Waikato District Council and Environment Waikato. It was utterly unbelievable. There were absolute delays and frustrations at every turn. 
Finally of course Olivene gave up and went off to Australia. The company had been battling for 5 years in this country and I forget how many millions of dollars it cost but in the space of a few months it got approval in Australia and is now building its high-temperature state-of-the-art incinerator in Perth. The company got the approval and everyone there is delighted. 
It could have been generating energy for this country. A lot of people do not realise that solid waste—the stuff we send to our landfills—has an energy value almost level with coal. So we would have recovered the energy solved the problem created an inert substance for roading from the ash by a vitrification process. But the proposal was totally rejected by our planning process. Olivene described it to me as “just like kicking a haystack”. One could go nowhere. 
We have many other examples. I know Claymark Sawmills in Te Puke right in the heart of our “wall of wood” shall we say in the Bay of Plenty. It is adjacent to the volcanic plateau has substantial plantations and has been trying for 6 years to get a process through under the Resource Management Act. It cost the company $2 million before it finally managed to make the progress that was required. This is the difficulty faced by small business all around the country. This is not pub talk; these are hard hard facts. The Government’s own compliance cost report that Minister Swain commissioned identified the part that the Resource Management Act plays in this but this bill does not— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No. 1 issue! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It is the No. 1 problem! What was the Speech from the Throne all about? It was about removing the barriers to growth. Does this bill do that? The Government’s own report identified some 50 measures but none of them in this bill before us tonight actually amends the Resource Management Act. 
I would like to come to a very specific point in respect of clause 41(1). The New Zealand petroleum industry made the point to the Opposition select committee because that is the only select committee that heard any evidence in respect of this bill. The Government would not even hear submissions. It did not want to hear all the horror stories and be exposed to them. Opposition members took it upon themselves to hear submissions as we thought it was a critical part of our democracy to hear some submissions on a bill of this significance. We were told by the petroleum industry that it wanted to see an amendment—and it is a very practical amendment that we could have had—to clause 41(1) that would have amended section 92(2) of the principal Act. The simple point is that a consent authority can commission a report on any matter that is raised in relation to an application for consent approval without the applicant’s consent. This is what councils up and down the country are doing. If they are not sure and often there is a bunch of lay people sitting in judgment then that is how they wait it out. They say they want another report. 
All committees tend to do that. If they are not sure they call for a report. So applicants have to stump up for all sorts of costs and half the time they do not even know what these reports are for. They are of very spurious worth but the applicant has to stump up to purchase the report. It is the time value of money but members opposite do not appreciate the time value of money 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly to introduce the two amendments I have tabled for voting at the end of the session. The first one amends clauses 34 41 and 42. The amendment to remove clauses 41 and 42 actually removes limited notification from the bill and restores the status quo of the Act as it stands at the moment. I outlined in my second reading speech why the Greens believe that is necessary and I think that can stand on its merits. 
The addition we have made to clause 34 remedies a major failing in the Act itself which is that one currently does not have to consider whether the effects of a controlled activity are minor one simply does not have to notify it at all no matter how great the effects on the environment or on people might be. There is an assumption which has been underlying this for a while that if it is a controlled activity that the council cannot refuse but can only put conditions on the effects must be minor. There are a number of cases where this has not been true and in fact there is no reason that it should be. It simply relates to the way the plan is written and we believe it should be subject to the same test of minor effects as other activities. If I am wrong and if controlled activities do always have minor effects this amendment does no harm whatsoever because they still will not be notified. If on the other hand I am right and some controlled activities have more than minor effects it would be a good idea and it would be consistent with the rest of the Act for them to have to be notified when they do have more than minor effects. So that is the first page. 
The other page of amendments inserts new clause 82A which is exactly the wording of the Simon Upton bill that has been removed by this Government. I am looking forward to the support of National members in restoring this provision of their colleague in the bill as it was first introduced. This is the provision that allows a review of notification decisions at the Environment Court instead of the High Court which I spoke about in my second reading speech. That bill was introduced by Simon Upton because he saw it balancing limited notification. In fact if National members wish to vote for this and not vote for the removal of limited notification they will be voting in accordance with the bill that their party introduced. The select committee agreed with Simon Upton’s proposal and reported it back the Government at the time agreed with it as well the Government then changed its mind and in the No. 2 bill removed those clauses. This simply gives Parliament an opportunity to decide that Simon Upton was right all along. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Well come and talk to us about it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I have and I will. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to ask the new Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Agriculture the Hon Damian O’Connor the same series of questions I asked the Hon Marian Hobbs. [ 
Interruption 
] No and I can remember the questions. What I want to know from the Associate Minister of Agriculture is whether he has had submissions personally from Federated Farmers listing their large concerns with this bill. I mentioned to Marian Hobbs earlier that the rebel Opposition select committee of which I was proudly a member for one day had a substantial presentation from Federated Farmers and if in the event the Associate Minister of Agriculture has not had the time to give them an audience so that they can express their concerns about the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) I will take this opportunity of doing so to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. He after all has a duty to represent the concerns of the farmers. 
