Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : In a typical act of arrogance from this rotting, decaying Government, 45 pages of amendments have been tabled today and are intended to be passed into law today by a Labour Government that lectures us on public consultation under the Resource Management Act. I have heard some loopy suggestions from the Minister in the chair—

• Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to remind Parliament about the fiasco that is taking place this afternoon. The Government says that when it comes to resource management issues we have to consult to death. If a developer or a council wants to do something in their community, the Ministry for the Environment tells us that, on average, it will take over 4 years to make a change in the rule. But today in Parliament, we will pass 38 pages of law and 134 clauses that were tabled this morning. What sort of double standard do we have when the Labour Government says that if a little council wants to make a teeny-weeny change in the rule, it has to consult to death, but if this Minister wants to, he can change the law today?

Dr Wayne Mapp: Like the Prime Minister.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is lawmaking even faster than a prime ministerial motorcade.

Darren Hughes: Or Don Brash.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can the perky member on the Government benches explain to me why it is that the Government insists on an extensive consultation process, on public participation, etc, except when it comes through the Government? I ask the outgoing member for Otaki what public consultation there has been on the changes to the Resource Management Act in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper. The silence is deafening.

The problem with this Government, and the reason it will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand, is that it has an approach of “Do as we say, not as we do.” The Government tells everybody else that they have to consult, and that they have to involve public participation. [Interruption] Now Rick Barker is poking in. Could he explain to me how it is fair to be passing laws that say that one has to consult extensively and involve the public, but the Government can make 134 changes that will be introduced and passed into law today?

I have never known such double standards. They are the same sorts of double standards that we get from the Minister in the chair, Mr David Benson-Pope, when he launches a programme to ensure there is no bullying in schools, and then it is revealed that he has stuffed tennis balls into kids’ mouths. The number of examples by members opposite—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. That comment from the member is not acceptable. The member will please withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What comment?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows the comment he made about the Minister, David Benson-Pope. He will withdraw it, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw. The Minister in the chair is on the public record as having stuffed tennis balls into his pupils’ mouths, while simultaneously launching a campaign to stop bullying in schools. Now that is as consistent—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take a point of order to assist the Committee. We will descend very rapidly into the very silly state that the member himself has objected to, and has been very emotional about in this Parliament, when personal attacks are made. He is now pursuing things that are not true, and is misrepresenting what the Minister has said. I caution him that he is going too far. We should debate the bill—we are happy to do that—but this member, in particular, is the person who gets so upset when personal references are made. He is now leading the charge. I just offer that as a way forward. Let us debate the resource management legislation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to stop telling the truth about them if they stop telling lies about us.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. These matters have come up several times before, and I would caution members about behaviour and personal reflections.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would just like an explanation from a Government member, as to why the Government put out three press releases in the last week talking about the importance of public consultation and participation, but then rolled up this morning with 38 pages of changes to the Resource Management Act, about which there has been absolutely no public consultation or participation, at all. It is a double standard, and I say again that that sort of arrogance—to say one thing and do the opposite—is why this Government will be rejected by the electors of New Zealand in a few weeks’ time.

I also want to come to some of the lunatic provisions in this bill. Ninety percent - plus of consents are dealt with on a non-notified basis. Somehow the Government thinks that the problem will be solved by making those notification decisions appealable to the Environment Court. If there is any way in which one wanted to add bureaucracy, costs, delays, and uncertainty to the Resource Management Act, it is by introducing that provision about which we unanimously heard, in submission after submission, that it was unwise.

I would also like an explanation from the Minister in this respect. When this bill was introduced, David Benson-Pope jumped up and said that the answer was to remove de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In fact, in February I put out a statement challenging Mr David Benson-Pope about his claims that he would somehow resolve those problems by taking away de novo hearings in the Environment Court. In the Local Government and Environment Committee even the Environment Court Chief Judge said that the Minister had lost the plot, that this was not going to work, and that this was going to make things worse, not better. So I have to challenge the Minister in the chair by asking him what has gone wrong. His own press release said that the most significant change in the bill was the removal of de novo hearings in the Environment Court. Why has it gone? Why has he put up the white flag? The truth is that the Minister has made another error and has got it wrong again.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment tabled in my name that would insert a new clause 5AB. This affects 50,000 New Zealanders who are enthusiasts for the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. My amendment is a very sensible proposition. It states that when a council—and I have heard so much from Labour members about how they want to empower councils—proposes a rule change, it will be able to determine whether it shall take effect at that time, as compared with existing provisions of the district plan. It sounds like quite a complex mechanism. It is about trusting councils. It means that the Western Springs Speedway will not close. Any member who votes against my amendment is effectively sounding a death knell for that speedway. This speedway has operated for 75 years. There is a petition of 50,000-plus New Zealanders who want to see that speedway survive.

The Auckland City Council, which interestingly is dominated by the political left, unanimously wants this amendment so that it can fix the problem of the speedway. But this is not just an amendment to fix the problem with that speedway. There are similar problems up and down New Zealand whereby councils know they have provisions in their district plan that are not working for communities and they want to make changes, but it will take them years to do so. They do not have the option of banging the House into urgency, bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper, and passing it all on the same day. [Interruption] I say to the Minister that they do not have that opportunity. This amendment enables them to fix those problems. It is about trusting councils, and it is about a very sensible change.

I have another amendment in my name. A very significant issue for New Zealand is the security of electricity supply, and what happens with the waters of the Waitaki River. We know that the process that was set up by Marian Hobbs is an absolute botch. The Government’s own submission states that it will cost New Zealand 300 megawatts of electricity generating capacity. My amendment says what every single mayor in the South Island has sought—that there be a further round of consultation on the regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Every single mayor in the South Island has called for that amendment.

And I say that a further round of consultation would be required—

Hon Marian Hobbs: And they have all changed their minds since.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, they have not, actually. Marian Hobbs just keeps stuffing it up. That is why she got sacked; she is no longer in charge of the Resource Management Act. The job has been given to Mr Benson-Pope. The draft plan for the Waitaki River is a disaster for New Zealand. It will cost Jim Sutton his seat; he is a goner. It will probably cost David Parker his seat, too. But what is really important is that it will create a crisis in New Zealand’s electricity supply. We need to do that job properly, and I seek the support of every member of this Parliament who is concerned about maintaining security of electricity supply and sensible use of that magnificent resource, the Waitaki River. I plead with them to support this amendment please, so that we can fix the botch-up that Marian Hobbs has made—that her own Government says it has made—with the submission the Government made to the Waitaki Catchment Board. That further round of consultation is absolutely vital to getting it right, and I seek the Committee’s support.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I want again, on behalf of New Zealand First, to register our dismay at the fact that the Minister for the Environment has been so cavalier in the treatment of Parliament that this morning was the first time we had the opportunity to see the considerable number of matters raised on Supplementary Order Paper 389. It reminds me of a memoir of the last days of the Attlee Labour Government that tells of a newspaper correspondent who went to see Mr Herbert Morrison and found a half-smoked, soggy cigar—the emblem of a dying ministry. The rush and haste evident in that Supplementary Order Paper indicate something of the same sort of feeling across there on the other side of the Chamber.

I particularly want to ask the Minister in the chair why, at this late stage, there are so many references to the coastal marine area. Why was the coastal marine area not subject to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee, or is there some truth to the rumour that this Government has a desire to embark upon mining expeditions up and down the west coast, all the way from Kaipara down into the Taranaki Bight? Is that the reason why there suddenly appears for the first time and for no sound reason, at this late stage, reference to the coastal marine area, to the Minister of Conservation, and to their place in the whole matter of resource consents and planning? One questions why the committee was not subject to the same thinking that seems to be indicated there. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s answer as to why there is that late reference, in more than one provision, to the coastal marine area. It certainly would not have anything to do with the foreshore and seabed legislation; if it did, we would want to know exactly what that was.

Secondly, I want to make very brief mention of the fact that in my earlier, second reading speech on behalf of New Zealand First, I did not mention a key factor—that is, the Treaty of Waitangi clause. Unlike other parties in this Parliament, New Zealand First members have high regard for, on matters of national importance, Māori traditions and culture being exactly and expressly spelt out. But we believe that the Treaty of Waitangi provision, which was put there in 1991 by National, which was not the subject of the review by the group who looked at this matter in 1998 and 1999, and which now seems to be the subject of some concern, does not belong. Because of that, I want to register now our concern—

Phil Heatley: That’s not what the member says on marae.

JIM PETERS: I beg your pardon; we say here exactly what we say everywhere else. That is unlike others, I tell Mr Heatley, who have a background of including Treaty of Waitangi principles in over 25 Acts passed by the National Party in its time in Government, and who now wish to completely repudiate in an instant—in a flash; before lunchtime—all of those sections. New Zealand First is a party that knows what Māori mean to this country, that knows their place in the culture and history of New Zealand, and that is prepared to give every ability for that to be expressed in the right and proper manner in the Act. But I want us to go through those provisions in Part 1 that we believe elevate, particularly with regard to co-management, a concept that this party has no truck with.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : People always know when there is a socialist administration in the last throes of its existence in this Parliament. They can always tell. Here we are in the eleventh hour on the last day of Parliament, locked in a time warp, still in Tuesday, with a piece of legislation that is so out of touch with what needs to happen today it is unbelievable. The Minister, the Hon David Benson-Pope, who is only 5 minutes in the job, has now come up with a Supplementary Order Paper of some 136 pages, which was delivered to people this morning to have a look at—a Minister who has spent his whole political career, both before he came into Parliament and since he has been in Parliament, telling people how important it is to have a robust consultation process.

I just ask the question: how could that happen? Listening before to the co-leader of the Green Party—the potential future coalition partner of any future Labour Government—I heard it all revealed. That member chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee in the first instance, after the 1999 election, and the red pen was put through all the recommended changes to the legislation that had been put forward after a thorough consultation process. That was Simon Upton’s bill, and a red pen was put through all those recommended changes. Now, here we are today with a bill, and with a Supplementary Order Paper that is almost as big as the bill itself, being recommended to make some minor amendments along the lines that Simon Upton recommended at that time. It is ad hoc; it is the wrong way to go about it; and it certainly will not work. It will not fix the problem.

I say to the Minister that we all know that this has come about as a result of the circus that took place with Project Aqua in the South Island. We all know that the “muesli man”, the new Mayor of Auckland, has said to his favourite political party that what it is proposing will not work, that it will add a whole layer of cost to the Resource Management Act, and that it will not achieve what it is designed to achieve. We all know that power prices have gone up by 50 percent under this administration, and that they are continuing to rise. We all know there is a crisis in the electricity industry because new generation capacity cannot proceed. We all know that—all of New Zealand knows that. We know that there is a huge crisis in roading right across New Zealand. We know that the small-business committee that did an investigation under the leadership of Paul Swain came back and recommended to this Government that the single biggest issue concerning small business and the development of New Zealand is the Resource Management Act. We know that, but here we are, in the death throes of this Government, with a piece of legislation that will not address those issues.

