Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with an instruction that the committee report finally to the House on or before 19 June 2009 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week where there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The Resource Management Act needs fixing, and, as promised, the Government is introducing a bill within 100 days of taking office to reform the Act. Over the nearly 18 years since the Resource Management Act became law, there has been growing criticism across all sectors about the slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.

Decision-making processes under the Resource Management Act must become more efficient. The amendments in this bill will provide timely and welcome support to the other Government measures being taken to stimulate the economy.

To draft this bill I asked for input from local government and a wide range of stakeholders. The Government appointed a technical advisory group in December last year to help formulate options for reform. I thank that group for its advice and commitment to putting in the work for these policy proposals, particularly given how hard it worked over the summer break.

First, I confirm that the Resource Management Act will remain the principal statute for managing the use of natural and physical resources in New Zealand. No changes are proposed to the purposes or principles of the Resource Management Act. I believe that those principles are sound. There are no changes to section 8 of the Act affecting Māori involvement—an issue I note has been the subject of very strong submissions from the Māori Party. However, this bill does not just tinker with existing provisions; it addresses problems that have been apparent for many years. The bill provides stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviours and new consent pathways, and it rationalises decision making and existing consent categories.

These amendments will have a significant impact on the processes in the Act that have led to delay, uncertainty, frustration, and avoidable costs. The bill makes changes to the level of public involvement under the Resource Management Act. This is necessary to achieve any real improvement in its operations. I believe that this bill strikes a better balance between the public’s right to be involved and the need for sensible and timely decisions.

I reassure New Zealanders that this rebalance will not mean a reduction in environmental protection. Repetitive and costly consultation processes, broad appeal rights, and time-consuming reporting requirements add tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars and many years to both the plan preparation and the change processes that are conducted around New Zealand by councils.

Slow and overly bureaucratic processes do absolutely nothing for the environment. This bill provides for more efficient decision-making on infrastructure. It provides for a reduction in the costs and delays of getting resource consents. It provides for a streamlining of planning processes. It provides restrictions on anti-competitive appeals motivated by trade competition and other vexatious and frivolous objections. It provides for efficiency and effectiveness of national instruments and central government guidance, as the new Government believes that there needs to be a greater degree of leadership on these issues. It provides for the establishment of an Environmental Protection Authority and an improvement in enforcement provisions to increase compliance.

The first tranche of reforms deals with projects of national significance. There are real problems in how long it takes to get major infrastructure projects through under the consenting process, particularly as they have to go through a local consenting process and, inevitably, end up at the Environment Court. We need only look at examples—such as the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) in Auckland, which took nearly a decade, and the Wellington City bypass, which took 17 years—to see the need for reform.

The tricky balance we need to recognise is that these projects have both a local and a national dimension to them. It is a gross simplification to say they are all either national or local. That is why this bill takes an innovative approach in creating a single board of inquiry, but with the capacity of local authorities to nominate board members on to those boards, and also an amendment to ensure that local knowledge is an important factor. The bill provides for a single-step process that recognises both the local and national dimensions of projects.

The boards will be chaired by a current or retired Environment Court judge to ensure independence. There are tight timelines of 9 months for reaching a decision, and restrained appeal rights, to ensure that we can build important infrastructure for our country.

An Environmental Protection Authority is created to enable direct application of such projects to a national body, and the authority will be responsible for providing the administrative support for boards of inquiry. We are also extending the definition of what deems projects to be of national significance by including networks when we want to ensure that a timely decision is made on them. As a transitional measure I intend that the Environmental Protection Authority be established as a statutory office within the Ministry for the Environment.

Phase two of the Government’s reforms of the Resource Management Act will look at the broader functions of that authority. The costs and delays caused by anti-competitive objections made by trade competitors fall on applicants, councils, and courts. Some of the highest costs are incurred in those so-called supermarket wars in which proponents and opponents have spent years, and millions of dollars, fighting each other. The losers are families, who end up paying more in their grocery bills.

The bill will also require third parties that have been supported, funded, or encouraged by a trade competitor to disclose that information, and there will be sanctions for non-disclosure. Consistent with our pre-election policy commitments, the proposals reinstate the powers of the Environment Court to award security for costs. This is an important provision that will ensure that, where the court believes that it is important, a bond is provided upfront, rather than allowing those costs to fall on ratepayers or others.

Provisions in the bill will streamline the consent processes. One of the bill’s important changes is to enable resource consent applications and notices of requirement to be directly referred to the Environment Court, with the local authority’s agreement. The bill also has provisions to ensure that councils try harder to meet the requirements of the Act in timely consent decision-making.

The bill will require that councils develop a discount policy in respect of late-processing consent within a period of 12 months, and, where the local authority is at fault, a requirement to discount those fees and charges. It simply is not good enough that as many as 50 percent of resource consents are not processed on time. The bill makes significant progress in trying to get plans progressed more quickly, where the average at the moment is over 8 years.

We will simplify the process of having a double round of submissions. We have had cases where a council has received more than 30,000 submissions, and the processes around that have been too burdensome and laborious such that councils have failed to have effective plans in place.

This is a very important bill. I look forward to the select committee process. It is a very complex area and we need to get the detail correct.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : I rise to speak to the first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which is being promoted by the Minister Nick Smith. I foreshadow to the House that Labour will be voting for the first reading of the bill so that it can go to the select committee and public submissions can be heard. Opposition members have had fewer than 24 hours to consider the detail of this bill, so we want to take the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits—or otherwise—outlined by the Minister. We do have concerns about the bill. I acknowledge the briefing offered by the Minister last evening to explain some of the motivations for the legislation, and I note that there are some real concerns about the planning and consenting process that need to be looked at in more detail.

The Resource Management Act is finely balanced legislation. It aims to provide for public involvement in the decision-making process, to enable sustainable management of resources, and to protect our beautiful natural and physical heritage. We would certainly agree that this legislation in particular must be reviewed and revisited in order to improve the operation of the Act and give greater certainty, thereby reducing delays and costs, and to ensure consistency of processes within resource consent decision-making.

Changes introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2005 included greater use of national policy statements and national environmental standards in order to give national direction and consistency across local government. By 2008 work had gained momentum in this area, and I look forward to seeing work commissioned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to consider the formation of both national policy and environmental standards.

The Environment Court was to have regard to the local consent authority’s decision and to focus only on matters of contention, rather than to start the entire process all over again. Labour also made changes to allow an applicant or council to ask central government to become involved in the very small number of complex, cross-boundary cases where local decision-making may not provide the best results. This could allow for national assistance being provided to councils, or national representation in the decision-making process; central government being more able to make submissions on behalf of the Crown; and call-in powers to the Minister for the Environment being enhanced. These were but some of the changes that sought to improve the operation of the Act without compromising the environment.

It is important to highlight that one of the principles underlying the bill relies on public involvement in the decision-making process. I want to draw on this point as it relates to some of the problems that have been highlighted initially in this bill. It is proposed that frivolous, vexatious, and anti-competitive objections are addressed. On the surface of it the House may well find itself agreeing with the proposed measures to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour, but this does need to be balanced and calibrated with legitimate concerns from members of the public about contentious developments in their community. They may be shut out of the process altogether because of the very same provision to reduce anti-competitive behaviour. We intend to use the select committee process to explore this matter further, as I think legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue.

On balance, the provisions seeking greater compliance through increased fines should see greater observance of consent conditions and more accountability for the terms of the consent. I think in particular of discharge into the Waikato River in former times, which was leached through non-compliant landfills; a local example near Waharoa where toxic contaminants were discharged into waterways; and contaminated waterways caused by effluence from a local meatworks plant in the King Country. These are just some of the many examples where greater compliance would benefit both the environment and the public interest.

Another aspect that may be seen as tipping the balance of maintaining public input into the decision-making process is the proposal to recover security of cost, increasing filing fees where access to the Environment Court is prevented, and reducing appeals that may prevent the public interest from being heard. Again, these are matters that again should be explored and heard by the select committee. I note in particular comments made by Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society when he commented on the proposals and said: “Overall there are a number of changes that taken together will weaken proactive planning, further limit public involvement in the RMA processes, and shift the balance further towards development interests. This is hardly surprising given the development bias in the membership of the TAG.”

I go on to quote him where he says: “Another concern is the proposal to further limit notification of resource consents. Rights for the public to object have slowly been whittled away … This runs counter to the participatory nature of the RMA and the ability of members of the public to be heard on applications which are likely to have a negative effect on the environment.” Although I note that the findings of the technical advisory group will be tabled today by the Minister, the lack of environmental input into the proposed changes raises further questions that we will leave for the time being so that the select committee can consider them.

I want to comment briefly on the assertion of the Māori Party that there are huge benefits for Māori in keeping sections 6, 7, and 8 intact. The simple point is that under a Labour Government those causes would not even be matters of contention. So I look forward to working with the Māori Party to see what aspects of National’s proposed changes would better facilitate Māori input into the decision-making, planning, and consent process. Unfortunately, on the questions of coastal residential developments, the protection of wāhi tapu affected by major developments, bank stabilisation of urupā and marae, and breaches of water discharge consents, Māori interests are often not considered and are conveniently overlooked.

There is also the proposal on the issue of notification of resource consent application—again, it is a concern raised by the public. Currently, there is a discretion for councils to notify applications where there is a minor effect on the environment. This will change, and councils will not be required to notify applications with a minor effect on the environment. This raises the threshold as to when applications for resource consents must be publicly notified. Previously, councils had to publicly notify where effects were more than minor. The bill states that councils must now notify only where effects beyond the immediate environment are more than minor. This means that small local consents will not necessarily need to be publicly notified. This will have implications, I am sure, for small communities and public interest.

The bill also introduces the idea of an affected person and limited notification. An affected person is someone who will suffer more than minor adverse effects. So where the activity will not have any effects beyond the immediate environment, it must still be notified on a limited basis to affected persons. I raise that point to foreshadow that we will want to raise those types of issues at the select committee for further investigation.

The bill introduces the concept of the Environmental Protection Agency. We understand that much of the detail of that will be in round two of the changes to the Resource Management Act. Although that is an idea that at this stage sounds more conducive to facilitating projects of national significance, we will not rule out the importance of this particular initiative in terms of how it may better facilitate decision making.

The proposal to remove the role of the Minister of Conservation does cause concern, especially when we consider the role of that Minister to advocate in the public interest on proposed coastal developments. I need only look close to home, at Whangamata, to find an example, and there could be a broad and serious debate on that issue. However, we should investigate fully as to whether removing the role of the Minister of Conservation is in the public interest in terms of developments, certainly along the coast.

I reiterate that Labour will work constructively at a select committee level to address the measures that will remove unnecessary delays. We see benefit in stronger compliance mechanisms. We are considering the provisions around resource consent processes, especially aspects of non-notification. We raise serious concerns about removing the role of the Minister of Conservation. These and other matters will, I am sure, be considered more fully at the select committee level, and we look forward to the submissions from the public on this matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) : This afternoon I begin by congratulating my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the considerable amount of work he has done in a very short time, bringing together the expertise of the technical advisory committee, the officials in his own department, and, indeed, all the political forces that tend to rally around when a big bit of work like the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is being done. The technical advisory committee has done a great job in getting the bill before us today into a shape that answers some of the frustrations that have been experienced by New Zealanders dealing with the Resource Management Act over a large number of years. Dr Smith has waited a long time to put a bill like this before the House, and to be able to do it so quickly after attaining the post of the Minister for the Environment is a great tribute to him.

