Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on Part 5 of the bill. In doing so I particularly want to examine a couple of points that are in new sections 37A and 37B in clause 188 and also a bit later on to make some further points drawing off comments by colleagues Kris Faafoi and Eugenie Sage on boards of inquiry in new section 53 by reference to a number of submissions that have come in in this area.It is worth noting that looking through the submissions—and I am thinking particularly about submissions that were received from the Resource Management Law Association which I will comment on later Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and a number of environmental NGOs—the consistent theme that has come through in this part matches that which has come through in other parts of the bill. And that is a real concern that while people support there being greater direction in terms of the setting of environmental policy that needs to be very carefully considered alongside the centralisation of power in a Minister. New Zealand has got a history in this area and people I think are rightly alert to the problems that can arise from that.Let us start with new sections 37A and 37B which in my view and in the view of a number of the submitters give pretty sweeping powers to the Minister in the establishment of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) policy statement. Let us just look at a couple of the sections. The bit that really concerns me if we turn to new section 37B(b) which says establish a process that the Minister considers gives the public iwi authorities regional councils and persons whose existing interests are likely to be affected adequate time and opportunity to comment on the subject matter of the proposed statement."—so in other words we are giving a lot of power to the Minister to determine the consultation process.One thing that I thought was interesting in the departmental notes around this section is it notes that the provisions that we are putting in here in respect of consultation differ markedly from the provisions that we see across the rest of the Resource Management Act infrastructure. Of course one of the things that we have heard from the Minister and the Government time and time again from the chair is that one of the goals of this whole exercise is to align legislation with what is in the Resource Management Act here. But in the departmental report it is noted that we are doing something that is quite different here.One of the submissions I was particularly interested in came from the Resource Management Law Association and I think it is important for the Committee to take account of that submission. These are the people who will have to deal with this legislation after it is passed. These are the lawyers the judges the resource management professionals the planners the consultants who will administer this legislation and they have deep concerns about what is being proposed in new sections 37A and 37B. If I can just refer to the association's submission it notes a particular concern that there is no requirement for a hearing to be held on any of the comments made to the Minister on a proposed EEZ policy statement nor any rights of appeal against the Minister's ultimate decision.It could be that this House believes that the current Minister is a man of cool disposition and calm and clearheaded—that could be the view of this House—when we hand these powers over to him. That could be the view of this House. What if in the future we did not have such a Minister and we had someone who was given to making impulsive decisions to not consulting and that kind of thing? If we are handing these powers over with very little to tie that Minister down to good public consultation then I think that gives real and justified concerns to the community who will actually have to deal with this bill and that is what is pointed out by the Resource Management Law Association.Another interesting point that it touches on and this builds off a point made by colleague Kris Faafoi—if we turn to new section 53 in clause 188 in respect of boards of inquiry—the bill says that the Minister may appoint a current former or retired Environment Court judge or retired High Court judge to chair the board of inquiry. The Resource Management Law Association makes I think quite a valid point—and it would be good to hear from the Minister on this—that given the seriousness of what we are looking at here the setting up of plans that will govern every consent that is heard there would actually be significant value in having someone with real judicial experience chairing that board of inquiry particularly given the cross-examination requirements that we will want to see borne out in that process. That was raised during the submissions. The select committee has not chosen to do that. It is still a "may" in terms of appointing a judge and I think it would be good to hear about that from the Minister too. Thank you."