Phil Heatley: It tinkers!

SHANE ARDERN: It tinkers with the edge of the issues, but it will not address them.

We ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, in his last gasp of air in this Parliament, why he cannot just listen to his own people—his own constituents, his own supporters—on the left of local government around New Zealand and do what they ask him to do. It is interesting to note, when we look back, that the member for Auckland Central—the “member for Auckland Affairs”, I believe they call her—Judith Tizard, said in one of the earlier debates on this legislation that the recommendations put forward by Simon Upton in 1999 were evil—evil and dangerous. She said that a direct referral to the Environment Court was an evil, dangerous thing to do. Today, in this debate with exactly that proposal before us, we hear—

Hon David Benson-Pope: It’s not. Tell the truth.

Hon Marian Hobbs: It’s not exactly the same.

SHANE ARDERN: Well, I will be interested to hear the Minister take a call, or either of the Ministers—the one who was there for a start and who got the sack, or the one who is in the chair—to tell us why I am wrong. That is exactly what we are doing here today. Those Ministers need to know that it is our roads in this country that need engineering, not our people. So the Ministers should front up and tell those people who have supported them why they will not pass legislation in Parliament today that would save the Western Springs speedway—why they cannot do that. Why are they so against that kind of thing, particularly when their own people and all of local government are telling them that?

It has been stated many times that this Government has been supportive of local government. Well, this is where the rubber meets the road, right here today.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : We had a ruling from Assistant Speaker Robertson this morning that it is perfectly within the Standing Orders to change policy in a Supplementary Order Paper that is introduced on the day a bill is getting passed into law, with no explanation of what the new policy is that we are being required to vote on. That is as may be—it is within the Standing Orders—but it is wrong in principle, and it shows contempt for the role of the House in scrutinising legislation. I was so concerned when I saw that statement in the Supplementary Order Paper about changes in policy that I went to the Minister, David Benson-Pope, and asked for an explanation of what the changes in policy are. The Minister was good enough to send over an official to run through it with me. Given that the Greens are not supporting the bill, I am sure the Minister would have done the same for other MPs who asked in advance for that advice. But given that that has not happened, I think it would be appropriate for the Minister to take a call at some stage to go through the new policies introduced in the Supplementary Order Paper.

I am not surprised that there is a 35-page Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. The Local Government and Environment Committee made a lot of changes to the bill. We were working through policy in some depth quite late in the process, to the point where we were presented on the day of deliberation with considerable changes to the drafting of the bill. Right at the very last minute, officials were still working out—and colleagues in the Chamber who were there will remember—how to give effect to the things the committee had done. I can remember saying as we went into deliberations that I foresaw a substantial Supplementary Order Paper, because the officials could not possibly have all the details right if they were changing the drafting from one day to the next.

In particular, with reference to the option the Minister has of referring a called-in project to the Environment Court, there was still no realisation at that stage, on the second to last day, that the Environment Court is not used to dealing with projects from scratch. It is used to dealing with appeals, and we cannot simply treat a case as an appeal at the Environment Court if there is no decision to appeal against. So considerable work has gone into that Supplementary Order Paper, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

There are three changes of policy in this Supplementary Order Paper that directly overturn very considered decisions made by the select committee. Those were decisions about which Government members acquiesced—presumably, at the time, with the agreement of their Minister. I find it of considerable concern that those decisions are being changed at this point.

I mentioned when I spoke on the second reading that representations from Māori were unanimous that iwi authorities are not always the appropriate people to be consulted on plans, and that hapū are often the appropriate kaitiaki. In the committee’s amendments to the bill we provided for hapū, in cases where it was appropriate, to be on the council register and to be consulted over plans.

Well, one of the things this Supplementary Order Paper does is to take out any consultation with hapū over plans. Hapū will stay on the register, but that will have no practical effect. The form is given, but the substance has been taken away. Of course, councils can still consult hapū if they wish—that is the case now; no change has happened there. But they are not required to, and the fact that that provision has been taken out at this stage, when it was in the bill as reported back, may well be taken by some as evidence that the bill does not intend councils to consult hapū. I find that a real concern, and I think Māori around the country will find it a real concern. The bill has clarified that there is no mandatory consultation with Māori, iwi authorities, or anybody else at the consent stage. That is probably appropriate, given that the thing we have to get right is the plan, but if there is to be no consultation with hapū at the plan stage either, then where is the treaty relationship in all of that?

The second thing that has been changed from the select committee’s considered view is that power stations have been reinserted in the definition of “infrastructure”. Infrastructure has always been seen, in the words of a former Minister of Energy, as consisting of “long stringy things”—that is, networks—and in order for a network to function, one has to own land. Infrastructure has always been taken to mean developments that require a network that connects land over considerable distances. Power stations do not do that, and in this Supplementary Order Paper a higher status is given to power stations in terms of the planning process than the committee felt they deserved.

The third change that overturned a decision of the select committee is that the value of existing investments must now be regarded when considering the re-consenting of a consent that has expired. The committee always agreed that when looking at contesting applications for, let us say, a water right, the fact that the incumbent had invested quite a lot in the infrastructure to use that water ought to be taken strongly into account when deciding whether the incumbent should get the re-consent or somebody else should get the water. But when there is no contest like that—when the contest is between whether the natural environment needs that water back for some other value or whether the incumbent should be allowed to continue to take it—this amendment now jigs the situation very strongly in favour of the incumbent and continued extraction and taking from the environment, rather than the restoration of environmental quality. That was something the committee decided not to do, but that the Minister has reinstated.

Other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper are good. I commend the clarification on the joint-management agreements, and I commend the clarification on the aquaculture law reform. The technical amendments will, I hope, make the bill more workable.

But, overall, the Greens will not be voting for this Supplementary Order Paper. We believe that the considered views of the select committee, which the Labour members agreed to, should be allowed to stand.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I always find it very interesting when people get up and complain about lack of consultation, then do not withdraw and think about where a Supplementary Order Paper comes from. A Supplementary Order Paper about this subject normally arises because, as a bill has gone to the select committee, a number of people—some of them Environment Court judges, some of them from the Resource Management Law Association, and some of them from a variety of industries—have come knocking on the door and said that they have listened to the submissions, and that they have something they would like to say, or that they have some way through that might actually help. That is in addition to the normal process that occurs when we are presented with a problem and we work our way through. That is what a Supplementary Order Paper is. It is an indication that there has been listening out there, involvement out there, and a lot of talking with Local Government New Zealand.

I want to show two examples. One relates to the question of courts hearing de novo. We listened to what the courts had to say about that, and included in the Supplementary Order Paper the addition, which the courts and Local Government New Zealand agree with, that the court has to have regard to the council decision. We are, again, trying to prevent people from going on and on and introducing new material forever. It is a way of moving forward. The part I really want to take apart is this question about direct referral. I find that delicious. Yes, we did agree, back in 2000, not to go ahead with direct referral, which is a friend of all developers, who would say: “I do not want to go through local government; I as a developer elect to go straight to the Environment Court. I can exclude all the small people who might have a prison built beside me, and go straight to the Environment Court.” We took that out and said that we believe in democracy—we believe in people having their chance up before local government. As a result of a lot of thinking and what we learnt in Waitaki—that sometimes things are really difficult when multiple councils are involved and when a council does not actually have a water plan—we put up a provision whereby at the moment the Minister can decide to intervene and can intervene in about five different ways. Sometimes it is just a matter of saying that three councils will join together to have a hearing. Two of the options for intervention involve call-in. Call-in occurs when the Minister—not the local developer—can say that the matter will go directly to the Environment Court, or when the Minister does as we have done in Waitaki and appoints a particular panel to conduct a hearing. That is not the same as what the National Party proposed. Its proposal was for developers, only—not Ministers—to say: “Let’s avoid local Government altogether.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If you buy Māori off you will get there.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I really object to that particular comment about my probity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member—

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am dealing with the matter. The member knows that it is out of order to make that accusation. The member will withdraw that remark.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister was asserting that any old developer would be able to get direct referral under National’s policy. Under Labour’s policy, direct referral is determined by the Minister. I quite properly intervened with the remark that the Minister might get a cheque and be influenced. There was nothing wrong or improper about that comment. It is a fact arising from what is in Labour’s bill. That is the difference between Labour’s policy and National’s.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member knows very well that the comment was not in order. I ask the member to withdraw the remark. He cannot insinuate that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This morning we saw a Supplementary Order Paper introducing 38 pages of new law—134 clauses. The Green Party member in her contribution suggested that it would be fair to Parliament if one of the Ministers gave some explanation, because the explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper only goes as far as saying that it includes drafting to give effect to new policy. I have been waiting for the Government to tell us what the new policy is. It seems to me quite extraordinary that on the last day of Parliament 38 pages of law are being slammed through without anybody standing up and explaining what it is. I think it would be proper for you to direct the Minister, Marian Hobbs, to give us some explanation as to the policy changes that are proposed in this 38-page Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. It is a matter for debate. If the member is raising a point of order about the relevance of the amendments, I tell him that that has certainly been looked at. It has been considered, and certainly the amendments are relevant to the bill. I am happy to give the member a longer explanation if that is what he wants.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I would like it from the Minister, actually.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The point I am making is that, as far as the Chairperson is concerned, the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant to the bill.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I understand that the Supplementary Order Paper is relevant, but its explanatory note states that it makes policy changes. Nowhere in the main bill is there any reference to, for instance, marine farming. That is not included in the bill. The Supplementary Order Paper makes quite extensive changes in that area, and we have heard no explanation from any member of the Government as to what is intended by this lawmaking—which is faster than a prime ministerial motorcade. We have had no explanation of the reasons for the neck-breaking speed of this law change.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a matter for debate.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I want to clarify this again. I heard an assertion from the opposite side of the Chamber that we had done a U-turn and advised that there would be direct referral to the Environment Court. That is not so, and I want to make that very clear. It is not so. There is a step in between, and that is ministerial intervention, which can take about five different forms, two of which involve call-in. Something else that was asserted by the member—[Interruption] I am responding to comments the Opposition has made—concerned an amendment to extend the submission time in the Waitaki plan hearing. I am quite happy to advise the member that Meridian Energy Ltd, and all those people who have submitted—I think Meridian finished its submissions today or yesterday—have finished making their submissions, and the process is about to be wound up well within the time that was set. The panel will report in September, as it stated. Why did we ask for this plan to be reported by that time? The reason is that I made a commitment to the Minister of Energy that this public consultation about finding a way forward for the people of Otago and Canterbury in relation to the use of the water in that river would in no way delay any decisions out there.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a botch-up.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: No, it is not a botch-up. It is a way forward for the future that has been taken on board and approved, and it has been wanted very much by the people. So far it has not been liked by Local Government New Zealand, which tends to have a different response to the National Party’s proposals in relation to the Resource Management Act, and Dr Nick Smith is up there threatening the chair of Local Government New Zealand with banishment from the National Party, because he tends to disagree—because Local Government New Zealand knows that this Government has actually worked with it.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : Is it not extraordinary? The Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, who has just resumed her seat, lives in an absolute fantasy world. She is wrapped in cotton wool and has rocks in her head. Let us look at some of the things she said. She tried to explain away a 36-page Supplementary Order Paper that has been dumped on the Committee today as the Government listening to the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a gross abuse of process.