The speech we just heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, expressing Labour’s desire to work constructively on the bill in the Local Government and Environment Committee, really reflects in a fulsome way the level of frustration that all MPs have felt over a large number of years about the way the Resource Management Act has developed. There is no question that simply being able to do the things that we want to do without damaging the environment—in a way that requires us to take steps that mitigate the worst effects that our activity could have on the environment—was the essential driving force for the bill’s being put in place some 18 years ago. It is very evident that since that time the layers of uncertainty that have developed as various parties traversed the courts meant that a risk-averse attitude developed among many of the consenting authorities—and quite justifiably so, because as the last hurdle they carry some responsibility for their decisions.

Through the select committee process we should see a great deal of clarification about the matters that have been causing so much angst. It is interesting to note in the explanatory note of the bill the staggering statistic gathered by the Ministry for the Environment that “only 74% of non-notified consents”—that is, small matters relating to Resource Management Act issues where there is no need to go for a wide public consultation—“… are processed within statutory time frames”. In other words, as things stand a large chunk of people going for resource consents have no expectation that they may be dealt with in a timely manner.

It gets worse if we look at notified consents, where almost half of the people making those applications know from the start that there is no time line to which they can pin their expectations for an outcome. I think that getting that sort of thing sorted out through a good select committee process—measured against the provisions in this bill, which we believe will be achieved—will be welcomed by New Zealanders. The very ambitious target that Dr Smith has set for the House is one that all MPs should embrace and get stuck into.

I am also very encouraged by the comments from our honourable friend across the House. I noted the comments that that speaker made about the ministerial veto. All I can say is that the select committee should consider those matters very, very carefully. But the expression of change in this bill was born out of the fact that if we have a good process, there is surely no need for that process to be derailed on the whim of a Minister of the Crown. That is not how other aspects of our law are treated, nor should they be in this case.

In my own portfolio as Minister of Energy and Resources I am particularly pleased to see this bill develop. Over the past decade we have seen too little investment in the right sort of electricity generation in New Zealand. The environment of resource management has encouraged the use of thermal fuels, often at the expense of renewable sources of generation. This is quite a perverse outcome of the way in which the world is starting to deal with climate change issues. Although we do not want to confuse that issue with the Resource Management Act, the reality is that some of the outcomes from those proposed projects, or from their decline, can have an adverse effect on how we present ourselves internationally.

Let us take, for example, the big Project Aqua, which was on the books a couple of years ago. Whether members liked that project or not, I ask them to set that opinion aside for one moment. The fact is that under the old system there was a need to gain in excess of 350 individual consents in order for that project to go ahead. It was a massive undertaking—a bonanza for the lawyers and resource consultants, but no comfort, at all, to the electricity consumers, who, ultimately, would have paid for that process. Under the new arrangement that sort of project will be most likely to go to a board of inquiry, where a former Environment Court judge or sitting Environment Court judge will chair a process—superintend the entire consent process—inside a time frame of just 9 months. That sort of process will see growth in New Zealand’s infrastructure and growth in the right sort of generating assets in the electricity sector, and will be very, very good for the country.

As a bit of a precursor to the future, the other thing this bill offers is the statutory office of the Environmental Protection Authority inside the Ministry for the Environment. The board of inquiry will make many references to that organisation; it will effectively provide support to the board of inquiry.

There is little doubt that we live in a fast-moving world where there is a lot of change. We have a large territorial sea around New Zealand, and while in the area of resources—for which I am also responsible—there is a great deal of activity onshore, there is also enormous potential for activity offshore. We do not want some sort of Wild West developing in New Zealand, where for resource recovery offshore New Zealand is seen as the world’s new Klondike—everybody just going hammer and tongs without consideration of the environmental effect. Over time some of that policy is likely to devolve into the orbit of responsibility of the expanded authority, which will be developed in the second part of this particular set of requirements. That means that we can quite confidently say to the resource industry that it can plan to do things in this country, but it must also ensure that what it is doing protects the environment it is working in. I am very, very encouraged by that.

I will talk for a little bit about doing away with frivolous and anti-competitive objections. They can cause a great deal of angst not only for small operators but also for large ones. Sometimes their worst effect on projects is felt or seen at the re-consent stage. I point to two outstanding examples in my own portfolio area. First, there was the re-consent of Contact Energy’s Clyde Dam scheme. It took about 6 years, through various stages, just to get a re-consent. I think that that is an unreasonable amount of time; most certainly it was an unreasonable cost for consumers of electricity simply to ensure the continued operation of an asset that was already part of the system. The same is true of the Wairākei geothermal field and the Wairakei Power Station on the central volcanic plateau. In that case, it took 8 years of to-ing and fro-ing just to be able to continue an activity that had to be re-consented after 40 years of operation.

Those sorts of things will be largely set aside should the select committee bring a bill back to the House that reflects much of the intention of the current bill. I have no doubt that there will be some changes; some of them might be considerable. As the Government, we are very open to the involvement of all parties that participate in the select committee process. From stage one of the Resource Management Act reform process, we want to get a robust Act of Parliament.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I commence my speech by emphasising to the House that, in my view, the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our law books. Without the Resource Management Act we would be bereft of legislation that would stop inappropriate development, to the detriment of the environment. It is worth recording that the Act was developed in principle by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and I do not think many people doubt the intellect of Sir Geoffrey Palmer. I think it is pretty clear now that the environmental principles that lie at the heart of Part 1 and Part 2 of the Act are left untouched by this amendment, and I thank the National Government for that. The Act was passed by National. It has been periodically updated, and it remains fundamentally sound legislation, which ought not to be thrown out.

I will say something about some of the claims that changes to the Act will somehow double New Zealand’s economic growth, or will have a significant impact on economic growth. I challenge that assertion. The reality is that New Zealand has come through a period of strong growth in the past decade—as was acknowledged by the Hon Bill English yesterday at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and during that period there have been unparalleled levels of private investment in property. Houses and buildings have been built from Bluff to the top of New Zealand, and all were consented to under the Act. The biggest hospital and school-building programme that this country has seen for many decades was consented to under the Act. Prisons have been built, which are very difficult to get consent for. There are some problems around gaining consent for prisons, but even they have been built under the Act. So the Act has not held back spending.

There has been a cry that the Act has held back infrastructure spending. Well that, again, is wrong. What held back infrastructure spending in earlier years was not the Act; it was actually a lack of money. Money was not being spent on infrastructure. When the tap was turned on by the previous Labour Government, spending on public infrastructure increased dramatically, and it was all consented to under the Act. Transport expenditure under the previous National Government was around 1 percent of GDP. GDP grew very greatly under Labour, but on top of that, the percentage of GDP that was spent on transport infrastructure increased from 1 percent to 1.6 percent. All of those projects were consented to under the Act.

Electricity transmission expenditure during the 1990s ran at around $50 million per annum. It is now up to $500 million per annum, all for projects consented to under the Act. It is true that there were insufficient numbers of generation projects consented to, and that because of some delays in respect of some proposals, we had a tight patch there. That is true, but that is because the electricity companies were not planning to build increased generation. That was their mistake; it was not the fault of the Act. In recent years we have got ahead in the consenting for electricity generation, and we are now building renewables. We are building them at a faster rate than the rate of growth in electricity demand, and they are all being consented to under the Act. There are many years of projects out there ahead of us that have already been consented to, so the processes required under the Act are not holding up investment in electricity generation now.

Having said that, I actually concur with the Hon Dr Nick Smith in respect of his concern about what I think is a fundamental problem with the Act at the moment—that is, how long it takes to complete plan processes. It is absolutely fundamental to the proper functioning of the Act that the plans promoted by local and regional councils can be promoted in a timely fashion, that there is appropriate public input, but that the plans can none the less be brought to fruition and put into effect within a reasonable period. I accept that the current processes need improvement. I think that some of the averages that are spoken about are slightly historic, in that they are for the first plans under the Act. They will be changed in the future, rather than started from ground zero. The averages, even with the Act left untouched, would decrease quite naturally if there were no change.

I also take issue with Mr Brownlee’s statements in respect of the renewal of consents. The fact that those renewals took so long was an indictment on all those involved, but actually did not prejudice those who had the existing consent, because the existing consent, if there is one, continues during the period of renewal. That is probably why the holders of consents were not pushing very hard to bring renewals to a conclusion.

I accept that there is a need to improve plan change processes, but I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that I am worried about appeal rights. I think it is very, very important that people have the ability to appeal plan changes. We have a long history of proven instances of very poorly drafted plans that are sometimes far too complex and sometimes without environmental protections. There are examples of that on both ends of the spectrum. Up in the north councils got into trouble by trying to prescribe environmental controls on everything, and that was a mistake. We had problems in Queenstown where there was no effective environmental protection for landscapes against inappropriate subdivision. Both of those plans were fixed only because of the right of individuals to appeal to the Environment Court, and the Environment Court fixed those problems. So we have to look very carefully at that point.

In terms of the call-in process, I congratulate the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because my worry here was that the environmental test in the improved processes under call-ins would be diluted. That would have been a quite inappropriate dilution of the environmental safeguards under the Act. I am quite happy with the changes that have been made to the call-in process, by and large. I think that the Minister has preserved the essence of the environmental test. I sat with the member and Jeanette Fitzsimons a few years ago when we considered the call-in process, and we introduced an important control: that it had to be chaired by an Environment Court judge or a retired judge. That too is being preserved, and it is a very important protection of the environmental integrity of the scheme of the Act.

I am somewhat less concerned about some constrained appeal rights around plans that give effect to national policy statements, but the devil of that is in the detail. Of course, we have to make sure that the councils cannot chuck everything into the plan, ostensibly to give effect to a national policy statement, and still not give people the right to appeal. So I think that issue requires some consideration, too.

In terms of direct referrals to the Environment Court, I congratulate the member on diluting some of the earlier proposals, whereby the applicant was to have elected whether the referral went directly to the Environment Court. Including a provision that the council has to agree that that is appropriate is, I think, a very sensible safeguard if the member wants to have more direct referrals and involve applicants in that way. I do wonder whether there should not be some reciprocity there. If objectors and the council agree that a matter ought to go directly to the Environment Court, why should that not be possible, given that it is possible for applicants to refer it there with the consent of the council? I can see situations where that would be appropriate. A council sometimes feels deeply conflicted because it has so much involvement in an issue, and in that case sometimes the matter should go directly to the Environment Court. Similarly, there are times when these applications are complex and a direct referral might be the answer, particularly where it was undoubtedly going to go on appeal to the Environment Court anyway.

However, we have to encourage councils to guard against just being a rubber stamp for an applicant who wants to go on a direct referral to the Environment Court, because that puts parties into a more structured forum where they are more likely to have to incur legal expense. Because it is a one-step process, every stone has to be turned over and the process becomes more complex, so we must take care that the habit does not develop that lazy councils—not that there are many lazy councils—effectively throw away their responsibilities and leave it all to the Environment Court. There is a need for some check or balance to be worked out there.

Having said that, I say to Dr Smith that I think there are some good changes in the legislation, and I am pleased that he has, up to this point, preserved those environmental tests.

