8. Resource Legislation Amendment Bill—Referral to Select Committee and ReformsDr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for the EnvironmentResource Legislation Amendment Bill—Referral to Select Committee and Reforms8. Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for the Environment: Why did he announce yesterday that he is going to seek the approval of Parliament to refer the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill back to select committee given that so many councils environmental groups the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Law Society have criticised the bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Because reform is pivotal to improving New Zealand's environment to being able to build more houses and to supporting economic growth and jobs which members on this side of the House support. I will give you a practical example. The bill will enable national regulations so that stock will not be in our rivers and lakes. The bill provides for more houses being built by requiring councils to release land. The bill will prevent billion-dollar stuff-ups like what occurred at Bexley when natural hazards were not properly considered when that subdivision was approved. It is inevitable with a bill of this size that it will require refinement at select committee. The Local Government and Environment Committee only received the 500 page report last week and I am at a loss why members opposite will not let the committee considered that report.Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with the Department of Conservation which says that the bill will undermine its work and have significant adverse effects on important conservation values such as impacts on threatened species?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No I do not agree with that view. If we are serious about improving our planning processes this reform is required. What I find so ironic about the Labour Party members is that they repeatedly accept that the Resource Management Act (RMA) as part of the housing problem and then every time we go to amend it they oppose it.Paul Foster-Bell: When did his ministry provide departmental reports to the select committee and what are the substantive issues addressed in those reports?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The bill attracted over 800 submissions that were heard through May and June and on which the ministry carefully conceded in its departmental report. This was provided in two volumes: 150 pages in August and a further 500-page report last week. This timetable is not unreasonable given the size complexity and number of submissions. It would be impossible for the select committee members to give proper consideration to those reports when they had only 1 day. That is why the committee sought a reasonable extension and that is why this afternoon this Government will refer the bill back to the select committee to do the job properly.Eugenie Sage: Why should New Zealanders believe that this Government cares about hearing their views on anything when National members of the select committee would not even allow the select committee to report back and would not allow the members of the Opposition to have their report-backs reported?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The idea that the select committee would be able to report back on a bill when it received a 500-page report and had only 1 day's consideration—actually it is members on this side of the House who are saying the bill should be referred back to the select committee so that it can do its job properly. It is our side of the House that is showing proper respect for those submissions.Dr Megan Woods: Was the reason the department did not provide the departmental report for 5 months after the submissions were heard because it was awaiting his approval or is the incompetent delay someone else's fault?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is plain wrong. Submissions were finished in June. The first departmental report was provided in August. By my calculation that is 2 months.Dr Megan Woods: Why is he ignoring the submission of councils developers and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that further changes to already complex notification rules and adding hundreds of extra clauses to the RMA will further complicate the RMA—the opposite of his stated aims?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That just shows the member has not bothered to read the departmental report because one of the most significant areas of changes that is proposed in the departmental report is around the proposals of notification.Dr Megan Woods: Why does he not just admit that the shambolic process and widespread opposition to the bill shows he has got it wrong yet again—another Nick Smith special?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government set out on a two-phase reform programme for the RMA and whether it be Transmission Gully in Wellington or the Pūhoi-Tūhoe roading project or whether it be the Waterview Connection—all of those projects were only able to be approved because of this Government's RMA reform bill. It is rich for members opposite to make the connections—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A point of order has been called. It needs to be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I was listening very acutely to that answer and in the noise I thought I heard him talking about the Pūhoi-Tūhoe road and I know he might have lost it.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection has been relatively loud throughout. I am now going to have to get tougher with one or two members if I do not get any cooperation and I think those members know who I am talking about.