Let me spell out for the Minister, who should know better, how it is meant to work. The Government, the executive, is meant to bring a bill to the Parliament. The bill is referred to a select committee, then the select committee is meant to be given due time to consider that bill. That is how the legislature scrutinises the laws the executive intends to pass. That is how it is meant to work. But—no—what did the Government do? First of all it put its members on the select committee under incredible instructions to ram everything through as fast as they could. Now the Government comes here right at the last stages of this Parliament—possibly the last sitting day; we might dribble over into tomorrow, but effectively it is the last sitting day—and on something as significant as the Resource Management Act it dumps on us a Supplementary Order Paper with a whole lot of new measures that no New Zealander will have a chance to submit on and no select committee will scrutinise. And this Minister has the audacity and temerity to try to say that that is listening to the people. What absolute rot and rubbish! Nothing could be further from the truth.

Another interesting point is that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, put out a press release today in which he stated that these amendments will not have an impact on development—the Resource Management Act will not have an impact on development. He referred to a KPMG report that is purported to say so. The truth of the matter is that the people who did that report did not consult with one farmer or one representative of the farmers of this country.

Shane Ardern: Or the foresters.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Or the forestry sector, for that matter. The introductory comments in the bill itself state that it will have an impact on the primary industries of New Zealand. What a contradiction! The Minister in the chair—again, wrapped in cotton wool—puts out a press release, probably drafted by officials, saying that this will not impact on development, when the primary sector of New Zealand is reporting to us that it was not consulted in any way, and when the Government’s own introductory comments state that the bill will impact on primary industries in this country, as we know it most certainly will.

Some aspects of the 36-page Supplementary Order Paper—and members have had only very limited time to look at them—are, I think, acceptable. I think that the measure to take into consideration the value of existing infrastructure in consenting or reconsenting is significant. We have that farcical situation of the Tongariro power scheme, a sunk investment. Some of us would remember that incredible investment of the 1960s and 1970s and all the tunnelling that went on to produce that infrastructure for New Zealand’s power; yet another decision made by the Environment Court has virtually truncated those water rights and reduced the capacity of the Tongariro power scheme to function. Of course, the Tongariro power scheme, in turn, feeds into the Waikato River and all the power schemes down the Waikato River.

But the Government has to appreciate that, because of all the metaphysical nonsense and spiritual values it has imported into the Resource Management Act, we have decisions like the one in the Tongariro instance. Those matters should not be dealt with under the Resource Management Act. They are totally inappropriate. The intent of the Resource Management Act was meant to be the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, yet somehow successive Governments have tagged on all those spiritual, metaphysical values that we cannot deal with in this way. We have to have separate legislation if we are to try to tackle those. The Resource Management Act tries to do too much and it fails miserably.

There are other matters that I think do require mentioning, certainly with regard to the iwi authorities and hapū. It is good to see that it is confined now to consultation at the plan development stage and not actually at the consent stage, because extortion was occurring in this place. In this country we had extortion whereby any consent applicant was held to ransom by people purporting to represent spiritual values.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) : I would like to take the opportunity to give some more background to Supplementary Order Paper 389. Those members who were in the House at the time of my second reading speech will already be aware of this, but I will repeat at a little greater length. First of all, most of these issues are technical but, as has been identified, there are also some policy issues.

In terms of the recognition of existing investment, the Government has made a change to section 104 of the principal Act, to be inserted by a proposed new clause 43A, that requires consent authorities to have regard to the value of existing investment when considering applications for a new consent to replace an existing consent on expiry.

In respect of the iwi register, the reason for the change from the recommendations of the Local Government and Environment Committee was so that, although that consultation can still take place, councils are not required to resource it at the hapū level. Section 36B, proposed in clause 15, is amended to allow for joint management agreements between local authorities and public authorities, iwi authorities, and groups that are recognised. A proposed new clause allows for the incorporation of external material into national policy statements and the New Zealand coastal policy statement, by reference.

In terms of the relationship between standards and designations, we are recommending in the Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to clause 21 to require that where a designation to which a national environmental standard otherwise applies is created over existing works, those works shall not have to comply with the national environmental standard at that point. As was mentioned by the member Jeanette Fitzsimons, there is also an amendment to clause 5 to include, under the definition “infrastructure”, infrastructure associated with electricity generation. In respect of the new ministerial powers for intervention in relation to the coastal marine areas, this was a compromise position negotiated between the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment in terms of the respective roles of the Ministers and the statutes under which they operate.

The two other matters relate to aquaculture law reform. There is an important clause to amend section 165Z of the Resource Management Act to rectify an issue that came out of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, to clarify that regional councils must identify excluded areas prior to inviting proposals for private plan changes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So you screwed up last time.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: In response to the foolish interjection from Dr Smith, no, the Government did not screw up; neither did officials. But we have listened to communities and to local government, unlike that member—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Oh, yeah! Tell us what consultation you had.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: If Dr Smith just closes his mouth for a moment and listens, I will draw to his attention a comment made by local government—one that we are, and should be, justifiably proud of. It is that the development of this bill has been “an exemplary collaborative exercise”. Later on in the day I will also refer him to some of the documents I tabled in the House yesterday.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I would like to take up some of the comments that have been made in regard to this bill. I am also appalled at the substantial Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, which has been put to the Committee without any public consultative process whatsoever, and without any parliamentary scrutiny, at all. I just reiterate that the purpose of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill is to address problems with delays, costs, inconsistencies, uncertainty, and leadership. On the question of leadership, I refer to the purpose of this bill. In clause 4, one of the stated purposes is: “(v) consultation with iwi and resource planning by iwi;”. I take exception to the fact that the Government says that that purpose will improve the Resource Management Act in any way, whatsoever. In fact, I think that it shows a continued disgrace in terms of the leadership provided by the current Government, in that it continues to promote, increase, and exacerbate the separatist environment that we live in today. This should be a nation where we stand alongside one another and together, rather than apart from each other. In my view, when one group of people is identified separately, stands apart, and is consulted separately from the rest of the community, that is separatism. That is being promulgated through this amendment bill and is also supported by Supplementary Order Paper 389.

That sort of leadership filters down into our communities, and is the sort of leadership that means that, when given an inch, people take a mile. We have talked in this Chamber about bureaucrats and planners running amok with the sort of largesse that has been given by this Government, particularly with regard to consultation with iwi, etc. Now iwi will have a pre-eminent position in the planning process outside the resource consent process. In the planning environment, iwi management plans must now be taken into account. But the problem with doing that is that nobody has a chance to have any say on those iwi management plans, apart from the iwi itself. What is the public input into those plans, and how will councils adjudicate on those plans in terms of the public interest, when all the weighting is given to the iwi or hapū that puts forward the management plan?

I can give members a classic example, in terms of the Draft Wairoa River Valley Strategy, a combined draft strategy of Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council. It is a draft strategy, but it gives major cause for concern when we look at the costs involved and see the fact that the councils actually identify that funds will be put towards iwi management plans. Those are ratepayer funds. Do ratepayers have the opportunity to say they do not want to fund management plans from iwi and that they will fund only management plans for the community as a whole, recognising that iwi are a part of the community?

I would hope that more and more of our communities make those statements, because when we look at that particular strategy, we see it not only talks about councils funding some of the iwi management plans but also identifies some matters that the councils state should be included in the iwi management plans. It states the councils will: “Recognise in decision-making the home or kainga of Ngati Kahu and Ngati Pango including the Pa, cultural and spiritual sites within the LMA”. Now, the reference to “cultural” is fine. There is more than one culture in this country, so I wonder whether the councils will recognise only one culture. But the other aspect is that of the “spiritual sites within the LMA”. Spiritual sites could be anything. How does one prove that something could come under those spiritual parameters? There is absolutely no way on God’s earth—in God’s heaven, maybe— that we can do that. In terms of how that clause will be interpreted, people could actually dance on a site or say they have sung a song on it, and it will become “of spiritual value” to those individuals.

I just find it extraordinary that we are giving such incredible largesse, and we are doing it through putting this bill through the House, aided and abetted by Supplementary Order Paper 389. We are exacerbating the problem we already have of identifying people in a separatist way, separating them out from the community, and standing them apart from the community, instead of including them within the definition of “community”.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I rise to make some comments first of all on the Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled. There has been much comment on the size of it, and how preposterous that is. I expected that when we were going through the select committee process we would have to deal with a fairly sizable Supplementary Order Paper because of the speed with which we had had to work. In fact, right until the last moment we deliberated in the Local Government and Environment Committee, we knew that it was impossible for the drafters and officials to have got everything right, and that there would be a number of technical changes.

The bulk of the Supplementary Order Paper is simply technical amendments to make sure that everything is right. However, United Future and I do not support the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled only yesterday. I do not see any reason why other members of the House could not have perhaps had more time to view and examine it. Nevertheless, the size of the Supplementary Order Paper is not an indication of major policy changes within the bill. We do welcome some of those changes, though, because they are not exactly new issues. They were debated during the select committee process.

I was really pleased to see that in the Supplementary Order Paper we were taking on board some more submitters’ recommendations to the committee and, I think, further improving the bill and responding to submitters’ requests. One was the consideration of existing investment in applications. The bill already deals with that consideration where there are competing consents on a renewal basis, and this is simply extending the case where there are no other competing interests. Of course, local authorities should take into account someone’s investment when that person seeks to renew—in a sense, although we never have renewals—a consent. That is something business would welcome. Where people have invested a great deal in infrastructure, they should have that taken into consideration when they seek to have their consent renewed.

The select committee also discussed the matter of the definition of “infrastructure”. Some very good submissions were made on that matter. I was quite impressed by the submission—I forget the name of the organisation the gentleman was from—that talked about quarries and their importance. That actually opened my eyes to how important quarries are in our communities. One can live in a place, drive around, and not know where all the aggregate comes from until someone brings it to one’s attention. The submitter showed us that making sure there is adequate provision for aggregate is important for our road construction, building, and so on. Unfortunately, that will not be included, but I think the submitter made a very good case for it.

But I am pleased to see that the Minister and the officials have agreed to include infrastructure associated with electricity generation in this definition of “infrastructure”. I am sure David Parker will also be smiling, as we have had a great deal of discussion about this. Recent announcements by Todd Energy in Auckland about its desire to perhaps build some smaller power plants there, which may lead to dealing with the pylon and national grid problems, makes this amendment even more worthwhile. I think regional councils should be looking at not only how power can be transmitted into our regions but also, where possible, where we can generate that power within the regions and, therefore, avoid reliance on our national grid. So we welcome those particular amendments and believe they will also add to the bill.