I say one further thing. It would worry me if a change were proposed to the land-use controls that relate to discharges to water. There are some provisions in the amendment bill that I have read but am not yet sure of the import of. I will be checking to see that we are not giving away the point of control that district and regional councils need in order to exert appropriate influence regarding improper land use that degrades water quality. That is one of the most pressing environmental issues we face in our country.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : Once again under this Government’s urgency, sadly, I received a copy of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill late last night. It is a long and technical bill, and obviously it takes a long time, when one is in select committee meetings all morning, to get to grips with it. I also notice that the Minister intends to give the Local Government and Environment Committee a little over 4 months rather than the usual 6 months to deal with a long, complicated bill that is of great public interest. I think that will be a very tight time frame, and so far the Minister has not suggested that he intends to give the select committee any additional sitting hours to deal with that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, I did.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I missed that in the initial statement from the Minister—OK.

The Resource Management Act is designed to allow economic development that does not compromise the quality of the environment, and it is designed to ensure that natural resources are used sustainably. Nobody could possibly argue that it has done that over the last 18 years. We have had piecemeal, incremental damage done to the environment for 18 years from inappropriate coastal development, from discharges, from native species and ecosystems being at risk, and from the quality of life of New Zealanders being eroded constantly by the nature of economic development. Yet the Act, which is not being changed in this respect, says that economic development is OK provided it safeguards the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems, among some other things. It has not done that. The improvements we need to make to the Resource Management Act are to ensure greater environmental protection rather than to ensure even less.

The bill also creates a process whereby the community decides collectively through plans how its local area is to develop. That plan-making process is crucial. Unfortunately, where the processes of the Act have often fallen down in the past is that so many people do not realise that their time to have an input is when the plan is being developed, rather than to wait until the 10-storey building goes up next door to them. It is quite hard to get people to get involved in that theoretical level of plan making, but to reduce appeals against plans will make it even harder for the community to have that say about how its community should develop.

This all sets up pitched battles under the Act between applicants, who want to do something that may cause environmental damage or have amenity effects on neighbours, and objectors, who want them not to. The applicants almost always win. I think we have a figure that in 99 percent of cases applications are approved. But the applicants are still not happy, because the process has become cumbersome, bureaucratic, and expensive, and I think we would all agree with that. The applicants want to be able to win without going through all that, which is understandable from their perspective. They can see that that can best be achieved by limiting the rights of others in the community to scrutinise and object to their proposals. The National Government is seeking to achieve that with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which changes the balance of rights and influence away from the community and towards the developers.

The key question is about who speaks for the environment. Trees have no standing, as an important legal paper argued back in the 1970s. Snails have no standing. Who speaks for endangered species, for water quality, for climate change, for wetlands, for forests, and for the sea? Who, under the Resource Management Act, speaks for future generations, and for their right to unpolluted water, public open spaces, and the right to see Hochstetter’s frogs and Powelliphanta snails? Future generations have no standing under the Act, either. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that somebody is allowed to speak on their behalf.

We would expect that, in terms of the environment, the Department of Conservation would speak for them. After all, the Department of Conservation has the specialist information to know what the effects on endangered ecosystems and species might be like. But repeatedly the Department of Conservation under successive Governments—and this is not a new issue—has not been allowed to have a voice at the Environment Court when its voice is different from the views of more powerful Government departments like the Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury. So we cannot rely on the Department of Conservation to bring to the table the evidence that the court needs in order to make a balanced decision. I think it would be a wonderful thing if the Minister would change that, and if this Government would allow the Department of Conservation the freedom to bring its information to the table, even when it disagrees with the Ministry of Economic Development.

There is a long-held view, which is being given its head in this bill, that only immediate neighbours and those with personal and corporate property rights should be deemed affected by developers and should, therefore, be entitled to participate in the process. It is only organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Greenpeace, Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand, Environmental Defence Society, and a host of local environmental protection groups that bring evidence to councils and the Environment Court about the irreversible environmental impacts of developments. If that evidence is not brought, then the court cannot consider it and make a balanced decision.

In this Parliament it is only the Green Party that speaks constantly for the environment and for future generations, so it is not surprising that we oppose many of the measures in this bill, because they restrict the right of people and groups in the community to speak up for their grandchildren and for nature. We are sad that even the Labour Party is voting for this bill, rather than saying what we say to the Minister, which is to take out the more objectionable bits and we will be delighted to join with the Government and support the good bits.

Ministry of Justice officials told Cabinet that they were concerned about fundamental rights to justice being restricted by this bill. The Minister of Justice told the House that their concerns had been addressed, but the Minister for the Environment told Radio New Zealand National that he disagreed with the concerns of those officials and had ignored them. That is not the same as addressing them.

This bill skews the balance of the Resource Management Act away from the environment and communities in favour of big developers. That is not surprising. The technical advisory group comprises mainly developers and their lawyers and consultants, with only a single member of that advisory group coming from an environmental background.

The Green Party has always supported streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act to reduce time and costs, provided that can be done without compromising environmental quality and the rights of the public to participate in decisions. There are things in this bill that we support. Fines for breaches of the Act are now so ludicrously low that the most cost-effective course is to break the law and then pay up. We welcome that being addressed. Efforts to prevent trade competition being used as a ground for appeal are also welcome, but they are possibly hollow. Trade competition is already outlawed as a ground for objection under the Act, and has been for many years. The only substantive move in this bill is the disclosure of funding of front organisations, but that is very hard to detect and enforce and, bizarrely, it applies only to objectors. What about front organisations that applicants fund?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I ask the Minister, do I have that wrong? I am glad to hear that. Right; so it works both ways. Everyone agrees that frivolous and vexatious objections should be dealt to, but they already were dealt to by the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005. I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee that worked on the bill that became that Act, and there are now powers to strike those objections out.

One thing we strongly support is binding Crown agencies. It is high time that that provision was brought in, and I thank the Minister for doing so. Progress has been made in the bill on the issue of the timing of implementation of environmental standards, which was confused. Some of the bill’s streamlining around plan development will help, but the presumption against appeals is dangerous, especially where it is combined with the removal of the second round of submissions.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : I rise to speak on the first reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. ACT supports this bill because, for too long, high costs and unnecessary delays have been pushed on to anyone who wants to upgrade his or her home, build a garage, or trim a tree. For too long, companies have been able to engage in anti-competitive behaviour by objecting to rival developments. For too long, local authorities and a tiny minority have held up positive developments in our regions. This bill goes just some way to redressing the balance.

I start my speech by talking rather generally. New Zealand faces many challenges. We have falling living standards and falling productivity, and over the previous 9 years the Labour Government made many decisions that led to very poor-quality Government expenditure. It was interesting that the Hon David Parker talked about roads all being consented to under the Resource Management Act, hospitals all being consented to under the Resource Management Act, and schools all being consented to under the Resource Management Act. Well, I wonder whether that former Minister actually gave any consideration to the cost of that consent.

I stood in the North Shore electorate. The people of the North Shore are very proud of its new busway. That took 10 years to get consent—10 years to get consent; 10 years of objection. I note that Jeanette Fitzsimons said the only people who will gain from this legislation will be the developers. I put it to members that the people who will benefit from that North Shore busway and from the public transport improvements the Green members are so happy to talk about are the people of the North Shore and the people of New Zealand.

Chris Tremain: And the environment.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: And the environment. The ACT Party campaigned on a 20-point plan to address some of the challenges this country faces. In particular, within that 20-point plan we referred in the sixth point to a total review of the Resource Management Act. I am very pleased that, following the election, we were able to reach a confidence and supply agreement with National—this very document I hold now. The three key policies we campaigned on, in addition to the Resource Management Act amendments, were a review of the emissions trading scheme, which was agreed to prior to Christmas; our “three strikes” bill, which was introduced into the House yesterday; and a full review of Government expenditure.

One of the things that happened over the previous 9 years of the Labour Government was that the increase in Government expenditure over and above the effects of inflation and population growth was $230 per week, per household. So the average New Zealand household is poorer by the rate of $230 per week. Nearly $12,000 a year per household was spent over and above the rate of inflation. So we have to make it easier to create higher living standards and higher productivity.

We had rising productivity during the 1990s and the early 2000s, following on from the reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s. But over the previous 7 years our productivity has been declining. The move to introduce these amendments will go some small way to improving productivity in New Zealand.

The bill is a first step in implementing changes recommended by the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group, which was established as part of ACT’s and National’s confidence and supply agreement.

The Hon David Parker referred to the fact that the Resource Management Act was introduced by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Just on a personal note, I tell the House that my very good friend Dennis Bush-King worked with the Ministry for the Environment in the late 1980s and worked on that Act. He also worked diligently—as did many other members of the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group—on reviewing this bill over the Christmas break.

All members of this House will have heard of instances in their communities where the Resource Management Act has been abused, and I congratulate Labour on supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. This bill will give the Environment Court real power, for the first time, to determine who is abusing the objection process and will allow for significant punishment. Stiff penalties will be meted out to those who are found to be lodging anti-competitive objections, which are common to the current consent process. Once again, I give the example of the North Shore. People on the North Shore should be very proud of the fact that the North Shore busway took only 10 years to consent, because, in the North Shore electorate, Foodstuffs (Auckland) Ltd would like to own a Pak ’N Save supermarket that has been completed but has not been allowed to open because of the objections of Progressive Enterprises. That supermarket is yet to be opened, and it may well take a lot more than 10 years.

The bill will allow for an expedited consent process for developments deemed to be of national importance, such as new regional roading and other infrastructure that is critical to our economy but has been held up for far too long by a self-interested few. A very good example of that is the North Shore busway. Under these provisions it is most unlikely that it would not have taken 10 years to gain consent, and we could have had improvements to public transport on the North Shore a lot sooner than has been the case.

Up until now ratepayers have had to endure long delays in having their consents approved, often for no good reason. I say to the Minister that we are pleased that a proposal from the ACT Party that has been talked about for some time has found its way into this bill and that there is a provision for discounted fees for late consent decisions. Councils will be required to operate discounts and keep a record of late consent decisions.

On that note, I tell members that I have some personal experience of a late decision. I lodged a consent application for a dam, which was an existing dam. It was built by my father and me in the late 1980s. The Auckland Regional Council, when looking through its records in 2000, found that the dam had not had a formal consent. So we applied for a resource consent and paid our money. Nothing happened. Then, lo and behold, 3 months ago the council got in contact with us wanting to grant consent for the dam—which has been in existence for 20 years—some 6 years after we lodged the application.

Another change that prevents local government from holding up consents will be the ability of local authorities to stop the clock only once when asking for further information. We have had instances where local authorities have continually gone back to the applicants seeking additional information to basically hide the fact that they are holding up the consenting process. Under the provisions of this bill they will be allowed to seek additional information only once.

The third change will see a requirement that councils close consent hearings no more than 10 days after the final giving of evidence. This will prevent councils and applicants from wasting weeks in limbo.

Other changes will help councils speed up the consent process internally, and the presumption of application notification will be removed. The weight of litigation that has plagued councils for so long for non-notification will be lifted.

Another problem that is all-too-well known in Auckland is the requirement that a resource consent is necessary to simply trim a tree over a height of 3 metres. Once again, New Zealand’s living standards have been declining, our productivity has been declining, and a huge percentage of resource consent applications are for things as simple as trimming a tree. The Garden City of Christchurch does not require automatic tree protection, so, surely, the trees in Auckland should not require it.

Finally, I hope the National Government continues to include ACT and other parties in the process, and I thank Nick Smith on behalf of the ACT Party for his willingness to discuss prospective changes to this bill. The ACT Party seeks fundamental changes to the Resource Management Act, so we are very happy to support this bill and we commend it to Parliament. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : One of the foundation concepts of the Māori Party—and, indeed Te Ao Māori—is that of kaitiakitanga. Kaitiakitanga represents the obligation of current generations to maintain the life-sustaining capacity of the environment for future generations. Kaitiakitanga is the practical expression of rangatiratanga. To exercise kaitiakitanga is to demonstrate customary authority over the way a resource is used, managed, and protected. It is the practical linking of mana over a region with the kaitiaki authority over the resources of that region.

