Carter John: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Carter John: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5646] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my congratulations to my colleague Nick Smith for three reasons. The first reason is that an Opposition member knows when he or she is being an effective Opposition spokesperson and Nick Smith certainly is—not just on education but also on the environment. The test is that every time a Government member gets up and bags an Opposition member—and certainly every Government member who rose today bagged Nick Smith—it means he or she is being an effective member of the Opposition. We have the score card here. One speaker another tick there; bang another tick against Nick Smith—he is doing a good job; I congratulate him. 
I turn to the second reason I want to congratulate Nick Smith. The Government put this legislation through but did it bother to consult the public at all? No. So who decided along with support from New Zealand First and ACT to run a select committee? It was Nick Smith. Who chaired the select committee along with the support of New Zealand First and ACT? It was Nick Smith. Who got submissions from the public; who was interested enough to ask the public to make comments on this legislation? It was Nick Smith and I congratulate him. Congratulations also to New Zealand First and to ACT and to the members who bothered to consult the public. 
One of the things that happened which is so important with this sort of legislation was that it gave the public the opportunity to have an input. Boy did we not learn a lot of things about this bill! Did we not learn most of all that most submitters on the bill said that this is going to be a backward step for us in this country. Indeed it will prove to be so. I congratulate Nick Smith on point two. 
Point three—what about Thursday? What happened in this House in the Committee stage on the bill on Thursday? We were going through the votes. All of a sudden there was a change. A Supplementary Order Paper was put in which said to take out cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual issues. I thought: “Oh well we’ll vote for that.” and we did. But bless my soul so did Labour. I could not believe it. I thought: “Hang on—no I am conscious; this is not a dream. I am not unconscious. This is real.” I was conscious at the time. In fact I was so conscious I got up and went over to the official and said: “Excuse me can you confirm for me what I think I voted on which the Labour Party voted on as well?”. The official said: “Yes that means they’re gone.” 
I got on the phone because Nick Smith was at home celebrating his son’s birthday which happened to be the same day as my birthday. I say congratulations to Nick Smith for having his son born on a very good day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I should have called him John. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member should have called him John. I called him and said: “Congratulations Nick you and your team those who were interested enough to consult the public who were told so much about this have actually won the day. You’ve got to the stage where the Government has backed off and taken out those nasty words ‘cultural landscapes ancestral landscapes and spiritual landscapes’. I have to say congratulations.” 
But what is important about it is that we were conscious enough to know that it happened. That is the important point. In that sense we need to go through just a little bit of history as to how we got those sorts of things into the legislation. We need to go back to about 23 March 2000 when Marian Hobbs wrote to the Local Government and Environment Committee outlining some expectations as to changes. Of course we now know that she was unconscious when she wrote the letter but that is OK. She wrote to the committee on 23 March and said: “Here are a few changes that we recommend.” Then goodness gracious me on 5 April there was a letter from Helen Clark to Marian Hobbs asking that she write to the select committee recommending that the heritage provisions be strengthened from Simon Upton’s original amendment bill. 
Dail Jones 
: Helen Clark? That Helen Clark? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The Prime Minister Helen Clark—not the hockey goalkeeper no. I am sure the hockey goalkeeper would not have wanted it. The Prime Minister Helen Clark wrote to the Minister Marian Hobbs and said: “Here are some suggestions. Make some recommended changes.” Well of course we have now learnt that she wrote that letter when she was unconscious. She would not have done it if she had been conscious. 
Here is the next thing. Mid-2000 the Ministry for Culture and Heritage made a submission. Who is the Minister in charge of these people? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Helen Clark. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh Helen Clark—the Prime Minister Helen Clark. The ministry submitted: “The Minister fully supports the inclusion of these clauses in the bill that are considered to strengthen the existing provisions in the Resource Management Act.” Bless my soul. Goodness gracious. I had better hurry or I am going to run out of time. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage submitted a further report requesting the inclusion of specific words—the inclusion of wahi tapu and ancestral landscapes. But of course they were conscious when they did this—members have to understand. Then in September 2000 the Ministry for the Environment submitted a report stating: “You also have to include reference to ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual qualities.”—all of the time while it was conscious. Can members believe that? 
Here is the next thing. On 2 May the select committee decided to amend the bill. Those members were all conscious. The five members of the select committee were Labour including the Government senior whip. He was conscious when he did it. He has put up his hand; he admits it. That amendment was made. Then of course during the Committee stage Labour amended the definition. We then have the issue on 12 May where the Prime Minister said that there had been no conscious decision. So we can only assume that all these things happened in a state of unconsciousness. Bless my soul! How silly is that? No one believes it. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not the worry? I wonder whether the issue relating to Al Gore was when she was unconscious maybe? We do not know. The point is that we know that this was a decision made by the Government and one that Nick Smith and the people who are with him from New Zealand First and ACT can take a lot of credit for. The bill will be the better for it but nevertheless the bill is probably still a backward step.