One of the things we discussed in the select committee that was also amended slightly was the original proposal to give councils the power to require attendance at pre-hearing meetings. This comes out of a great deal of frustration for applicants and, I think, for local authorities, when objectors and submitters may agree to attend a pre-hearing meeting and they then fail to turn up. They do it once, do it again, and then do it again. Everybody else takes the time to turn up to try to deal with issues, but some people, particularly if they are frivolous or vexatious objectors, abuse the system. So we thought it would be a good idea to require them to attend. But as we started to examine what that would mean, we realised we would have to have some amendments.

We finally arrived at allowing the councils to have the flexibility to require, or invite, people to attend, because in many cases what may be seen as a bit of a draconian power to require people to attend may not be the way forward. So I think we have arrived at a reasonable compromise to give local authorities that flexibility, and we have to trust in their wisdom to be able to exercise it. In most cases they will simply invite people to attend.

We felt that, because additional costs could be placed upon an applicant with the pre-hearing meeting, it was wise for local authorities to have an applicant’s consent before taking that measure. I think that will improve the operation of the Resource Management Act.

Another issue that we dealt with was accreditation requirements, and it was probably the most well received proposal in the bill right from the word go. Everyone thought that it should be compulsory for over 50 percent of those sitting on consent hearing processes at the local body level to be at least minimally qualified to handle those responsibilities. That process has been going on voluntarily, and it is already making an improvement to the operation of the Act. So there was no need to change it per se, but we were concerned about what would happen if fewer than 50 percent of a council’s councillors, or of those sitting on appeal hearings or consent hearings, were minimally qualified. We were concerned that it could mean applicants would suffer from having their consents nullified. I think it was wise to make it clear that factor would not impinge upon applicants but would reflect upon the council itself, and once the person’s consent had been granted, that consent would remain.

Another issue we covered and discussed at some length was the transfer of discharge permits—a very good idea in order to maximise the benefit of discharge permits that had been issued, and to make it possible for people who are not using their discharge permits to the full to be able to transfer it to someone else. However, we did recognise the possibility that it might lead to the further abuse of the environment, because if someone is not fully using his or her discharge permit and someone else comes along and uses it to the max, we have not gained a net benefit for the environment. The amendments proposed to section 137 are intended to deal with that matter so that, at the end of the process, the environment is the beneficiary. Now the provision will not be a financial windfall for someone who has held a discharge consent for a long period of time and never really used it, and who suddenly has almost a property right that he or she can go out and trade to someone else, while the environment is left worse off.

I welcome these amendments, and I think we are progressing in this debate and in this passage of the bill towards a very good resource management amendment that will—unlike the member opposite—be recognised by most throughout the country as a vast improvement to the Resource Management Act. That was the overwhelming message we had from submitters as we went around the country, and we have listened to them.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I want to speak in regard to new clause 90AA in Supplementary Order Paper 389. New Zealand First does not have regard for the opinions already expressed with regard to the Waitaki catchment. Our party gave firm support to the Waitaki Catchment Board being established. We have faith in that board. We have followed very closely, day by day, the submissions made to that board, and the time frame that is set is one with which we concur, and we concur with the insertion here of the provisions that relate to the implementation of that plan.

We know, contrary to the belief outside, that should there be concern on the part of any of the local authorities, they have the right of appeal. That is not generally understood, because there is a widespread feeling and myth being perpetuated out in the community that this board’s finding is absolute. It is not. In actual fact all local authorities have the right of appeal before the final plan becomes part of Environment Canterbury’s regional water plan. In actual fact, anyone who has studied the Waitaki catchment and the valley past and present, and the need for water, will understand exactly why this Waitaki board plan was a sound move.

We in New Zealand First hope that this will set a new regime for water flow, and a new regime for rivers, and that it will be a model, as we stated during the debate. So we earnestly support this part. It is the one part, although we do not support the Supplementary Order Paper and the rest of the bill, that we can relate to.

I come back very quickly to another matter. I said this earlier and I want to reiterate it. Unlike other members, we see provisions in Part II of the principal Act relating to Māori. We will be looking for further explanation in a reviewed Act as to what sections 6(e) and 7(a) actually mean. We do not concur with the opinions that have just been expressed by other parties in this Committee. We are very conscious of the fact that as far as we are concerned we agree with Dame Anne Salmond—it is a basic fact that Māori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. They forged a unique society before other settlers arrived, and they in turn, with regard to Māori language, arts, marae, and tribal histories have a real part in our present and are part of our past and our future. They exist nowhere else in the world, and they help to define what is special about our country.

That is the New Zealand First stance, but having said that, if that were implicit in Part 2 in an expanded form, there would be no need for the issue of co-management. That introduces another element altogether. That is an element in this revised bill that we do not concur with, because that takes us into another realm, and it is nothing more, as far as most rate payers are concerned, than a recipe for uncertainty. The bill should have clarity. This creates uncertainty with regard to issues, place by place and region by region, and with that part we do not concur.

PANSY WONG (National) : I rushed down to the Chamber because I could not believe the comments made by the outgoing member for Otago, David Parker—and I say that because Jacqui Dean from National is doing an extremely good job there. Earlier David Parker told the House that there was no abuse and no blackmail, and that no money changed hands under the Resource Management Act. I thought that it is no wonder the Labour Party is totally out of touch.

I will give a real-life example to Mr David Parker, and then he can go back to Queenstown and understand why people there think their MP is totally out of touch. We have had a case in Christchurch concerning a motel developer at 160 Riccarton Road. He bought a piece of land and started to develop a motel. The neighbour objected, and we thought that was fair enough, because it is understood that that process exists under the resource consent process. But I want to read a quote from a letter from the objector’s lawyer to the motel developer’s lawyer: “We are, however, ready to entertain the prospect of a compromise, provided that your client undertake to postpone the commencement of his building operation until the end of February 2004 and pay the sum of $7,500 as a compensatory payment for the significant disturbance for the remaining period of our tenure, the costs we have incurred, and our time.” There is more: “If, on the other hand, your client would prefer to be free to build immediately and is prepared to recognise the greater value to him and to compensate for the greater cost and loss to us, then we will be prepared to withdraw the appeal without condition on payment of $22,500.” Well! And Mr David Parker says that those sorts of things do not happen under the current Act!

The best part of the story is that the motel developer refused to pay up. The objector drew out the hearings process by objecting to one of the panel members, former city councillor Charles Manning. He objected to him, and kept on filing papers to delay the hearings process. Eventually, a week before the hearing was about to take place, the objector withdrew his objection, without getting any of the compensation demanded. But that had caused the motel developer a 12-month delay. We have to ask why anybody in New Zealand would consider going through with building a factory, or whatever the project is, when all an objector has to do is to put in an objection and the other people then suffer.

This amendment bill is still a compromise. I am extremely disappointed to hear from United Future’s Larry Baldock, who is prepared to compromise and be a doormat. It is no wonder that United Future as low as it is in the polls. The United Future members came in here, after supposedly making a promise to stand up for their supporters, demand a high standard, and demand the ideal solution. Who actually says that Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope should not be subject to the scrutiny of the Local Government and Environment Committee, although the need for that is pointed out by our most hard-working member, the Hon Nick Smith? Significant changes are included in that Supplementary Order Paper, and even the Minister eventually, and reluctantly, took a call to briefly explain the Supplementary Order Paper. I think its tabling shows a complete disrespect for the rights of the select committee to properly scrutinise legislation. That Supplementary Order Paper is totally unacceptable.

I hope the outgoing member for Otago has listened to the case I have outlined, and will not now stand up and insist that things like that do not happen.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) : The first thing I will respond to is the misquote that the previous speaker attributed to me. Finer arguments are often missed by her, and she missed one on this occasion, as well. I did not deny that there is a history of stand-over tactics on occasions, by objectors who use the position of their objections to try to extract some promise from applicants in order to secure the removal of their objections. I did not deny that. What I said was that the way we remedy that in this bill is to make it absolutely clear that no one has an obligation to consult anyone in relation to a consent application.

Sandra Goudie would go further. She would have us say that Māori do not have a right to be consulted in relation to plans—a position that is absolutely irreconcilable with National’s own legislation, the Ngā Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act was passed by a National Government, and gives absolutely express statutory recognition to a promise made by the then National Government that it would consult Ngā Tahu in respect of plans for the South Island. What cant we are hearing from that inconsistent National Party today!

The next issue—[Interruption] I know that hurts those members: the fact that I stand here representing the formerly true blue seat of Otago must be like a burr under the saddle for all those old hacks in National. All I can say is: “Look forward to another 3 years of it!” It was no accident that I overturned the many-thousands vote majority of the previous National Party spokesperson on agriculture. My constituents in the Otago electorate made a reasoned decision—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is not relevant to the issues that arise in this debate on Part 1. We do not want a recitation of that man’s successes and failures.

DAVID PARKER: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that this matter has been put into the debate by National members. They cannot now deny its relevance, having first put the issue into the debate.

Brian Connell: Point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, please be seated. I am going to rule on the point of order.

Brian Connell: I just wanted to make a contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. Members all know that there have been numerous references—I think it is the time of the week, the end of the term, or something to do with something else. Maybe it is in the water but, certainly, they have been general throughout this debate.

DAVID PARKER: They do not like the situation, do they? But they have it, and I am here to stay.

Let us just reflect on the Waitaki legislation. Why is it that the National Party is so out of step with every newspaper in the Otago electorate? It is because they have flip-flopped so many times on that issue. Within this term of Parliament, Gerry Brownlee, National’s deputy leader, has called for the Government to wipe aside resource management constraints and push through Project Aqua—as the National Government did with the Clyde Dam.

Some months later in Oamaru Dr Brash said: “Oh no, we don’t need that. What we need is a board-of-inquiry approach.” What did the Government do? The Government actually agreed with that. We set up a board-of-inquiry approach chaired by a judge in order to apply Resource Management Act principles independently.

What was National’s response to that? It claimed that we were trying to “think big” Project Aqua. That was strange. Project Aqua was pulled, and what was the National Party’s response then? All of a sudden, an independent board-of-inquiry approach was wrong and National members were saying that if they did not like the result they would overturn it. What would they do? What is that code for? They would “think big” Project Aqua; that is what that code is for. National would impose a central government decision, rather than a proper, principled Resource Management Act decision chaired by a judge.

What is the latest bit of cant? It is a Supplementary Order Paper by Dr Smith calling for more time for submissions to be heard in respect of the Waitaki legislation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

DAVID PARKER: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He should read this morning’s Otago Daily Times. The hearings have finished; everyone who wanted to be heard has been heard. The hearings are finished, and now that board has 2 months to write its decision. What absolute sophistry we are getting from the National Party on those issues; it is ridiculous!