Contrary to the press release of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, which describes kaitiakitanga as one of a “plethora of fuzz terms” and as “vague and unquantifiable”, there are tangible and specific outcomes that can measure the expression of kaitiakitanga against environmental outcomes. These are outcomes such as the continued health and well-being of the resources or the cultural usage of the resource.

At the very heart of the Resource Management Act is the fundamental importance of kaitiakitanga. The satisfaction of mana whenua that their guardianship is respected and their stewardship of the resources is valued is central towards understanding how to ensure an effective relationship between tangata whenua and the governing agencies of the State.

It has always been our contention that the Resource Management Act would be sufficient to the tasks of environmental protection and mana whenua involvement in decision making if used properly and if interpreted responsibly by local government. This tension is the central point of conflict—and always has been—in assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991 processes. The central premise of kaitiaki responsibilities is that all things living are connected; all living things have mauri. The life cycle connects us all, from the smallest blade of grass to a kauri tree.

The Māori Party’s policy has been explicit about our commitment towards keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact, for future generations. In this sense we are pleased that the bill contains a key objective to reduce the time it takes to make decisions while, at the same time, maintaining effective public participation and promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The critical measure to evaluate the legislation will be whether we have the balance right between environmental sustainability and reducing compliance constraints.

The Māori Party’s interest is in determining that the relationships between the Crown and Māori as the Treaty partner are honourable, effective, and functional. In a case study profiled in the Ministry for the Environment’s Quality Planning website, we can assess the adequacy of the Resource Management Act as judged by interviews with the 26 South Island councils located within the Kāi Tahu takiwā. Some of the engagement councils undertake with Kāi Tahu is mandatory, established through statutory acknowledgments, while other areas of engagement are voluntary. But all indicate that there is still considerable room for improving tangata whenua engagement in Resource Management Act procedures.

Kāi Tahu comprises whānau and hapū within 18 papatipu rūnaka, while Te Rūnaka o Kāi Tahu is recognised as the iwi authority for the purposes of the Resource Management Act. The Kāi Tahu case study indicated that where there were pockets of good practice, it was entirely reliant on the interpersonal relationships developed between council and tangata whenua practitioners. Much of the existing good practice relies on interpersonal relationships developed between council and tangata whenua practitioners. But there were specific and tangible deliverables that could markedly improve the health of the relationship, including robust administration, clear internal council policies, and establishing relationship agreements with tangata whenua.

If this legislation it is intended, as it professes, to simplify procedures and to streamline appeal processes, it may well be that the Kāi Tahu case study gives some clues as to how best practice can ultimately lead to better Resource Management Act decision-making. The intimate relationship between resource management laws and the capacity of tangata whenua to maintain their roles and responsibilities for kaitiakitanga is one of the reasons we argued so fiercely for the preservation of section 8 of the Resource Management Act, which refers to the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua and their rights as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The actual wording of section 8, “Treaty of Waitangi”, is: “all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Part 2 of the Resource Management Act—specifically sections 6(e), 6(f), 7(a), and 8—instructs local government that it must give due and appropriate consideration to the values and concerns of tangata whenua. But—and this is the major challenge—there is nothing to suggest any element of compulsion. Indeed, the Prime Minister recently announced that section 8 is no longer a significant issue. Retaining good faith and good partnership and honouring te Tiriti is certainly a significant issue, and we look forward—as Labour does—to the select committee process in order to learn the views of Māori, on section 8 in particular.

Amidst what can only be described as policy uncertainty, some definite grey clouds are blocking a clear horizon. There is the prohibitive factor that the Environment Court could order parties challenging applications to pay security for costs. This means that before a group can take a case against a company, the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the court proceedings will cost it in lost time, and other matters, as security for cost. I remember when my auntie Eva Rickard brought the case against Tainui in 1995. The security of cost that Tainui named was $1 million, which was too much for Auntie Eva to even contemplate.

Then there is the proposal that removes the ability of the Minister of Conservation to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal development permits. This is a proposal that we are strongly opposed to. We are apprehensive that some of the amendments may limit the capacity of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision-making processes and to challenge and appeal consents once approved. There is the possibility, which cannot be discounted, that the provisions to limit vexatious and frivolous objections may be called on to deny the validity of arguments put forward by tangata whenua.

Finally, there is the ever-treacherous tightrope that we walk, with the Act straddling twin priorities—the development of the people, and the protection of the environment. There is anxiety among Māori that the easing of local council responsibilities as frontline Resource Management Act administrators will be to the detriment of the community as large and small-scale developers, including local and regional councils, hurry on, impatient in their quest to establish major infrastructure.

The potential to reduce cost to businesses will enable councils to fast-track vital elements of the infrastructure—roads, wind farms, and centralised sewerage and water plants. Whenever there is construction on such a large scale we will always be concerned to monitor proposals to ensure that they will not occur at the expense of local community development aspirations. This, to us, is the hub of the issue. It is absolutely vital that any changes to enable local councils to make planning changes more quickly are not at the expense of community and tangata whenua dialogue.

As tangata tiaki, Māori must be able to do all we can to promote the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna, protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction, and support sustainable development, rather than crude fiscal growth per se. We will support this bill at its first reading because we want to hear the views of our whānau, hapū, and iwi, our lawyers, environmental advocates, our tikanga experts, our conservation champions, and members of the local community about just how well this bill works—or does not work. Kia ora.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I have to say, it is about time. We need these reforms urgently. The Resource Management Act is important legislation and it is invaluable in protecting our environment, but New Zealanders in all walks of life continuously complain about its processes. It does not matter whether it is an environmental group, a council, individuals, or businesses; they all seem to agree on one thing: that the Resource Management Act processes are too cumbersome, too bureaucratic, and too expensive. It is probably not surprising, because this legislation is complicated and very large. After all, when it was developed in 1991 it was an amalgamation of about 60 pieces of legislation—60 pieces of planning and environmental legislation.

The Resource Management Act became a one-stop shop to protect the environment, but within that one-stop shop there was a whole lot of complexity. If I had a dollar for every complaint I have received about the Resource Management Act I would be a rich woman. But, as I said, those complaints are not about the purpose of the Resource Management Act, which is to protect our environment and manage our natural resources in a sustainable way; the complaints are about the processes. It is one thing that nearly every person who takes part in the Resource Management Act processes shares. There is real consensus that this legislation needs reform, and I appreciate the fact that Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Greens agreed that there needed to be reform about the cumbersomeness and costliness of the legislation. The public believe that the Resource Management Act is slow and bureaucratic, and we believe that slow and bureaucratic processes do not do anything for the environment.

National has taken these concerns on board and has agreed to reform the legislation in two phases. This is the first phase today: the phase that streamlines and simplifies. I am really delighted that we could introduce it today, because today is the last sitting day in National’s first 100 days in Government. It was our promise to do it within 100 days, and we are delivering on that promise. The project has actually taken many, many months, and large numbers of people have been involved. We have worked with the community, the public, business, and officials, and they have all agreed on three process goals: the first is to streamline and simplify, which is where we got the name of the bill from; the second is to reduce costs and delays; and the third is to speed up plan-making processes. The Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has given us a good overview of the bill and has discussed its nine objectives. I will focus today on improving the plan development and plan change processes.

I was very pleased to hear the Hon David Parker acknowledge the problems we have with poor planning in local government. In my family we have a saying “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” I think a lot of the frustration and failure of the Resource Management Act is caused because local authorities have been unable to develop plans that work effectively.

Hon Member: That should be a principle.

NICKY WAGNER: It is a principle. No one argues with the importance of plan-making. It is an essential part of the procedures under the Resource Management Act, and it is through these plans that local government is able to express the community’s aspirations as to how they want their local environment managed. It is through these plans that councils can regulate activities, supposedly by reference to their effect. It is through these plans that they can provide for local implementation of national policy statements and national environmental standards.

But the plan-making process does not work well. In October last year a survey was done on the quality of planning in local government. Some pretty shocking figures came out. The first is that after 17 years of the Resource Management Act, five of our 85 local authorities still do not have an operational plan—five out of 85, after 17 years, do not have an operational plan. Interestingly, after 17 years only five have a second-generation plan and we have to remember that this legislation requires that councils update their plans every 10 years. So only five have got to the second generation. On average it takes local authorities 2½ years of research, drafting, and consultation before a proposed plan is notified. That is 2½ years before they even start. Managing the submissions process is also a mammoth task. We know that the Christchurch City Council had 30,000 submissions on one of its plans, and to manage that process took a long time and a lot of money. This new bill will make sure that that process strips out unnecessary duplication and time-consuming reworking of submissions. On average it takes 3.3 years to resolve the appeals, after the council has made its decision on that submission.

Paul Quinn: How long?

NICKY WAGNER: It is 3.3 years. All up, the average time taken for a council to create a full plan is 8.2 years. If we remember that this bill requires councils to update the plans every 10 years, it becomes a bit like the Auckland Harbour Bridge. We start painting at one end and when we get to the other end, we start all over again; it is a rolling process.

The Government wants to make some changes, because the length of time involved sets these plans up to fail. Most plans cannot properly reflect community needs or aspirations, because those people have moved on by the time the plan comes into place. Environmental issues change and morph and, too often, by the time the plan is there it is either too late or the problem has been resolved. Too often plans overlap each other, so we have proposed plans, plans, and transitionary plans all at once. We have a multilevel layer of plans that people have to deal with, which adds to the complexity as well.

Chris Auchinvole: So many plans, you get lost in them.

NICKY WAGNER: Exactly! The same report also talked about cost. The average cost of a plan is $1.9 million. The cost for all our local authorities to have a plan is over $130 million. That is just the cost to councils. It does not count the cost to other public agencies, to landowners, to resource users, to community groups, or to individuals. Of course, those costs have to be recouped somewhere. They are either recouped from the ratepayer or they are recouped from extra costs for services and goods in the community.

But perhaps the worst example of waste of money and time is the present process that local government needs to go through to adopt national policy statements. This is really quite unbelievable. Councils must adopt national policy statements; it is mandatory. But under the present legislation, councils must also go through a pretend process of consultation with their communities. It is a Clayton’s consultation, because councils have no freedom to make any changes. It has been estimated that the cost to councils to implement the current national policy statements in the system is $130 million. The inclusion of clause 48 in the new bill, which removes the mandatory Clayton’s consultation process, will instantly save millions for the ratepayers.

The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make plan-making more effective, more efficient, quicker, and less costly. The bill simplifies and streamlines planning processes in local government. But let me make it clear: it does not compromise the intent of the Resource Management Act, which is strongly supported by New Zealanders. The intent of the Resource Management Act is to protect the environment and to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner. I am particularly pleased that we are introducing the changes within the first 100 days of the National Government, because the need for reform is urgent. The Government is aware that over $100 million worth of projects are ready to go into the consent process. But people are awaiting these changes before they can start work. New Zealand needs these projects to stimulate our economy, so we must pass this bill as soon as possible. The bill will cut costs and avoid lengthy delays in planning and consents. It is very welcome in these restrained economic times.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I like that: “Simplifying and Streamlining”. I would have called it just the “Resource Management Amendment Bill”, because that is what we ought to state we are doing if we substantially amend any major law such as the Resource Management Act, which was passed 18 years ago. As previous speakers have said, the Act pulled together about 60 different pieces of legislation. It was momentous legislation, and nobody argues about that. It heralded a new approach to the sustainable use of land, the protection of the environment, and the protection of the natural features of the land.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister Dr Nick Smith say that the Government is not changing the fundamental purposes and principles of the Act. As Minister he will be travelling internationally, and he will find that our Resource Management Act is the envy of many countries. I was in Bonn last year at the biodiversity strategy convention and was told that we were very lucky to have such a good piece of law. The Australian Ministers in charge of the environment, water, and parks also think it is a wonderful law.

