Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I understand that when we are discussing issues in the Public Works Act the problem of compensation and the rate is important and I appreciate the contributions that have been made by a number of members tonight. But that is not the particular clause I want to address in my contribution—or my first contribution. Anyway I would just say to Minister Nick Smith though that I think the Public Works Act was 1981 so he would have graduated to secondary school by the time this was last debated in Parliament rather than being at primary school.I want to address the provisions that are in clause 169. It is one of the few provisions in the whole of this Resource Legislation Amendment Bill that was not amended at all by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is quite unusual—clause 169 was just completely intact. When I read through the submissions on this clause I expected that all submitters would have been in support of it. I thought if it has not been touched then the submitters must have all thought it was a jolly fine thing. Actually they did not.One submission I was particularly interested in was from the Resource Management Law Association. That is a group that is specifically interested in the law that we are debating right now. It supported the intention of the clause—perhaps I will go back a step. Clause 169 amends section 24 of the Public Works Act and puts in a new subsection. That subsection allows for the Environment Court to accept evidence that has been presented at a previous hearing on a related inquiry or an appeal by the court. So you do not have to go through you know repetition of the same issue even though it is being heard by different jurisdictions. That is the intent of this.The Resource Management Law Association supported that intent. It said This is a good idea." but and this is the important bit I want the Minister to explain in a way that I can explain to my constituents why he did not agree with its remedy to fix what it saw as a fundamental flaw in this clause and that was that it does not achieve the purpose that it is intended to achieve. You cannot get much more fundamental than that. That is the intention—reducing the duplication between the various jurisdictions so the hearings can just be heard again on the same basis rather than a new regime having to be invented for the next hearing—but the association said that alignment does not occur through this clause 169.If people who are involved in resource management law ask us as members of Parliament—this is what the association said; this is what the law association said and they are the experts in this area. Why did the select committee not change it? Why did the Committee of the whole House not change it? Why did the Minister block a suggested fix to a problem presented by a group of people who agreed with his solution but just said: "This clause won't not achieve it."? That is the question that I am really keen on having answered by the Minister. Not only did the Resource Management Law Association say that this is not going to fix the problem but it actually suggested ways of doing it. It was really the icing on the cake. All the Minister had to do—and I understand the Minister was very heavily involved in the detail of this work even though it was being heard by a select committee—was pick up its suggestions and move it across. I am keen on hearing directly from the Minister as to why that identification of a fundamental problem was not accepted and if it was accepted why the solution was not acted on.I want to ask the Minister one more question before I finish my contribution on this clause and that is: in what other situations does he consider that this parallel process would be appropriate? In what other areas is there duplication where this fix might be applied to? I agree with reducing bureaucracy. I agree with reducing duplication. I agree because it means that more members of the public are likely to have access to situations where they can have their voices heard. But if reducing bureaucracy and lowering access to justice mean that more members of our community are denied that opportunity to have their voices heard then I oppose it with every strength in my body. Too many people are being locked out of having their voices heard. Too many people hear about decisions after they have been made. Too many people are restricted—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 3.Hon RUTH DYSON: That is exactly what this provision does. Too many people are restricted and I want to see what other processes—"