In relation to the other suggestion that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is full of new ideas, I tell members that I actually sat through all the submissions, I read the bill, and I know about the issues. There is only one issue in that Supplementary Order Paper that was not considered by us at the select committee, and it relates to aquaculture. That is the only issue. If those National members cannot get their heads around that now, it really shows the lamentable lack of intellect on that side of the Chamber.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I am a keen supporter of the Western Springs Speedway in Auckland. I first went to the speedway about 40 years ago. I am not sure whether any National Party member in this House has ever been to the Western Springs Speedway, least of all Dr Brash, when the speedway is actually on—and it is on at a convenient and appropriate time. But I have been to the speedway, and enjoyed it off and on over the years. I have taken my children there. [Interruption] I have driven a twin-turbo Subaru GTB, which is a nice car. I drive a Subaru Impreza now, and I have a Rover Tomcat. I have a tomcat car, apparently. [Interruption] If I could just get my speech across.

Hon Mark Burton: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Just a minute; I am going to rule. There is far too much barraging coming from the side. It is very hard for the member when it is going that way.

DAIL JONES: It might be very hard for those people who are actually interested in the speedway, which, clearly, National Party members are not.

I want to refer to the amendment put forward by Dr Smith to find out what he is actually getting at. The key, I think, to that amendment is this: is the present decibel-level provision for the speedway part of the operative plan? I need to know that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it is.

DAIL JONES: If it is part of the operative plan, then how can that amendment have any bearing on it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because it will allow the proposed plan, when it is publicly notified, to stand over the operative plan, which will enable the Auckland City Council to resolve this problem.

DAIL JONES: But that is the case, anyway.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it’s not.

DAIL JONES: If I may just carry on with my speech now. Dr Smith confirms that there is an operative plan with regard to the 75 decibels.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s 85.

DAIL JONES: I think the member might find it is 75, and that is the whole problem. It is 75, and that is too low.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it’s 85.

DAIL JONES: Well, 75 or 85, we will sort it out later, but I happen to think that it is 75. If it is an operative plan, surely the only way an operative plan can be changed is by going through the process and changing the plan. [Interruption] Exactly. Surely that can be done under the present legislation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But it takes 3 years.

DAIL JONES: And it can take 3 years; that is fair enough. What in this amendment will take less than 3 years? That is what I am getting at.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I explain? I want to help the member.

DAIL JONES: The member can take a call. That is what I want him to do, because I am very concerned about the whole situation. His amendment to section 20 of the principle Act, in proposed new clause 5AB, would add the following words to section 20(1): “or a change to a plan”, and section 20(1)(a) talks about a “proposed plan”, and section 20(1)(b) is new as well. The only other new bit is section 20(6). That is the important thing that I shall clarify. Is the member for Nelson saying that a city council can change an operative plan before the time comes to do the ordinary district plan set-up? Does he want it to be done earlier and be treated as a special case?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

DAIL JONES: If that can be done now, what is the problem? I shall be very interested to see just how that would work. I am concerned. If we can speed things up, if we keep chopping and changing, how many times within a district-plan period can those changes be made? Can one be done every year?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes.

DAIL JONES: Dr Smith is saying that with his proposal it could be done every year. So there would be no certainty in a planned period. If one has a plan that is meant to be for a set number of years before it can be changed, with Dr Smith’s amendment, one could keep on changing the plan regularly, not necessarily even yearly. Where would we end up with that? There would be no certainty all the time. I am also concerned about what effect this would have on, say, an operative plan for Wellington Airport. Could there be constant changes to the noise levels for Wellington Airport, and perhaps the Nelson Airport? Where would there be certainty for people who go through an expensive legal process to fight a case—[Interruption] Sandra Goudie tells me that there is no certainty. She is giving the whole thing away. Surely there must be some degree of certainty with the whole planning situation.

I would be very interested to hear what Dr Smith has to say, from the point of view not only of Auckland but of other areas, as well. I would also be interested to hear whether there will be regular changes to that plan, as the case might be. I am a great supporter of the speedway and I would be willing to give it every chance to see whether it could go ahead.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I shall take a brief call to answer the points that have been raised by Dail Jones about my amendments. First, he makes the point that councils can make changes to their district plan. That is true with or without my amendment, and they can do it as often as they like in proposing new plans.

The law as it stands under the Resource Management Act is that if one has an existing plan and a proposed plan, whatever is the more restrictive applies in the interim. For instance, at the moment the Auckland City Council district plan states that 85 decibels is the minimum noise level, and if the plan is amended to provide for a minimum noise level of 88 decibels—which is the proposal from the Auckland City Council to solve the problem of the speedway—then the lesser of 88 and 85 is still 85.

The key change provided by my amendment is that when the council proposes its change, it can make the decision as to whether it applies immediately. In other words, it has the choice—it is not automatically the most restrictive; it is for the council to determine. So it makes no difference as to the number of changes that can be made. The only significant change my amendment would make is that the council has the discretion, when it introduces a proposed plan, to say which of those will apply in the interim, and that is different from the current law. And, yes, it will solve the problem of the speedway and it will be a test of this Parliament as to whether it is prepared to back those 50,000 users and support this amendment.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : The singularly most important issue for this Parliament to deal with in this term was the reform of the Resource Management Act, and the Government has made a hash of it. Under this legislation the Resource Management Act is not being reformed at all. People were calling for simplification. They believe that the genesis of the Resource Management Act is right, but the execution has been appalling and they are looking for a vehicle to enable them to get on and develop their primary areas of interest and infrastructure development in a sustainable way, and this bill does not allow that to happen. What we had in its stead, until yesterday, was a 94-clause bill. We now have a Supplementary Order Paper that increases the number of those clauses to about 134, yet we have had very little time to consult and discuss those as a Parliament. I think that members will agree, in their heart of hearts, that that is not the way to make good law.

Pansy Wong: Apart from United Future.

BRIAN CONNELL: United Future seems to think it is OK, but the majority of members do not think it is the right approach. The Hon Richard Prebble made reference to this in his valedictory speech, and I totally agree with him. If we are to pass good law we need the time to understand exactly what it is that we are passing. I defy any member of this House to have picked up a 34-page Supplementary Order Paper, read it, understood all of the detail, and be in a position today to make an intelligent contribution to this debate that will stand close scrutiny.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, has made a couple of statements via the press that do not stand close scrutiny, either. He has said that the Government has consulted business, and business has said that the Resource Management Act is not its No. 1 priority. I know that he has taken a very narrow definition of what business is. I know that Federated Farmers believes that reform of the Resource Management Act is the No. 1 priority. If we talk to any developer or anyone trying to provide infrastructure, they will tell us that reform of the Resource Management Act is absolutely their No. 1 priority.

It is not as if the Government did not have prior notice of this importance. It commissioned the Al Dunn report. Some members might recall that report, which identified 162 compliance issues. Of that number, 42 related specifically to the Resource Management Act. The Government’s own report stated that 42 of the most significant compliance issues facing New Zealand right at the moment relate to the Resource Management Act, but what do we get apart from tinkering? Yet the Minister in the chair is trying to tell us that it is wide-reaching change.

He also argues that the bill will strengthen the position of district and regional councils. I remind him and other members of the recent decision on Blue Mountain Lumber. The local council and the regional council approved that timber mill on the Coromandel. It was rolled by the Environment Court. The Minister in the chair should take a call and explain to the Committee how this legislation will strengthen the powers of regional and district councils, when they can make a decision, having received and looked at all of the evidence in detail, yet that decision can be overturned by the Environment Court.

Blue Mountain Lumber is just an example of a forestry industry in free fall, through no fault of its own. All the industry experts in forestry accept that the way to trade out of their current problems is through midsize processing. They all accept that, but guess how many mills have been built in this country in the last 2 years under the Resource Management Act? Zilch, zero.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : The bill and Supplementary Order Paper we are discussing are of considerable interest to me, partly because I was listening in my office and I heard the speech made by Mr Baldock of United Future, and I listened to Mr Peters for the New Zealand First Party, and I was curious as to what changes there could be that would produce such wildly divergent views.

I came down to the Committee and found, in debating Part 1, that a Supplementary Order Paper dated 2 August, yesterday, had been dumped on us with an explanatory note—

Dail Jones: Today.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Today, was it? It is dated 2 August and it has an explanatory note that states, at the end of 35 pages: “This Supplementary Order Paper refines the drafting of changes made to the Bill by the select committee. It also includes drafting to give effect to new policy.” I think I am reasonably quick at studying legal drafting, after the time I have spent at it, but I cannot fathom this. I think the Minister should be absolutely ashamed that he will be asking this Committee to vote on material as hard to understand as this.

Why would a bill not be amended, using what is now 20-year-old technology, showing us what has been omitted and what has been inserted? Why is there no redline version? Why is the Labour Government now trying to bring a closure motion on the Part 1 debate when I do not think anyone has understood it, other than, perhaps, Nick Smith? We had what should have been debate between New Zealand First and National, in the person of Dr Smith, which actually halted as they tried earnestly to explain to each other what they thought the provisions mean.

There is no doubt at all that this Committee will be voting on very important provisions when maybe only one or two people in this Chamber have the faintest idea what they mean. That is a disgrace. There is no justification for it. I have tried to work out what exactly is being done with regard to iwi consultation. As members know, the ACT party has long considered that to be racist, that there is no justification for iwi consultation to be a separate right from the right of all New Zealanders to be consulted on rights or usages that affect them. I cannot work out exactly what is happening here. It seems that iwi consultation will now be restricted to the determination of a plan.

On the other hand, plans may be able to be modified daily. It may well be, particularly if the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment goes through, that the plan can be modified whenever the local authority has a whim. In that case we will have constant consultation, and the whole notion of long-term planning, which gives people a framework so they know what they can do with their land, will be gone.

Perhaps it is only the final nail in the coffin of a false premise, anyway. The ability to bring in plan revisions midstream and give them immediate effect has probably seen long-term planning gone, but I am very concerned that no one in this Chamber seems to be standing up for the notion of property rights. Article 2 tried to protect the right of individuals to do as they would with their land, without interference from their neighbours—or princes, or despots, or priests, or anyone else—provided that they were not harming third parties.

I was fascinated to hear United Future members on this part, saying that they supported this planning, and criticising the ACT party, when United Future has brought in a bill purporting to want to entrench property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has brought in a bill that is almost a clean copy of Owen Jennings’ bill of 5 years ago, and then we have Mr Baldock, another United Future member, essentially dumping all over Mr Copeland’s ideas. He is essentially supporting a Resource Management Act that makes a total mockery of property rights.