Perhaps this incremental change to the legislation is just what we ought to be doing with any such complex law. I do not think the bill is “fixing” the legislation. I take exception to the Minister saying that the National Government will fix it all up. I tell him that we will be back here in 10 years’ time amending the Resource Management Act, because the dynamics of planning and local body politics will keep moving, as will the dynamics of the environment and the need for environmental protection.

I just reiterate that Labour is supporting only the first reading so that the bill can go to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the public can make submissions, and the committee consider them. The Opposition has concerns about the bill.

I go back to 1995 when I was a raw new district councillor and was put on the hearings committee. That was 4 years after the enactment of the Resource Management Act. We had no training, we had no resources, and there was no rule book. We were advised by council staff, who were only one step ahead of us, and occasionally we called in a lawyer to help us. We called out then, and I have been in House when Nick Smith has asked: “Where are you at with national policy statements? Where are you at with national environmental standards?”. Those are the tools that councils really need, as well as a means to start to simplify processes in the Resource Management Act. The Opposition is not arguing about that.

I remind the House that in 2004 the previous Labour Government did not sit on its hands and do nothing about the Act since its introduction in 1991. The Local Government and Environment Committee went through the Act. Jeanette Fitzsimons was the chair, and I think Nick Smith was on the committee, too. Labour introduced lots of changes to the Resource Management Act for the very same reason we are here today—to make the next incremental change, which is right and proper.

Labour improved the Act and thought we had got it right in terms of consent decision-making at the council level. We looked at things like why there were no pre-hearing meetings, where we could get the applicants together and work out their intention. That was a good move. We may not have got that completely right. We brought in lots of aspects that we hoped we would be able to improve. We provided training for committee chairs, and they have loved that. I think things have become better and processes are certainly faster. We put in more Environment Court judges. I attribute thanks to Sandra Lee, who was very, very determined that we would provide legal aid for non-governmental organisations like environmental protection societies, which need to be the watchdogs for the environment.

I am very concerned about this bill, as we have heard from Kevin Hackwell, the Fish and Game Council, and all of those other environmental protection agencies that they do not want to see costs become a barrier to their taking part in making sure that they can protect the environment. It is only right and proper that we are now addressing the issue again.

I enjoyed hearing that National’s coalition with the Māori Party has ensured that Māori processes in this bill are protected. I think it is about protecting and even improving the legislation. At the select committee we hope we will all protect those aspects in the bill.

I will talk about some of the rhetoric that Labour members had to face during the election campaign on the Resource Management Act, right around the country. There were some key lines: “The Resource Management Act is a dog and we will fix it. We will get the economy moving. We will have a brighter future and we will have a great push for economic growth.” The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill as tabled, with 148 clauses, is not the silver bullet to get the economy moving. It will be just as difficult to get those processes moving faster, because the select committee will be hearing submissions. We will be reporting back, and the Minister has not given us much time. He has given us only until June to report back on a very complex bill—148 clauses.

But during the election there was so much rhetoric and it caught on in the community. Everybody blamed the Resource Management Act. In fact, when one did the analysis, it was often not the Act; it was actually local government processes and the capacity within territorial authorities to be able to interpret and implement the Act in the way its primary purpose and principles were intended. Those remain fundamentally really sound.

We support the bill’s referral to the select committee. I am glad I am on the committee, and we have great people on it. We will treat the bill very seriously. But I do state that Labour members on the committee would not support any proposal to rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of the environment. That will be the key driver for Labour members to ensure that the environment is not compromised just for the sake of a brighter future and faster growth of the economy in this country. We certainly also would not support any change that would reduce the amount of input and the scrutiny of those non-governmental watchdogs of the environment that we value so much. They must have a part and a role in decision making.

We say this is a sound bill. I remind the Minister that we have not had any time at all to consider properly the 148 clauses. The bill is quite substantial. With the second part in terms of the technical advisory group, I think it would be very valuable to get the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment involved. She has great oversight and that would be of great value.

I will finish by talking about the powers of the Minister of Conservation. I think there is an emerging model in the UK where the powers of veto are not helpful for the Minister of Conservation in the role of the Resource Management Act, especially on restricted coastal activity. I think we need to look at a new model that enhances and includes the Minister of Conservation, and is not related just to the power of veto. We are very concerned about the removal of the power of veto as it was one environment protection step in restricted coastal activity. I think we will look at that during the select committee phase, as I am concerned that those powers are being taken away.

We will do our best with this bill on the select committee. I wish we had more time to consider it. I think it is rather rich that we are given 1 day to look at the bill that has been tabled. I think it is good process to see it and have more time. We were denied that. We would have given a very intellectual response and analysis if we had had more time. That has been denied us. We will work hard on the select committee, and we will reserve our opinion on this streamlining and fast tracking of the Resource Management Act. I hope that processes are simplified. I think we all agree that we needed to do this next step. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I commend the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this legislation to the House. It is great legislation that has been a long time coming. The great thing about this legislation is that we are seeing a redress of the balance of good environmental protection and of economic growth. I am passionate about the environment, but many people who come through my door in Auckland Central have had their lives ruined in terms of the amount of money they have spent on resource management consents and the frustration they have been put through in the process. It is a great day for the people of Auckland, as they will have an opportunity to have quick decisions made in this area for their businesses, for community organisations, and for individuals. I acknowledge the support from all sides of the House today. I acknowledge that Labour is supporting this legislation; that is great, because it is important legislation for New Zealand in terms of our environmental future and our future economic growth.

I would like to deal with the process around this legislation moving forward. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I have spoken to the chairperson and we are very committed to working hard to ensure we meet the deadline for bringing this bill back to the House because of the urgency in terms of economic recovery. Much has been talked about in this House as to the impact of the Resource Management Act on the New Zealand economy. As a member of that committee, I am committed to ensuring that we try to meet the deadline we have been set. As part of that select committee process, I am also very committed to ensuring that we have as many people as possible make submissions on the legislation during this process. I am very aware that the people of Waiheke have communicated to me that they will be making many submissions, and I look forward to hearing them.

The second point is that part of this legislation is really about getting Auckland and the rest of the country moving in terms of projects of national significance. I want to talk a little bit about that. I acknowledge the work that has been done by the technical advisory group in this area, and the new criterion in relation to recognising the operational infrastructure needs of a nationwide network and utility operator will be very important. That is because it will cover those projects that may not have been considered individually to be of national importance in the past. I think, as well, it is probably important to mention at this point that if the Environmental Protection Authority decides that an application meets the criteria, the proposal will be referred to a board of inquiry for consideration. In the event that the authority decides that the application does not meet the criteria, the Minister for the Environment will have the powers to refer the application back to the relevant local authority to be processed under normal processes. The board of inquiry will be chaired by a current, former, or retired Environment Court judge. These projects of national significance will be very important when we move forward with our infrastructure package. I note that these decisions will have to be made within 9 months, unless an extension is accounted for. For a city like Auckland, this is a very important aspect of the bill and I look forward to it going through the House.

The third area I would like to pick up is around frivolous, vexatious, and anti-competitive objections. This is also very important for Auckland. There are people in New Zealand—and we have seen it in Auckland—who are missing out on cheaper groceries because of the way the legislation is currently used for anti-competitive measures. We should not have a situation whereby the Resource Management Act is being used as a weapon against competitors in other businesses. I am very pleased that the technical advisory group and the Minister have chosen to deal with this issue. The major purpose of the reforms in this area is to discourage submitters and appellants who are seeking to delay proceedings by bringing cases with little or no merit, and also to reduce the attractiveness for trade competitors to use the Resource Management Act, as I said before, as a weapon to delay or thwart projects through providing a disincentive to such behaviour. That is a very important part of the legislation that the Minister has put before the House.

When I started my speech, I mentioned the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. The couple of provisions I have mentioned will go some way in terms of assisting New Zealand with our economic recovery moving forward. As I said before, as a passionate New Zealander and as someone who cares about the environment—and I think Steve Chadwick mentioned this quite well when she said that there are many New Zealanders who are passionate about the environment—what this legislation does, and why I think the Minister has done such a good job on it, is that it provides that balance. We are reducing the amount of money people are spending putting consents forward and we are reducing the time taken for consents, which is important in terms of economic recovery, but we are retaining the principles of the Resource Management Act.

The fourth point is that we have signalled that there will be a second stage in terms of the Government’s reform, where we will flesh out the Environmental Protection Authority. I believe that the authority, for which I commend the Minister as well, will be one of the most important environmental institutions that we look at in New Zealand. When we take this legislation forward, we must think about the roles and functions of the agency or what those may be in the future.

I commend the Minister for bringing the bill to the House. I believe it is very important legislation—particularly for Auckland—for focusing on those projects of national significance, and for removing the Resource Management Act as a weapon of anti-competitiveness. It is also a great day for those many New Zealanders who have been frustrated, whose businesses have been ruined because of the costs they have had to spend, and for those community organisations that do not have extra money in their pockets—particularly at this time—and have had to spend endless amounts of money in a lengthy process when they should be helping their communities. Businesses should be spending money on employing people at a time like this, rather than being involved in costly processes that take unnecessary periods of time. This is a great day for Auckland, and a great day for New Zealand. It is nearly 18 years since the passing of the original legislation, and people have had a problem with it. It is my understanding that they have been talking about reforms for the past 14 years, so it is a long time coming. I commend the Minister, I commend the technical advisory group for its work on this legislation, and I look forward to doing everything that I can as a member of the select committee to ensure that New Zealanders are heard and this legislation is passed for the betterment of New Zealanders.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : Labour has made clear that it will support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to go to the select committee, with some reservations and a case for exploration. It has been made clear already that there has been an ongoing process of change to the resource management legislation in the 17 or 18 years it has been before this Parliament. Steve Chadwick mentioned that it is complex legislation dealing with an evolving world—an evolving and complex set of issues balancing the often competing interests of development and sustainability.

Labour, of course, supports in principle any move towards making the Resource Management Act work better, but I think that it is important to keep things in some context. About a thousand resource consents are processed every week by councils around the country. Nearly three-quarters of them are met within the statutory time frames. About 4 percent are notified, and only about 1 percent are appealed to the Environment Court. Sixty prosecutions, or thereabouts, result under the Resource Management Act each year. I for one have been a beneficiary of past changes to the Resource Management Act. In 2005 changes were made around notifying consents and reductions to those requirements and I was able very easily to subdivide a property under the changes, which I think were introduced by my good friend the Hon Marian Hobbs.