So what Federated Farmers said to us I say to Mr O’Connor is that this particular amendment bill will be worse than the current legislation. They have spent years and years and years telling Governments of both colours that there are problems with the Resource Management Act—as it exists tonight—yet the Labour Government supported by United Future advances legislation the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which in their opinion will make it worse. One of the most telling comments we heard from Federated Farmers was their concerns about significant natural areas and the way they have been imposed on private landowners all around New Zealand. But then they commented that the historic heritage provisions of this bill will make those problems associated with significant natural areas look minor. 
I have to congratulate Marian Hobbs on making a contribution finally but I want the Committee to reflect on the comments she made. As people criticised the definitions of historic heritage listed in this legislation the Hon Marian Hobbs got to her feet and said that she was also concerned about the definitions. The Minister in charge of the bill was concerned about the way we are defining historic heritage and basically told the Committee tonight that it will be for the courts to sort out. How can the Associate Minister of Agriculture support legislation that the Minister in charge of the bill says that she herself is concerned about then pass the responsibility from parliamentarians to the courts to clarify? I say to Damian O’Connor that it is our job as parliamentarians to pass law that is clear and concise. It is not our job to pass nebulous rubbish like this and hand it to the court. 
In my closing moments I point out to Damian O’Connor that the most telling comment made by the Federated Farmers’ submission was that unless we get it right the incentive will be on farmers to destroy sites of historic significance on their farms. If farmers feel that this legislation will unreasonably restrict their ability to earn a living off land they own the threat made was that they will have little choice but to destroy areas. 
Stephen Franks 
: And they will be serving New Zealand’s interests. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Stephen Franks says they will be serving New Zealand’s interests. I happen to farm on Banks Peninsula and was afflicted with the Banks Peninsula district plan which had huge swats over my land of significant natural areas. They missed the most significant part of the farm. I say to Damian O’Connor that I would not be so irresponsible as to destroy it. But it just goes to show that if we want to advance laws that protect our landscape we have to do it with cooperation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I believe that the review I have just been giving this bill is the sort of review that the select committee stage was intended to cover. When the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have been through the provisions in detail over a really long period they are of course very familiar with them. But someone coming cold or relatively cold to a bill—like a member of Parliament who is now expected to vote—looks at the words that have become familiar to those who spent so long with them and looks at them with the eye that is a little closer to the eye of the person who is going to be subject to it—namely the ordinary citizen. 
What struck my eye in a quick flick through was the amendment to section 31 in clause 10. There it is in paragraph (b)(iii) in subcause (1): “the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:”. The method that subsection (2)(1) suggests in subclause (2) is to “include the control of subdivision.” 
It struck me that most of New Zealand’s coastal environment at the moment is probably in the position that a friend of mine had his farm in about 14 or 15 years ago. I helped my friend at one stage to collect the seeds of karakas. He knows a lot about trees. He has planted and fenced-off many hectares of land on one of his farms around dams. He has built dams to regenerate wetlands. He is very interested in the state of the natural environment and in what I imagine is meant by indigenous biological diversity—in other words probably patches of bush and patches of native vegetation. We made a special trip around the south coast—Palliser Head—to collect karaka seeds from a variety of karakas and other plants that we found in those groves. He told me to put them in the fridge. They need to go through a winter. They have to be chilled for 6 weeks in order to get a good strike. He was going to strike a whole lot of these karakas to plant on his coastal property. 
About 4 or 5 years later I went to his place and I asked him where the karaka grove was. He had reached the common-sense decision that he would have to have rocks in his head to carry on with his plan. In fact where the karakas were supposed to be there was a plantation of eucalypts. The reason was very simple. He had realised that if he planted what he wanted to plant there he would never be allowed to use his land. He wanted to regenerate native bush he wanted to attract pigeons and he wanted to plant the land so that it recreated what might have been there 150 years ago but if he did that he would be ruining all economic prospects for that land. In fact he would be setting it up to be confiscated by the consent authority. 
So what he did was plant eucalypts. It was the only rational thing to do with that land or to leave it in what it had been planted which was probably a monoculture of rye grass replanted every 5 or 6 years and grazed. He did this because he did want the area to be attractive. He does not regard New Zealand’s landscape without trees as the kind of landscape he wants to spend time in. He planted a variety of different eucalypts. The only reason he chose eucalypts was that they were not indigenous. It was the only way he could see to protect him land from confiscation. 
Fellow members of Parliament when we pass legislation like this knowing that it is a rational response knowing that the only sensible thing for people with any kind of alertness to their own interests is that they will have a bias against natural heritage that they will regard it as stupid to buy land that has regenerating scrub and not knock it off that they will want fires on their property that they will want to graze it heavily so that they do not get anything unusual regenerating and that if they find a rare species they will put a bulldozer through it we deserve all the odium we get. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am much obliged to be able to take this call. This afternoon the Government announced in a pre-Budget announcement that an additional $14.5 million will be given to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust for the identification of wahi tapu throughout New Zealand. The term wahi tapu came to the attention of most New Zealanders when they discovered to their horror that a group of landowners in Welcome Bay had effectively lost control of their property to local Maori. 
What became clear in the public furore that followed the Welcome Bay wahi tapu case was that the Prime Minister misled the country as to the status of wahi tapu. She appeared on the  
Holmes 
 programme and said that the fact there is a wahi tapu on this 180 hectares of land at Welcome Bay was of no consequence. She said that it was the local council that would decide. 
Progress reported.