As far as I can tell, this Supplementary Order Paper will be making power stations part of infrastructure—which I guess is useful, only because the Greens oppose it. The one guide we can use when we cannot understand the provisions is to see who is supporting it and who is not. As there is bitter opposition from the Greens, I know that it must be in New Zealand’s interests so I suppose we should vote for that part. That is the only guide I can use when dumped with 35 pages.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I move, That the question be now put.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : We heard from Minister Hobbs this afternoon that this Supplementary Order Paper is the result of special pleading—a kind of special pleading that is open to some stakeholders but not to others. In the adjournment month they have knocked on her door, and local government and resource management lawyers have come, as have other stakeholders, and they have persuaded the Government to change policy as introduced in this Supplementary Order Paper. Yet the only example the Minister could give us of changes that were the result of listening to the people in this way was that the Environment Court, when it looks at the evidence, should have to consider the decision made by the council hearing. That matter was actually inserted in the bill as reported back. So it is still not quite clear which of these changes are the result of special pleading to the Minister during the adjournment. But it does reflect the selective approach to consultation that we see also in the Cabinet minutes, which agree to the setting up of reference groups on national policy statements and national environmental standards whereby selective consultation is with the industry to be regulated, rather than with the public, the environmental movement, or whatever is progressing the work on these environmental standards and national policy statements.

Transpower told the Local Government and Environment Committee that it was already working with officials to write the standards for high voltage transmission lines and the standards for electromagnetic fields as produced by those transmission lines. Transpower told us that the draft of those standards was expected to be ready to go out for public submissions in July. So we must be very close now, given that this is the beginning of August. But nobody on any of those consultation groups is reflecting the wider public interest or the environment. It is the regulators and the regulated working together.

I have to comment on Brian Connell’s remarks about Blue Mountain Lumber. As far as I know, Brian Connell does not live in the Coromandel and is not particularly familiar with what has gone on in our local community. Everybody in the Coromandel agrees that processing the forests in the northern Coromandel locally would be a good idea. But the site chosen by Blue Mountain Lumber was a peaceful rural valley, a completely inappropriate site, between two streams that fed directly into the waters of the Whangapoua Harbour, against the backdrop of the spectacular “castle” up on the Coromandel ranges. There was no possibility of that site not contaminating the two streams and the harbour. It was not an industrial site. It was a rural site, and it was an area of tourism importance, and the local community objected to that site being used. The local councils did not agree because they want to see economic development, but the Environment Court did agree, and that is the way the Resource Management Act is meant to work.

Furthermore, one of the points of local processing was to reduce the amount of timber trucking on the roads so that what was taken out from the mill would be sawn timber, instead of whole logs, and that would reduce the number of trucks going down the Coromandel coast on those windy roads. But, lo and behold, what did Blue Mountain Lumber want to do? It wanted to build a really big mill, too big for the trees in the forests of the northern Coromandel, so it wanted to truck trees in. That company wanted to truck whole logs up the Coromandel Peninsula to the mill so it could then truck the sawn timber back down again. That is the reason why the local people opposed this site. They did not oppose an industrial site, for example, in an industrial part of Whitianga or another town up there. It was inappropriate development, and that is exactly what the Resource Management Act is for—to stop that kind of development. The Act worked, and the National Party should just accept that.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

5ABCertain rules in proposed plans to have effect

The principal Act is amended by repealing section 20, and substituting the following section:

20Certain rules in proposed plans or proposed plan changes to have effect at the discretion of the local authority—

(1)A local authority may, before publicly notifying a proposed plan or a change to a plan, resolve that:

(a)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan does not have effect until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative; or

(b)any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative.

(2)Public notification of the plan must include the resolution.

(3)If the resolution is rescinded, the local authority must, as soon as possible, publicly notify:

(a)the rescission; and

(b)the resolution to which it relates; and

(c)the date of the rescission.

(4)A rule to which a rescinded resolution relates has effect as a rule in the plan, or ceases to have effect in substitution for any existing rule, for all purposes on and from the day after the date on which the rescission is publicly notified.

(5)A reference in this Act (except in Schedule 1) and in any regulations made under this Act to a proposed plan excludes a rule in the plan if—

(a) the rule is subject to a resolution under subsection (1)(a); and

(b) the resolution has not been rescinded.

(6)If a local authority has resolved that any rule in the plan or proposed change to the plan will have effect in substitution for any existing rule until the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative pursuant to subsection (1)(b), then for the purposes of this Act, the existing rule will cease to have effect until the resolution is rescinded or the plan or proposed plan change becomes operative.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. An interesting issue arises in connection with Part 2 that I would like to briefly explain to you. The Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill, makes changes to two pieces of legislation. The first is the Resource Management Act and the second is the Electricity Act. Standing Order 259(1) makes it quite clear: “Except as permitted by Standing Orders, a bill must relate to one subject area only.”

We know, and I am sure you know, Mr Chairman, how broad the scope and subject of the Resource Management Act is. When one looks at these provisions under the Electricity Act, and what they do, one sees that they in no sense relate to the subject matters of the Resource Management Act. When one looks at the principal Act, the Electricity Act 1992, and its purpose, one sees it is concerned with the regulation and supply of electricity, with consolidating and amending the law relating to the regulation and control of electrical workers, and with the repeal of the Electric Linemen Act, the Electricity Act 1968, and the Electrical Registration Act. When one looks at the particular changes in this bill, proposing changes to the Electricity Act, one sees that they all centre on the powers and duties of electricity operators and other owners of electrical works. You will see, Mr Chairman, that they are concerned with the construction or maintenance of works on roads and with the rights of entry in respect of level crossings. That is way, way removed from the subject area of resource management.

Although it is true, under Standing Order 259(2), that “A bill may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts…”—and that is an obvious point to acknowledge—a bill must relate to one subject area only. When one looks at Standing Orders 261 and 262, one sees that none of the exceptions referred to apply. I am asking you, Mr Chairman, to take a hard look at what seems to be a clear breach of the Standing Orders.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : This bill received its first reading on 14 December 2004. The member referred to Standing Orders 259, 261, and 262, but, helpfully for his own argument, left out Standing Order 260, which states: “The Speaker scrutinises each bill on its introduction to ensure that it complies with Standing Order 259.” By virtue of the bill receiving its first reading on 14 December last year, it had to be introduced into Parliament before that. For the introduction to have been accepted, the Speaker had to verify that it did indeed comply with Standing Order 259. So 8 months later is a little late to raise objections about the content of the bill. It is clearly covered by Standing Order 260.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) : I am advised also, Mr Chairman, that the very issue of the appropriateness, or not, of the inclusion of these two matters in the bill was determined by the house—I believe, on 1 December—immediately after its tabling, so the House has already made a decision, I understand, on the very matter that has been raised.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much for that. Can I just say—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just keep on cheating.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order. I am ready to rule, but I will hear the Hon Mark Burton.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member opposite, Nick Smith, cannot make the claim against the Chair that he made.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It wasn’t against the Chair; it was against the Government.

Hon MARK BURTON: I am sorry, Mr Chairperson. The member has been here long enough to know the Standing Orders. He directed the words “Keep on cheating.” at the Chair.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, at the Government. You know all about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that members in this place are of long-standing. The member well knows that there are to be no interjections at all during points of order. The member is warned. He has his first yellow card.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am curious—as this is a matter of principle—about the reference to the House having previously made a decision on this. I would be obliged if we could be referred to it, rather than there just being an assertion. I imagine there must some record of it, if the House did, in fact, make that earlier decision.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to members that the House has resolved to allow the bill to proceed, despite Standing Order 259, and the Government gave notice of a motion to gain the House’s authority for the bill to proceed. The House resolved accordingly, and it was done on 1 December 2004. I have the notice here, and the member is quite welcome to look at it here on the Table.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to commend my colleague Richard Worth for highlighting the way that this Government will trample all over the Standing Orders.

Hon Mark Burton: But the House did it by majority.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, but the House did it by majority, he says. That is what I mean by cheating. The Government is always cheating on the rules; it is always ahead of the play. That is why I have in front of me a press release from the Minister in the chair, Mr Benson-Pope, stating that we need to consult more with regard to the Resource Management Act and electricity, but he does not apply that to himself. We have Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope, which includes 134 changes on which there has been absolutely no public participation, consultation, or anything. In fact, we received that Supplementary Order Paper only today, and that, Mr Chairman, is a disgrace.

What is even more extraordinary about this Government is that this bill is so radically different from the version introduced by the Minister. The Minister brought a bill to the House and said he had done all his homework, he stood by the bill, and he had got it right, yet very little has survived of the significant proposals that David Benson-Pope introduced in this mashed bill.

The provisions in this part relate to changes to the Electricity Act. We rightly ask why the Government is sneaking through some changes regarding electricity in a resource management bill. Actually, Dr Cullen has let the snake out of the bag. He said that Labour knows it is going down the tubes, and that if it does survive by the skin of its teeth it will be with the Green Party’s support. There is no way the Green Party would ever support these sorts of draconian measures, so Dr Cullen said Labour should bang them through the House–ram them through the House.

Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is what Dr Cullen insinuated at a public meeting that included Business New Zealand. He said Labour had to ram these changes through before they get dished up to—[Interruption] Government members want to talk about everything but that which is in the bill. I understand the reason for that. If I were a Government member in my last few days in Parliament, as Clayton Cosgrove and Darren Hughes are, the last issue that I would want to talk about is the mess that the Government has made in terms of electricity and resource management. I would be so embarrassed that I would be like the rest of their colleagues, who are hiding in the corridors.

The reality is that the Government has made such a complete hash of this area of law that the changes it is making to the Electricity Act are nothing more than a panicked reaction at the last moment before an election. The Government knows that it is in trouble. It knows that from the reports of electricity crises throughout the country. It knows that because it has rejected initiatives like the Dobson River scheme and Project Aqua, and because it has refused over and over again to make changes to the Resource Management Act, this country is lining itself up for a very serious electricity crisis. The Government has nobody but itself to blame for that, and that is one of the many reasons why it will go in 51 days’ time.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in respect of Part 2, which has now substantively become a bill in its own right. I remind the Committee that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard a very interesting submission from New Era Energy. I want to quote the Hon Rob Storey, a former Minister for the Environment, because his comments are in line with our thinking in New Zealand First—and this is talking not just of the original bill but of the revised bill. He said: “As a former Minister for the Environment, I am horrified at the amount of uncheckable and largely unfettered power which is proposed to be given through this law to any Minister who in future holds this portfolio.” He also stated that he was mystified as to why an advocate, which is normally the role of the Minister for the Environment, could in future be forced into a situation under this bill where “the environmental interest may be secondary to short-term commercial gains”.

If that statement was to stand alone, one would think that that was a matter of opinion. But today we read that, at long last—although it has widely been known in the wider world—this Government is planning a series of new national standards, particularly in regard to electricity and telecommunications infrastructure, and that these when they come on line, particularly national policy on contentious topics such as electricity generation, should help to set a standard for construction and operation. One must regard the late addition of this section of the bill as being one for justifiable suspicion, because that is the way it would seem.