It is also important that we as parliamentarians concentrate, through the select committee process, on making sure that we get the detail right and that the change can be enduring. One point I think we have to be very careful about is the wish of the Government, on the reinstatement of the powers of the Environment Court, to require security for costs. I raise that point through an example that sticks very firmly in my mind from the earlier days of the Resource Management Act, which is one that will be well known to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. In late 1994 the first fast ferries commenced their operations in the Marlborough Sounds. It was clear right from the start that considerable environmental damage issues were ensuing. A group of local residents, bach owners, fishermen, iwi, and others took a case to the Environment Court, seeking to reduce the speed of the ferries. They lost that case. Damages were awarded against them—a small group of local residents, fishermen, iwi, and others—to the tune of $27,000. There was also a cost order against Denis Marshall, the then Minister of Conservation, of about $7,000. Some 4 or 5 years later the Marlborough District Council managed to effect changes under the Resource Management Act to introduce the very changes that those small groups, supported by the then Minister of Conservation, had sought to ameliorate in relation to the impacts of fast ferries; a speed of 18 knots was set, both for the safety of people on beaches and a reduction in environmental impacts. So we need to be very careful in the select committee process to make sure that we do not mean that people will not be able to take a position against a resource consent proposal because they are in a small community or small group.

I acknowledge that the bill’s focus, when it comes to what it terms “vexatious and frivolous” objections, is focused on trade competition. I think everybody would acknowledge there has been a particular example cited in the House about a supermarket chain in Auckland frustrating the wish of another supermarket chain to quite legitimately open a branch. However, I just want to note that it is not always the case that trade competitors necessarily have their own venal interests to protect. Last year I made a submission against one supermarket chain seeking to establish a liquor store within the confines of its supermarket. I would have been delighted to have a supporting submission from the competing supermarket chain. I think that it may possibly have submitted one, and I do not think that the submission would necessarily have been solely limited to trade interests. I think the chain genuinely did not want to get into the situation of having to compete, and of having to start opening its own supermarket liquor stores if that consent had been granted for liquor.

However, speaking more broadly, I tell the House that Labour will support the improvements to the Resource Management Act being made under this bill—presuming, of course, that these do not come at the expense of the very important principles of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. I believe that the Minister, the Hon Nick Smith, does indeed want to protect the environment through this bill, and he has outlined that there will be no changes to the principles or practices of the Resource Management Act as a result of this legislation. I have to say, though, that there are one or two worrying signals around that. I noted in the House last week that a meeting in Christchurch prior to Christmas, which was attended by three Ministers, irrigators, dairy interests, and people connected to the corporate dairying sector, discussed the Resource Management Act and the need for water on the Canterbury Plains. There is a view that this country’s economic problems can be solved by bowling the Resource Management Act and giving the water to those who want it, and that nirvana will result. But that does not take account, as it must, of the fact that we want sustainable economic growth that does not continue to depreciate the quality—already low as it is—of the streams and rivers of Canterbury. We will need to be very careful of those issues as this legislation progresses.

We acknowledge the Minister and give credit to him for the briefing last evening, which was courteous. But this is a huge bill of 160 clauses, or thereabouts—over 118 pages—and we have still not seen the technical advisory group’s report. We have a lot of detail to work through to ensure that the bill achieves the objectives that are so nobly outlined by the Minister.

The Environmental Protection Agency will be created under this bill. It is not yet clear how it will work, where exactly it will draw its staff from, or the relationship it might have with the Ministry for the Environment. Nor, of course, is it clear what the cost of creating another Government agency will be, when this Government says it has concerns about that issue. The Environmental Protection Agency will play a very important role in terms of such things as the plan changes able to be processed by the agency, and by a board of inquiry. Again, we will need to see the details. We understand that National is proposing that the Environmental Protection Agency’s roles and functions will for the time being be exercised by the Secretary for the Environment. At this stage we have had indications that the powers will be transferred once the Environmental Risk Management Authority has been “evolved”, if you like, into the Environmental Protection Agency. Again, we await those details. The Minister said in his introduction that he will be working with the select committee to get the detail correct; that, of course, is very, very welcome.

I think one of the issues that will be of prime consideration for the select committee is the proposal to remove the current presumption in favour of resource consent applications and to amend the criteria for when public notification is required. Obviously, as we have noted already, about 96 percent of all consents are going through not notified. I am not clear that in fact the proposals will mean a reduction in the number of non-notified and notified consents. That detail will be awaited. Of course, the proposal as it stands may limit public participation; we await further detail in respect of that.

We have noted already in the House, I think, some concerns in relation to the loss of the Minister of Conservation’s ability to intervene, but we will work through that in the select committee process. There are proposals for raising the maximum fines for an offence under the Resource Management Act, from $200,000 to $600,000 for corporate offenders, and to $300,000 for individuals. Again, we will want to work through the details in the select committee process.

Labour has made it very clear that it wants to see better environmental policy. We will work towards that, obviously, within the whole framework of environmental policy statements and national environmental standards. We hope that this bill will accelerate and continue the progress that has been made. Thank you.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I am very pleased to rise today and speak in support of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, because reform of the Resource Management Act was one of the things it was important for me to be involved with as a member of Parliament. That might seem like a strange goal to have in these difficult economic times, but—and I agree with the Hon David Parker on this point—the Resource Management Act is indeed one of the most important laws that we have on our law books. I say that for two reasons. Firstly, it is true to say that the Act is the principal legislation we have in this country for managing our very important environment. I think we would all agree about the importance of that to us all, and of maintaining our clean, green image. The other reason this is such important legislation is that, if it is not working, it is like cholesterol in the arteries. It slows everything down. Things do not happen. The systems do not flow the way they need to flow. That is what is happening right now.

The Resource Management Act is currently a little over 17 years old. We know that around 50,000 resource consents are issued every year. Almost everyone we talk to will agree—and it has been quite heartening to hear broad agreement on this point today in the House—that, although the fundamental principles of the Act are sound and are supported, its operation has become overly bureaucratic. It is too slow, it is too expensive, and often it is not focused enough on the environment. Many other factors are often at play, and it is really worrying that factors that have nothing to do with the environment can often have a huge weighting in the eventual outcomes.

In my time as a lawyer prior to coming into the House, I spent quite a number of years working on resource management law and in the field. Although I by no means profess myself to be an expert, I have certainly seen enough to be confident in saying that the Resource Management Act has become cheque-book law. I do not think that is something that anyone in a free democracy wants to see. This law, and the outcomes people can get under it, are directly proportional, most of the time, to how much money they have to throw at the Act, and that is the sort of thing we have to address. I have seen the Resource Management Act work badly for almost everyone in the process. I have seen it work incredibly unfairly for applicants. I have seen it work incredibly unfairly for submitters. I have seen it being very difficult for councils, and I have seen councils being very difficult to other parties. I do not think it is excessive to say that the real benefit from the Resource Management Act at the moment is for the lawyers and the consultants, not for the environment. That is what we have to start dealing with. As we have already heard, this is stage one in a two-stage process of looking at this important Act, but I am very pleased to be standing here within the first 100 days and speaking in support of an excellent bill.

One thing we know and one thing that has become clear over the last 17 years is that bureaucracy is not good for the environment. If we are standing here today and talking up the importance of the environment, we have to recognise that and take serious steps to address it, which is what we are doing. I think it is also worth emphasising once again—although mention of this has been made already—that the changes in this bill do not affect the key legal thresholds in Part 2 of the Act. That is an important point to highlight: we are not changing those key legal thresholds. It is also worth noting that a number of sensible reforms were proposed by the National Government in 1999 through Simon Upton. These reforms would have made good strides towards changes that needed to made, but they were unfortunately abandoned by the new Labour Government when it took office. Perhaps that shows the preference that that Government had for bureaucracies over outcomes and growth. The changes in this bill reflect the desire of this Government to see greater leadership from central government on these important issues, and that is something I absolutely endorse.

I will talk a little bit today about the processing of consents and some of the changes we will see in that area. I will start off by looking at this issue of notification. Through this bill we are removing the presumption of notification, and we need to be clear that what that is doing is not having a presumption against notification; in fact, the bill takes us back to a position of neutrality. The reason that this is important, and we have already heard it, is that about 96 percent of consents are non-notified, so we have a legal test that has to be jumped over that does not actually reflect the reality of the situation. We are making parties go through an extensive set of legal positioning simply to get over this threshold, when we know in most cases that the threshold is not actually met.

The second thing I will touch on is the statutory time frames. In speaking to constituents and people who have worked with Resource Management Act consenting, I can say that the time frames of getting a consent through is probably the single biggest bugbear. I have heard stories of consents with 48 different requests for further information coming from councils taking over 4 years. That is the sort of thing we have to look at. One of the things the bill will do, which I think will be a good step forward in this area, is to stop the clock on the statutory time frames for only the first section 92 request for further information. So the council can quite validly go back to the applicant and ask for further information, and the time stops. But if the council continues to go back 48 times, or however many times, the statutory time frames will continue to apply. That is a real incentive for councils not to keep using that as a delaying tactic. That is an important advance.

One of the other changes that will make a big difference to the statutory time frames is that there will now be a requirement that hearings must close no later than 10 working days after the hearing from the last party to be heard. Councils cannot use that process to hold hearings open indefinitely, which would effectively buy them more time for the decision-making process. So, again, we are getting back to what the Act intended to happen, which is that the statutory time frames would be meaningful. Backing that up, this bill will insert in clause 35 of the Act new section 36AA, which will require councils to come up with a discounting scheme on their fees. So if they do breach the statutory time frames, then they will be required to give a discount to the applicants. Let us bear in mind that the most important part of that is that it will compel the councils to track and record their work on keeping to those time frames, which we know will lift their performance.

Another point I want to mention concerns direct referrals to the Environment Court. Again, this is something that I think will be very useful. There are a number of complex matters on which the parties—the submitters and the applicants—all agree that whatever happens they will be off to the Environment Court shortly. The thing to mention for people who are not familiar with resource management law is that when one goes to the Environment Court, one has a full rehearing—one starts all over again. So, effectively, everything up until that point has been an utter waste of everybody’s time, and one starts again—all the money, all the time, and all the lawyers’ fees. When we are dealing with a proposal that we know will end up in the Environment Court, the ability to go straight there is a huge advance. Let us remember that we have the safeguard that the territorial authority has the consideration as to whether that is appropriate. If it will prejudice any party, then the council can have a say about that. It will save considerable time and money.

Another point to touch on is the removal of the ministerial veto under clause 20, and we have approximately 100 of these a year. In the Whangamata situation, after a long process of consenting—I believe it was 10 years—the process was tipped over by a Minister. We think that is quite inappropriate. That was utterly offensive to the people who went through that time and process, so I am quite pleased to see that going, bearing in mind also that the process can be tipped over by the court anyway. The decision held in, but it put another 5 years on the process. In respect of issues of national significance, it is fabulous that we will now see a better use of the board inquiry process—a streamlined 9-month time frame. We will see major infrastructure projects—projects that are important to growth and development in this country—processed in 9 months, so everyone can get heard and we can get some growth back into the economy. One other point I want to make is around changes to the requiring authority. This is an important point, although a bit legal: the change will stop a requiring authority that will compulsorily acquire land from being the judge in its own court. At the moment a requiring authority has to apply for approval to acquire the land, and it makes the decision. That is a nonsense, and we are very pleased to be changing it.