One of the issues about this bill—and on behalf of New Zealand First I want to express this very strongly—in regard to policy statements and national standards is the uncertainty and the mixed message that the Government has been sending throughout its time. What happens is that Government members have probably gone off to a conference, been clapped on the back and cheered by the party leaders there—

Dr Richard Worth: Go drinking!

JIM PETERS: They probably go drinking, as well, in the after hours, then make an unfettered promise that they would fix it. Then they come back here and suddenly realise that the reality may be something different. So we have a whole series of uncertain opinions culminating in the bill that is before us. There can be no other explanation for this very late change. Those of us who heard the submissions were particularly interested to see that the small but interesting section was put right, particularly in regard to where works could be carried out above the ground, or at which height.

New Zealand First still has reservations about what national standards and policy statements under this Government would mean, particularly with regard to their gestation and the lack of community input throughout the whole process.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : National members have criticised the Labour Government for not doing enough to ensure we get more big power stations, more big pylons, and more big roads. They need not be concerned. This whole legislation, and everything that flows from it, is about forcing big infrastructure projects on to unwilling communities. In Part 2, those two clauses about works crossing roads—extending it from 110 to 400 kilovolts—are just a detail of the Electricity Act. The real meat of it is in Part 1, which we have discussed before.

The combination of absolute environmental standards with ministerial direction may say, for example, that huge transmission lines shall be a permitted use in district plans—that is clearly what is envisaged. National environmental standards will say, for example, that electromagnetic fields must be allowed to be 100 times stronger than those that have been shown in recent UK studies to be associated with a doubling of leukaemia risk in children, because that is about the standard that is being advised by the National Radiation Laboratory, at the moment. The weakening of the rights of the public to make submissions, and the striking out of submissions from members of the public who offend councils in some way, is all part of closing down public opposition to this. This is being done for only one way of providing for our electricity needs. It is not as though there is no other way of keeping the lights on in Auckland. There are lots of alternatives that could do so without imposing those huge transmission lines across Waikato. But this Government has done absolutely nothing to make sure that those alternatives can be properly developed.

The Government has given the Electricity Commission the job of evaluating the transmission lines against the alternatives, but has not done anything to ensure that the alternatives will be properly developed so that they can be evaluated. There are certainly no law changes being proposed to make it easier, for example, for new gas finds to be used as a direct fuel, and to be taken to Auckland through the gas pipelines, rather than being wasted and turned into electricity at 50 percent efficiency, or less, which requires new transmission lines to get it up to Auckland. No legislation is being proposed to make it easier to get a coordinated programme of energy efficiency implemented across Auckland’s commercial buildings, where so much electricity is wasted at the moment and could be saved at much less cost than generating it. There is no special legislation, or other Government favours, being proposed to enable better metering and load management in order to send the right pricing signals in Auckland about the time of day of electricity use. There is a lot of technical stuff that one can do with the lines that will reduce that peak loading on the grid.

There is no special legislation, or other provisions, being put forward by this Government to make it easier to use wood waste in Northland as a fuel for forestry product processing, which would reduce the amount of power that had to be brought to Auckland. All those alternatives are clearly possible and cost-effective, but all the effort is going into making sure that it is easy for the pylons to be built, because that is what Transpower New Zealand wants to do. It is extremely unfortunate that when we have planning that is designed to facilitate a particular way out of some problems we have, such as power demand in Auckland, we are facilitating only one approach to the problem—actually the most destructive and unpopular approach—rather than facilitating the alternatives that could have solved the problem.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I will make a few comments on Part 2, which deals with the amendments to the electricity legislation. It has been amazing to hear some of the claims about this very small part of the legislation. I have had people in my office who have told me that this is the Government’s sneaky way of making provision for Transpower to do its work all through the Waikato, and so on.

There is a very simple amendment to allow for transmission lines, which are above the currently allowed-for capacity, to go over roads—not to go through farms and everywhere else, but to go across roads. We had representation from our advisers to the Local Government and Environment Committee. They were with us very briefly because there was so little to discuss about the legislation. We did make some changes, because some things came up in submissions that made it clear that not everything had been thought about, and they have now been resolved adequately, I believe.

United Future is happy to support this part, because it simply means we will have fewer difficulties later on. If consent is given for transmission power lines to go wherever, when they come to roads they will now not have to go through a whole lot of unnecessary processes just to get across the carriageway of the road. So United Future is very happy with the amendment, and we will support it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : It will be helpful at this time in the debate to recite the sorry history of this Government’s approach to resource management law. Six years ago Labour’s very first act as a Government was to kill off a very constructive bill, Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill. At that time, Labour Ministers said that the Resource Management Act was all honky-dory, that it was beautifully crafted and beautifully written, and that things were all just going very well. Well, is it not interesting that in the very last act of this dying, rotten Government, it has to revisit the cock-ups it made 6 years ago? In fact, it is interesting to note that over 12 of the changes in this bill are straight out of the amendments proposed by Simon Upton over 6 years ago.

I have been waiting patiently to hear a Government Minister get to his or her feet and apologise for stuffing things up, and admit the Government got things wrong, put people to extra costs, stopped roads from being built to deal with congestion, and stopped power stations being built. I have been waiting to hear a Minister say the Government has added millions of dollars of cost to people, and that he or she is sorry it got things wrong. But no, this arrogant Government does not know the word “sorry”. Its members will use whatever trick they like in order to try to avoid scrutiny of their mistakes.

I want to note, for instance, that the big change that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, promised in this bill was to get rid of de novo hearings in the Environment Court, and everybody said that he had got that wrong. Even in February the Minister in the chair was saying no, he had got that right, and it would work really well. But that provision has disappeared. He has had to concede that his most important reform in this bill was a dog and, appropriately, it has gone.

What is really worrying is the lost opportunity with regard to this bill. Every New Zealander knows that a shambles is going on in respect of Māori consultation and the Resource Management Act, but we hope that a Government will be able to see through that. We hope that a Government will be able to cut through that nonsense and let New Zealanders get on with creating the wealth, the jobs, and the infrastructure needed for our country to go forward. [Interruption] But the sad reality, I tell Mr Cosgrove, is that we will still have the Environment Court chasing the home of the taniwha, because of the PC brigade like that member of the Labour Party.

I was driving through Waimakariri last week, and what is really interesting about Clayton Cosgrove’s hoardings was that there was no mention of the Labour Party. The Labour Party just was not there. I can remember that; I can believe that.

Clayton Cosgrove: You can’t read.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Did I not take my microscope? Does one need a telescope to be able to find the tiny little Labour logo on his hoardings? I do not blame Clayton Cosgrove. If I was a member of the Labour Party, I would be deeply embarrassed at the mess-up that Labour has made in respect of the Act. This bill will just make the problems of cost, uncertainty, and delays with the Act worse.

But there is good news. The good news is that help is on the way. In a few weeks’ time New Zealanders will reject this rotten, decaying Government and employ people with the wherewithal to get on and make the changes that are needed, so that we can fix the transport problems in Auckland, provide security of electricity for our homes and businesses, and let farmers get on with creating wealth for this country, without the politically correct nonsense that Labour would impose on them. The reform of the Act is absolutely critical to New Zealand’s well-being. We, more than any other country, depend on the smart use of our resources to create wealth. We want to be able to provide the sorts of changes that will make New Zealand prosper.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) : I am pleased to respond to some of that nonsense, because it really encapsulates the difference between what the Government has carefully done over the period since 1999 and the extraordinary contradictions we are already seeing in what National would offer to our community. I was a city councillor in Dunedin during the time of the last National Government, and I recall only too well the appalling “we know best” attitude that was shown by Dr Smith and his National Party colleagues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much did rates go up?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can recall that Dr Smith was part of the Government, part of the executive indeed, that made the council and the community of which I was a part sell the Waipori power station. Dr Smith should not talk to me, or the Dunedin community, about talking to people. We have seen the same arrogant, unconsultative behaviour in terms of the development of the National Party’s policy. Labour inherited a shambles with the Environment Court in 1999, because of Dr Smith’s incompetence. Since that time we have resourced the Environment Court. It has reduced its backlog by 50 percent since 2000, and currently it mediates 80 percent of cases. We have put in new judges to cope with the workload that the court could not cope with because that member and his incompetent colleagues did not resource it.

One of the most satisfying things, as part of this process, is the way we have worked with local government—a way that Local Government New Zealand describes as an exemplary collaborative exercise. Is it any wonder that that level of cooperation could not be achieved with our predecessor in Government, National, because it was making cities sell power stations, and was even embarking on a lunatic proposal to privatise our roads? That member cannot talk to me or my community about working with people.

The most telling comments I can contribute to the debate are not my words, but come from two articles that were in papers in this country in the last 3 or 4 days. The first comments come from an article by a senior planner in Auckland, who is writing on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society. I will read just a few comments from that article: “The National Party’s policy proposals to ‘rebalance’ the Resource Management Act are a direct attack on people’s rights to have a say on what happens to their environment… That provision removes significant rights of people to protect their property interests and the environment. It is backward move… This is because National proposes to abolish legal aid for RMA cases, so there will be no financial support available for those without financial means… So what will be the result of these provisions if they are implemented? They will mean poorer quality decision-making, greater degradation of our environment, more procedural litigation and huge frustration in the wider community at the new system. This is in no one’s interests apart from second-rate developers who will be able to get their proposals approved more easily.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did Business New Zealand say?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Well, what did Business New Zealand say? I am afraid that Dr Smith has walked into that one, because the Business Council for Sustainable Development has written to me and said that it got six out of the eight things it approached us for. While Dr Smith is accusing Labour of bribing people, I can tell him that we do not bribe the editorial writers of the Otago Daily Times. I will repeat for him comments from the document I tabled yesterday. The editorial from last Friday’s Otago Daily Times states: “The Government wants faster decision-making for resource consents, more power for local councils to work with developers to speed things along, and national guidelines to avoid the conflicting standards between regions. National wants to go much further—too far, in fact … Under National’s proposals, we very much doubt whether, for example, the campaigns which succeeded in Lake Manapouri being saved from destruction, or Aramoana from smelter construction, would have been more than pipe-dreams. National’s proposals … are a bare-faced attempt to erase basic rights of dissent, while its measures intended to diminish the rights of local government in resource consent matters would actually extinguish a basic premise of the Act, which is that communities most affected by applications should have the principal say in decision-making.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just your mates.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: That member cannot talk to me and the Government about mates when he is advocating a “chequebook wins” policy in resource consent applications.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : The leader of New Zealand First often refers to “two tired old parties”. That exchange, first of all by Dr Nick Smith and then the response from the Minister, brings every use of that phrase to mind. I have been familiar with this Act since it was passed in 1991. When I hear Dr Smith making those very passionate comments, I think of the period between 1991 to 1999, when I saw one guiding step from the Government—namely, a coastal policy statement. Not one other item of real guidance went to councils throughout the country, who basically had to find their way through the planning stages from 1991 to 1999. It is no wonder, therefore, that many councils, although they are sympathetic to the present suggestions in this bill, are also very well aware, as I have already mentioned, of the high cost in terms of funding, staffing time, and, even more important, the community input that produced their plans. As has already been said, although the councils have been, under the auspices of Local Government New Zealand, generally sympathetic to this bill, in other ways they have reservations about how it will impact on the community.