I will end by talking a little bit about the impact of the legislation on my own area of Canterbury. In Canterbury we have massive issues around water, and most of us recognise the importance of irrigation and water infrastructure to not only the local economy but the national economy—and the ability to continue to put food on the table. Freeing up the resource management process and allowing it to happen sensibly, more cheaply, and more quickly will be of huge benefit not only to the people of Canterbury in my region but to the people across New Zealand. I commend the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, for the bill, and I commend the officials and advisers who worked on the bill. I want to finish by saying that this bill is a fundamental part of this Government’s wider objective to lift growth and productivity in this country.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 19 June 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer), during any evening of a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I seek the leave of the House to table the report of my technical advisory group that I gave a commitment to the House I would table today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document can be tabled. It has to be tabled, by the way, by 6 o’clock.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. The passage of this bill is long overdue. The previous Government promised to clamp down on contraband, but, as with so many other law and order bills, it allowed this bill to languish on the Order Paper for months. The previous Government had the opportunity to push through this legislation, but it did not take that opportunity. It did not do so because cracking down on crimes run from inside prisons was never a priority. In contrast, we have given the passing of this legislation a high priority, because there is an urgent need to improve the safety and security of our prison system, and to better protect the public from high-risk offenders who are released into the community. The bill is an important first step towards achieving those objectives.

I do not intend to give a lengthy summary of the bill. Its content was well covered in the recent second reading debate. I would like to highlight a few of its provisions that will help to make our prisons more effective. First, it is essential to stop drugs and other contraband getting into our prisons. Among other things, the bill makes it an offence for visitors to have unauthorised items in a prison without reasonable excuse. It also extends powers to search areas such as staff lockers.

Drug testing is an important means of controlling drug use by prisoners. It is therefore important to ensure the integrity of testing procedures. The bill does this by providing for retesting where a sample is found to be diluted or contaminated, and for strip-searching of prisoners who are about to be retested.

The use of cellphones by prisoners threatens prison security and public safety. This matter is addressed by giving specific legislative authority to detect, monitor, and jam cellphones in prisons. At the same time, there is protection for telephone companies and their legitimate customers, because the bill prohibits harmful interference with cellphone use outside prison boundaries.

It is totally unacceptable that some prisoners have been able to abuse the mail system to organise crimes and to threaten people. We know that letters containing threats, plans for further offending, and other prohibited communications have been leaving prisons. This will not be tolerated. Under the bill, prisoners’ private correspondence may be read routinely by authorised officers. Correspondence with official agencies, members of Parliament, and legal advisers will continue to be protected. When highest-risk prisoners are released from prison, there needs to be a coordinated approach to their management in the community. This bill assists in that regard by providing for police, the Department of Corrections, and, where appropriate, relevant social agencies to enter into information-sharing agreements for the purpose of monitoring highest-risk offenders.

The present bill is part of a broader Government strategy to improve the prison system. I have directed the Department of Corrections to work on a range of important initiatives. These include, amongst other things, boosting the numbers of prisoners learning industry-based skills, doubling the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment, and reviewing the screening and treatment of prisoners with mental health problems.

We also intend to introduce and pass legislation that will allow for competitive tendering for the management of prisons, on a case by case basis. The Auckland Central Remand Prison was successfully managed by a private company for 5 years, but the prison had to revert to public management because of legislation passed by the previous Government. We believe there could be substantial benefits from private sector involvement in the management of prisons.

The Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) makes a significant contribution to the safe and effective management of the prison system and of the highest-risk offenders released into the community. Many people who look at this bill and who are listening to this debate would wonder why this was not done a long time ago. There is nothing in this bill that does not reek of common sense.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be a member on the far side of the House who is talking on a cellphone. I think that is a breach of Speakers’ rulings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. If the member wants to use her cellphone, she must go out into the lobby. I ask the member to continue.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I rise to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). I would do that, of course, because it was authored by the previous Government. I listened carefully to the Minister of Corrections, and I must say that she made an interesting contribution, which was rather measured, in stark contrast to the rather colourful tough-person statements she has made both in this House and outside this House. These statements may well lead to her and the taxpayer’s dollar being in jeopardy.

Hon Member: Never, mate.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I do not cost the taxpayer money, mate, unlike the member’s colleague. It is interesting that the Minister entered the fray on this bill only in the Committee stage—her colleague Simon Power took it through the first and second reading stages. She made some rather uncharitable and factually incorrect comments, if I can say that tactfully so that I am not in breach of the Standing Orders. For instance, I recall in the Committee stage that that member said it was outrageous that members of the public were charged a fee to visit Spring Hill Corrections Facility.

Hon Member: Were they?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, they were. She paraded this fact as some sort of outrage, but as usual it was a little half-truth. She never told the New Zealand people why. It is true they were charged. Why? Because the Department of Corrections decided to have a charitable event—and without bringing the Deputy Speaker into the debate, he has acknowledged that; I think he knows the area well—to raise money for a charity. So members of the public could visit Spring Hill, and the money they paid was donated to charity. But charity is a word that does not come easily to that Minister. She is not charitable in nature, from the bile she puts upon this House from time to time.

She gives little half-truths, like on the issue of telecommunications, which she waxed so eloquent about in terms of how long it took. I read the transcript of what her colleague Simon Power said about the telecommunications issue. Quite rightly, he pointed out that the technology had not advanced to the point where, say, one could block out just the telecommunications of prisoners in Mt Eden without taking out large portions of the telecommunications of the surrounding residential area. But, oh no! Charity and charitable words do not come easily to Ms Collins. She gave us a little half-truth to try to justify her position.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is a very personal speech.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, it is not a personal speech. I am laying some facts on the table, unlike that member, who tells little half-truths and is very slippery with the facts. I am pleased to support this bill. [Interruption] Of course, the Government members do not like it; they are on a wee skewer today and they do not like it. This is a good bill, because under the previous Government, which proposed this bill—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep the level of interjections down, please.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am indebted to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But, actually, you can let them go, because the inane way in which they make their contributions somehow bolsters Ms Collins’ position as a person who has very little charity—

Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to bring the member back to the bill. He is giving a rant of personal abuse, but to get back to the bill would, I think, be helpful to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is some fairness and equity in what the member is saying, but this is a robust debate and these are debating points.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Let us be very clear. It is not personal to point out half-truths by that Minister in regard to Spring Hill and the communications issue. But I do say that under the last Government, which authored and introduced this bill, there was an 84 percent reduction in prison escapes. We know that very clearly. We know also that in the 3 months that this Minister has ranted and raved around the country, there have been more escapes, especially in relation to her police portfolio, than in the last 3 years. So her credibility now totters on the edge of the knife.

The last Government, of course, reduced drug taking in prisons. Drug taking in prisons was less than half what it was when the National Government left office in 1999. But this Minister stands up and takes credit for this legislation, as she stood as the Minister of Police and took credit for the opening of the Counties-Manukau police station. She said the station was an illustration of the Government’s commitment to law and order, when, of course, it was built, paid for, and allocated under the last Labour Government. It is great to take credit for the last Government’s provision of services! Also, fewer inmates were returning positive drug tests. Labour put in place something that I think was very practical. We put in 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing so that we did not have cases—

Hon Trevor Mallard: They used to have an open door at Wanganui Prison.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says they used to have an open-door policy at Wanganui Prison. I do recall that the previous National Government’s Minister of Corrections, Nick Smith, presided over the Department of Corrections when a chap with a saline drip on a stand managed to outrun the prison guards and vault the fence. Actually, I do not think there was any perimeter fencing around some of the lower-security prisons.

I am very happy to support the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). It is robust and it also provides some technological future-proofing for our prisons. Indeed, I will look with interest as we proceed to implement this legislation, and as an Opposition we will hold the Government to account by the same standard with which members opposite held us to account when we were in office.

I recall the words of the now justice Minister, Simon Power, when he said that two escapes in a week was a worry. I have asked Judith Collins what six escapes constitute, and how she would characterise six escapes in a week under her watch. Her response was, at first, silence, then to say that it was an operational matter and it was nothing to do with her, and then to come out and bag the previous Government. When we were in Government we did not allow those six prisoners to escape, but this Government does not provide any support for the victims or reassurance for the community. Her only action, as she said in this House some time ago, was to run around the country visiting prisons and to ask everybody else how she should do her job. I would have thought that after 9 years in Opposition she would come to this House with a plan. In effect she has; but it is our plan, our bill—we authored it when Labour was in Government.

Now Judith Collins goes to the Department of Corrections officials to ask: “What should I do? I have had six escapes in a week. My colleague Simon Power said two was a worry under the last crowd, but what do you think I should I do?”. The Government does not like it. To use the Dad’s Army expression: “They don’t like it up ’em, the old cold steel.” Government members do not like it when we bring facts and when we prove that they tell half-truths. Then what they do is to characterise it as personal by saying: “Oh, Cosgrove, you’re making a personal attack on the Minister.” If it is a personal attack to correct the record over half-truths about Spring Hill and about the telecommunications technology, then I say to colleagues that I stand guilty as charged. It is not a personal attack to bring that Minister to account.

I support this bill, the Opposition supports this bill, and we support it because we authored it. I invite the Minister in her own unique, “charitable” way to give credit where credit is due rather than, as she has done as Minister of Police, wander around the countryside taking credit for police stations that were funded and built by us, and say that they were her commitment to fighting crime. If her only commitment to fighting crime is to congratulate herself on what the previous Government did, then goodness knows what will happen to the safety and security of the community.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) : It was a good decision to call that member. Listening to the former Minister Clayton Cosgrove speak, one would think he was speaking in opposition to the bill. In fact, I thought that maybe the Labour members had done a U-turn halfway through the discussions today and come up with a decision that they were no longer going to support a bill that, as the former Minister said, was drafted by the previous Government and has been modified—I guess we could say—and brought into Parliament by the current new Government.

Listening to the member, I was a bit perplexed as to where he was heading, but the reality is this legislation is something that should have been done at least 8 years ago. It has been in the pipeline for so long that it is a wonder that it did not disappear like a lot of other legislation on the Order Paper such as the trout amendment bill and various other bits and pieces that hung around there—I think they have been there for successive Governments.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to clarify that it was not Labour that removed that legislation from the Order Paper; it was National.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

SHANE ARDERN: I not sure how to respond to that. It is not often that I end up in a situation where I am not sure how to respond to a member like that. The reality is that the bill has been in the pipeline for a long, long time; it is well overdue. It does a number of things and perhaps it is time we started to talk about some of the things that the bill does.

One of the things the bill does is to make it much more difficult now for criminals inside prison to communicate with the outside world, particularly when that communication is not in the best interests of justice. In fact, in a lot of cases, communication was taking place to further enhance prisoners’ criminal activity both inside the prison and outside. That is one of the things the bill deals with. As the Minister of Corrections said in her speech, it does so by using modern technology that, hopefully, will not interfere with legitimate telecommunications activity outside the prison. I know that that technology has advanced substantially in recent times. We will have to wait and see, but we are assured that that is the case.

The legislation also brings about a situation where, finally, when people go into prison they will have to adhere to what the jury and judge dished out in regard to the punishment they were supposed to receive, what they are allowed to take in and out of the prison, what they are allowed to do within the prison itself, and how they are allowed to carry out their legitimate business. It should also bring an end to the kind of—I guess one could say—covert activity that has gone on over the years within our prisons in regard to dealing in drugs, and other illicit activity.

It always astounds people when they find out that a criminal, for whatever reason, has been able to carry out some kind of commercial or drug-dealing activity when supposedly in jail. Hopefully, this bill will send a message to those people and give the Department of Corrections the opportunity to do something about that in a way that it has never had before. Those are very positive outcomes. A number of different anecdotal statements have come back to us as members of Parliament about the kind of activity that some prisoners are engaged in: intimidating witnesses, writing coded letters to supposedly their personal friends or loved ones, and suchlike. Hopefully, the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) will help to bring about changes to some of that behaviour.