For a Government that has prided itself, as it did during the passing of the Local Government Act 2002, on a high level of advocacy with regard to consultation, and that has talked about expanding the role of councils—I believe unwisely—so that they are now all things to all people, at a high cost to their ratepayers, to now come to the Chamber and suggest that it has adopted a different path, is rather unseemly. I too recall coming to this Chamber in 2002 and seeing a truncated attempt by the present Government with regard to the reforms advocated by Simon Upton. It was very, very strange, as I observed in the first reading debate, to come back and see how many of those ideas are inherent in this bill, but never acknowledged. Instead, we still have no real acknowledgment of much of the genesis of the ideas that are being expressed in this bill.

I know that many councils are friendly toward this bill and the suggested changes. They have yet to see the real teeth with regard to policy statements and national standards, which I have no doubt will be superimposed on what I have already stated as being a command and control approach to these matters. I would have hoped that for once in the course of this debate there would be a reasonable explanation by the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, as to what the Government’s intention really was in bringing this bill into the House. I see it as being not much different from that envisaged by Simon Upton in 1999.

I say on behalf of New Zealand First that we do not support this bill. We recognise again the excellent work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee and the people who were involved in advising it, but this bill is not the answer. The time for change is yet ahead, and I look forward to being part of that process after the next election.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : It is unusual for clause 2 of a bill, the clause that sets the date on which certain provisions will come into force, to be as significant as clause 2 of this bill. I want to talk about the significance of this clause 2. It relates to clauses 82 and 83 in Part 1, which deal with an idea introduced in 1999 by the Rt Hon Simon Upton. The idea was that it should be possible to seek a declaration from the Environment Court on whether a matter should have been notified by a council.

The Resource Management Act is very clear on the question of notification. It makes it clear that an application must be notified, unless the effects on the environment are minor. Even if the effects are minor, the application must still be notified if persons affected have not given their consent. The Supreme Court, in a very useful judgment just recently, made it clear that that minor effects test is the overriding one, and that if the effects are not minor one does not even go so far as to ask who might have to give consent; the public must have an opportunity to be heard.

Councils for some years have been taking a very strange view of “minor effects”. A number of projects have been declared to have minor effects, and have therefore not been notified—projects like big open-cast coalmines, coastal landfills, 13-storey buildings right next door to people who did not even know those buildings were going up, and the clearance of very significant areas of native forest. There has been increasing concern that the test of “minor effects” has been interpreted extremely liberally, and that people who should have been notified about a project have known nothing about it—but there has been no real redress.

To challenge those notification decisions, people have had to go to the High Court for judicial review of council decisions. Not only is that very expensive—most community groups cannot afford it—but it is also unlikely that the High Court would be able to issue any redress, even if it found that challengers were right. So the cases that have been taken to the High Court for judicial review have tended to be cases of wealthy businesses reviewing decisions on the applications of other wealthy businesses, rather than those concerning community groups and individuals, who have been shut out of the process.

Simon Upton proposed that instead of the High Court, the Environment Court was the court that should be able to consider whether notification decisions had been made in error. The Environment Court is used to considering environmental issues. It is familiar with the minor effects test, and it is accessible to people who cannot pay $20,000 first up before they even hire a lawyer.

The Greens strongly supported that provision of Simon Upton’s bill—unlike most of the other provisions, which we managed to knock out at the select committee stage. The select committee agreed to support that part of the bill, as well. But the bill came back to the House, sat here for 2 years, then that clause was taken out by the Labour Government in a Supplementary Order Paper to an earlier amendment to the Resource Management Act.

The provision is now back, in clauses 82 and 83 of this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee added to it and gave the Environment Court powers to offer redress in situations where the public had been excluded, wrongly, from commenting on an application. But it is a pyrrhic victory, because clauses 82 and 83 will never come into force unless Cabinet chooses to pass an Order in Council.

That is the same trick Jim Bolger played on Winston Peters over the Overseas Investment Act. Mr Peters’ amendments were passed into law, and he did not notice until the time of the next Government—when the Greens pointed it out to him—that, in fact, his amendments had not come into force at all, but were waiting on an Order in Council as well.

That did not happen this time. I read the bill from the beginning, looked up the references in clause 2, and knew immediately where the Government was coming from. The Government argues that it is necessary to delay the coming into effect of those clauses because the Environment Court is too busy to hear such cases. It has promised that when the Environment Court is less busy, then that Order in Council will be passed.

Well, I am sorry, but I have to point out that the Environment Court is now meeting its deadlines. It is hearing cases within the time frame that has been set for hearing cases. In fact, in some cases it is offering a hearing date before the applicant is even ready to proceed, and the applicant is asking for a delay. A great deal has been done—and I have to give Labour credit for that—since the Labour Government came to power, to speed up processes in the Environment Court, by creating a new division, more resourcing, another judge, and so forth. That court is never likely to be less busy than it is now, so this is clearly just a tactic to make sure that that clause never comes into effect.

The Greens are not to be duped like that; we are not like Winston Peters. We do read the legislation, and we were aware right from the beginning that this was happening. I want to place on record our very great disappointment and concern that a good proposal like this has been put on indefinite hold by the Labour Government. But I also have to express my disgust at Simon Upton’s erstwhile colleagues in the National Party. After lauding all the things in his 1999 Resource Management Act Amendment Bill they are now totally opposed to this legislation, because it would give members of the public a real opportunity to exercise some control over councils that sometimes get just too close to developers.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : Before we move on to speeches on the third reading, I would like to make just a few comments in response to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ very clear description of what is taking place within this bill in terms of amendments to allow for appeals on notification to go to the Environment Court. I think she explained the situation very well, in that while this bill does allow for those appeals to take place, it is unlikely they will ever occur in the future. I think that that is United Future’s position. We would probably rather see the Order in Council for appeals to transfer to the Environment Court never materialise.

Today I reviewed United Future’s position on this matter, going right back to October 2002 when I made a speech concerning the Resource Management (Controlled and Discretionary Activities) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill of Owen Jennings, and when we first committed to reform within the Resource Management Act. I made it very clear that United Future’s position was that we did not want to see the removal of appeals from the High Court. In fact, as I looked, I found that it was the Government of the day that removed that provision from the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No. 2), so it was certainly not keen to see that happen.

In this bill we really do have a great compromise between United Future’s position and the Labour Government’s position, as has happened on many occasions—unfortunately, not on some of the occasions when we would have liked to see it happen. Certainly, in this case we are pleased with the arrangement in this bill—where we have provision for the change to occur but a recognition that it is probably not in the best interests of the overall process for the Environment Court to have to deal with those issues—and we look forward now to the final passage of this bill through its third reading and into law.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : As other speakers have said, this bill, and the time that Parliament is spending on it, have given an opportunity to try to fix something that many, many New Zealanders have been begging to have fixed for a long time. It has also been an opportunity to fix something that a huge number of New Zealanders—probably the vast majority of New Zealanders—do not even know is making their lives a misery. They are New Zealanders like the Grey Power members who are busy demanding that the Government renationalise power generation. They are people like those sitting in traffic jams right now, as traffic starts to build up in Auckland, and wondering why it is so hard to get what seem to them to be common-sense requirements to break the logjam in Auckland roading.

This bill, or what it should have been reforming, is affecting the people who are trying to meet their water rates, in places where there are water rates. It is affecting people who are struggling, and wondering how they can ever buy a house on their income when land prices have gone to a multiple of three or four times the average wage.

This bill does not touch on the basic problem that the Resource Management Act created. The Act’s intention may have been well meaning, but for years people have clung to the idea that all that was wrong with it was its silly administrators—that all that was needed to do was to tell the bozos in local authorities that they should not misuse its provisions. I have heard it said so often that there is nothing wrong with the Resource Management Act except that it is badly run.

But the Resource Management Act is fatally flawed, and this bill simply eliminates a small part of the difficulty for Government in relation to infrastructure. It eliminates some of the worst irritants, particularly for those major developers who will be able to afford to attract the attention needed to get their developments called in under this legislation, but it leaves irritants in place where the Act most needs reform—that is, for the everyday developers, who are probably individuals maybe once or twice in their lifetimes needing to make some change in their land use.

This bill should have been absolutely panned by every Māori member of this Parliament, because it simply confirms that the Government regards article 2 of the treaty as an empty nonsense. The bill continues to entice Māori into using their iwi consultation rights, when the very existence of those rights is a denial of the undisturbed use, possession, and power to control the use and disposition of land that article 2 promised them. Instead of Māori being here to ask for the legislation to be repealed, and to ask for the property rights they were promised to be restored, they have been suborned into being part of the process of attacking everyone else’s property rights. Māori have been gulled into being part of the process by which busybodies and newly-minted planners impose their ideas of how property should be used, on the people who actually wear the costs.

If this bill had been doing what it should have been doing, we would have seen house prices falling as sections became available, without the imposition of years and years of delay, and years of complaint from people who want the status quo. The absolutely natural tendency of humans is to want the status quo all around them, but also to have the freedom to do what they wish on their own property. The whole idea of property rights promised in the treaty was that within one’s boundaries one could do what one wished, even if the authorities did not like one’s disturbance of the status quo.

What New Zealand has done with the Resource Management Act is to re-communalise property decisions, and we are paying an enormous price for it. We are paying for it with our risks of electricity shortage, and we are paying for it in our roading paralysis. My executive secretary 35 years ago was buying the land to complete the Auckland roading network. He looks at it now and sees that the roads are still not built. That is not just because of political paralysis; it is because of the absolute despair that people feel when they know they will have to go through this palaver.

I heard from someone working in the authority responsible for fixing up that death-dealing road between Hamilton and Auckland that the authority did not dare build a new bridge, because officials could not stand the thought of the consultation processes they would have to go through in order to build it. It was considered to be far better to build wings on the existing bridge—but less safe, less long-lasting, with less capacity, with millions more in costs, and with more disruption while being built—than to go through the hassle of having to apply to build a new bridge, which would have gone alongside the old bridge. The Government should be absolutely ashamed that it has not moved to make that sort of outcome impossible.

Sure, Supplementary Order Paper 389 is now doing the sensible thing of involving iwi consultation—at the risk of mysterious taniwha being discovered—and restricting it to the planning stage. But, of course, plans can be changed—and need to be changed frequently—so we will not see an end to that little irritant in the relationship between Māori and Pākehā.

Unfortunately, this bill is a huge missed opportunity. There are sensible things in it but what has been missed out is of much greater importance, so ACT will be obliged to vote against this part of the bill in order to mark what has been lost.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3), divided into Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5), Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 388.