I was interested that the previous speaker went on about the fact that some of his criticism had been interpreted as a personal attack on the Minister. I know that the Minister will take any type of personal attack that that member wants to dish out. It certainly will not have any effect on her response to the way our laws are drafted. So if the member thought he could in some way intimidate the Minister with that bluster, then I suspect he is mistaken in his judgment. I also suspect that, if anything, his approach will help this side of the House have some clarity about the fact that this bill is overdue. It should have been done by the previous Government. The legislation has been necessary for a long time. It will bring about changes that most decent people will say are the right changes, and potentially will help us have better control over what happens in our prisons. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am happy to speak on the third reading of a bill that—as has rightly been pointed out by previous speakers—was drafted and introduced by the previous Labour Government. I am pleased to see that virtually the only criticism that has been aimed at the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) has been that it was not introduced sooner. I think that stands the bill in good stead in terms of its content. Generally, the debate around this bill has been productive. I have to say that that held true until we reached the Committee of the whole House stage and what I perceived to be a most un-ministerial display by the Minister of Corrections when she made a speech on the bill.

I think this debate is an opportunity for us to clarify a bit more of the context that surrounded the bill when it was first introduced. If we reflect back on the situation when Labour came into Government, we see that, beginning in the 1990s, drug use in prisons was endemic. We have to acknowledge that drug use in our prisons in the 1990s was a massive problem. In fact, by 1999, 34 percent of inmates were testing positive for drug use. That is a fact that has been brought out many times before. It is not something that has been disputed by either side of the House. We also had a high rate of prison escapes. That is also something that has not been disputed by either side of this House.

Labour did have a response. It was claimed during the Committee of the whole House stage that there were 9 years of inaction. That is an absolute half-truth and a “mistruth”. I would not go so far as to say it is a lie, because I know that is outside the Standing Orders. Labour introduced the Corrections Act in 2003 in response to all of those issues. As a result, drug use halved. That is not something this House can dispute; drug use halved.

Hon Judith Collins: How would you know?

JACINDA ARDERN: Because we have the facts, the numbers, and the drug tests to display. Unlike members on the other side of the House, who think evidence is something to be bandied around at will, we choose to use it to back up the legislation we introduce.

We also saw the number of prison escapes drop dramatically. In fact, prison escapes per 100 prisoners were just under one-sixth of the escape numbers under National, so there was a dramatic decrease. But we recognised that more could have been done. That is why we introduced this amendment bill. I am pleased to see it now being progressed through the House.

Those issues are not the only ones raised by the Minister that require correction—and I will pick up on a couple that were not mentioned by Mr Cosgrove in his address to the House. There was quite a significant rant by the Minister about prisons being luxurious. It is a myth that she has perpetuated in the House—and beyond. It is a myth that I notice seemed to stop circulating about 90 days ago when she took up the post of Minister of Corrections. Apparently, the day Judith Collins took over as Minister of Corrections, prisons stopped being these luxurious places. In 24 hours everything in those prisons changed, apparently. Apparently, prisons are no longer the luxurious places she claimed they were under Labour. Any member of this House who has visited a prison will know that—as the public described when they went to Spring Hill for a charitable event—our prison system fulfils its requirements. They described it as chilling. Our prisons have been described by that Minister as luxurious. If she still believes that to be the case, then I would be interested to know what it is about our prisons that, in that regard, she plans to change.

I will not reiterate any more of the finer details of the bill. There is something I want to highlight, though—a statement made by Simon Power in his first reading speech before this bill went to the select committee. He stated that the select committee process would “determine whether these issues need the type of approach that the Government is offering, or whether in fact we need to be tighter than the approach the Government is offering.” We have not seen any substantive changes made either by the Government or, I would say, by the select committee, and that again demonstrates that this amendment bill got it right in its original bar 1 text.

I will dwell for a moment on a couple of changes that were not addressed by the select committee. We were looking at trying to reduce the incidence of contraband in prisons. Two issues that this bill does not pick up on contribute to the problem of contraband: the size of the prison muster and the ability of staff to deal with it. We have seen several bills come through this House that will directly impact on the prison muster. We all know in this House that as a consequence of those bills we will see an increase in our muster.

The Government claims it is putting forward ideas that will deal with our increasing prison numbers. The first one, which we heard about just recently, is the increased use of private prisons. I want to reiterate the Labour Party’s position on this issue. Labour’s position—as it has always been—is that prisons are a core public service. They are part of what the State and the Government provide. There is a reason that we perceive it to be that way. If private enterprise enters into the provision of prisons, it will do it for one reason and one reason alone—profit. For what other reason would private enterprise enter into provision of prison services? We already know; we need just to look at the numbers. Under the public provision of prisons we are looking at a prison remand cost of $36,000. If we look at the numbers under private provision, we are looking at a cost of $42,000. Profit is the No. 1 reason. And the State has other things it needs to achieve in its provision of prison services. One element is retribution—fulfilling society’s requirement that civil liberties are denied. The other is rehabilitation, which is a core part of the prison service, as well.

We need to keep in mind that the prison muster will directly have an impact on contraband. But the second thing the Government is proposing is the use of prefab prisons, or Lego prisons as I have heard them called in the UK. The UK imported them from China. I am not sure whether that is part of the Government’s vision, as well. I am not sure whether there are Resource Management Act concerns. Perhaps, to get round those, the Government could turn those prefab prisons into mobile prefab prisons and circulate them around various communities so that there will be only a little bit of complaining every once in a while.

We need to remind the Government that the wider issue of contraband is not about just the provisions in this bill; it is about the Government’s ability to deal with prison numbers, it is about the staff working within its prison service, and it is about the operational provision of prisons—whether they are private or public. These all impact on the issues that the Government is trying to deal with in this bill. I urge the Government, now that we are soon to pass a bill that both sides of the House agree on, to start considering the wider issues that will impact on contraband.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise to speak in the final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). My view on it has not changed since I spoke during the second reading. The bill is a reasonably good start, I suppose. It will give staff of the Department of Corrections, when they are not engaged in other things, the right to search prisoners for contraband. It will allow for random searches of staff lockers, which, sadly, is sorely needed. This week an absolutely damning report has been released, which not only implicates Mr Barry Matthews but goes further down.

In talking about contraband, I say that it is illusory to think that this bill will stop cellphones and drugs getting into prisons. It might help to curb access to contraband a bit better, but, as I said in my second reading speech, the only real way to stop it is to have only non-contact visits, where even lawyers must sit in a separate room and communicate with the prisoner by telephone. I have seen with my own eyes that that completely stops contraband and cellphones getting into prisons. This bill is nothing more than a reasonably good start.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it doesn’t. What about crooked guards?

DAVID GARRETT: Well, exactly! That is why there is a provision in the bill to search guards’ lockers. Sadly it is necessary. It should not be, but it is. As the previous National speaker said, we found a drug ring being run by cellphone from Auckland prison. Apparently several members of the drug ring allegedly made millions of dollars. What a disgraceful indictment on the previous system.

We have also seen much hand-wringing from members on the other side. Perhaps I should not put it like that, because it is correct that many prisoners have drug and alcohol issues. It is also correct that prisoners should be offered treatment, but how can they possibly be offered treatment if prisons are awash with drugs? Some criminal lawyer friends and colleagues say that drugs are easier to get inside prison that outside. At least the dealers are close by. As I have already said, the provisions relating to cellphone communications are a good start, but the only real way to stop cellphone usage is to prevent contact visits.

The ACT Party supports this bill. It will give Department of Corrections staff some more tools in their arsenal. But it goes nowhere near far enough. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : One of the facts that really stood out in the Department of Corrections’ post-election briefing to its Minister was the fact that the majority of offenders have histories of addiction and substance abuse that have typically contributed to their offending. The statistic that said it all was that a massive 90 percent of inmates fall into this category. Nine out of every 10 prisoners have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. What we know, too, is that if these same inmates do not receive treatment while in prison, there is an impossibly high chance that, upon release, their addiction will lead to criminal behaviour that leads the offenders right back through the prison gates. It is a vicious cycle in which the revolving prison door places relentless pressure on the economy and a heavy burden on society.

What we are talking about is not just the 7,900 inmates who currently occupy our prisons; we are talking about the children, the partners, and the parents of these inmates. We are talking about the 29,000 staff who work in the justice sector. If the forecasting is right, the pressures on prison capacity will get even worse, with the projected increase to 10,700 inmates by 2016. This is population growth that nobody welcomes. The impetus, then, to get it right is incredibly important. This bill is a step in the right direction.

The Māori Party fully supports the intention to improve the operation of the corrections system, to move with the times, and to respond to some of the technological advances that challenge the sector. Our overriding caution, however, is that the amendments in this bill will certainly allow a clean sweep of the system, but what we worry about is the amount of dirt still swept under the mat. By dirt I am referring to the rubbish that is smuggled in by loved ones and staff, the substances that addle minds, hype up the paranoia, add fuel to an explosive temper, and become the key ingredient in conflict and dispute.

The vital need to address drug and alcohol abuse has been swept under the carpet, while we deal to search, detection, and offence provisions. It is a bit like the perennial problem of Governments that become fixated on building prisons rather than investing in solutions. The new Minister of Corrections has been confronted with the fact that the downstream effects of Labour’s policies have created a massive demand for prison beds, spiralling up to 2,200 more beds—the equivalent of four new prisons. The taxpayer is counting the cost of a prison system that continues to breed failure by building jails and incarcerating people, but ignores the critical issues and systemic failure that lead to criminal offending in the first place.

But there is good news at hand. The Māori Party is delighted that our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples has been appointed Associate Minister of Corrections. Dr Sharples has spoken often in this House of his desire to enhance the mana of all people in society, and especially those caught up in the criminal justice system, by promoting a system based on restorative principles and less on adversarial principles. It is a principle that, clearly, this Government has recognised as desperately needed in a criminal justice system that fails to invest in the restoration of relationships, and ignores the imperative to inspire offenders to address the issues that led to offending.

It is a principle also that Ombudsman Mel Smith promoted in his inquiry into the criminal justice sector in 2007. In his report he concluded: “I believe that statements from politicians are necessary which challenge the ‘more imprisonment’ panacea.

I am of the view that such statements will be heard with a great deal more sympathy than is superficially apparent, as my investigation leads me to conclude that there is much wider public support for, and social acceptance of, an approach to offenders based on humanity, rather than retrebrition,”—

Hon Judith Collins: Retribution.

RAHUI KATENE: —I thank the Minister—“than is apparent from headlines.” This is good news.

Hon Member: Who wrote this rubbish?

RAHUI KATENE: It is the Ombudsman’s fault for using that word.

What he said is good news. It is a debate well worth having. In their various contracts across the State sector, chief executives of Government departments are required to contribute to public debate in their field. We look forward to the chief executives of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections leading this debate about the things that really matter: the three R’s of rehabilitation, restoration, and reintegration.

I have broadened our debate on this bill to ensure that we have a sharp focus on the whole operation of the corrections system, not just the various measures that are being introduced to improve incrementally the control of contraband in prisons. Make no mistake: the heightened emphasis on operational measures to restrict contraband, to monitor prisoner mail and telephone calls, to disable and jam cellphones, and to increase information sharing with the police are all worthy goals. And we are particularly pleased that amongst the legislative measures is the understanding that the offence provisions will apply to all inmates and staff.

The bill specifies a whole range of precise indicators. The additional search powers will now apply to staff lockers and spaces. There are detection provisions regarding drug and alcohol testing. There are new offence provisions regarding sample tampering. There is a consistent standard that all mail can be read in order to determine whether there are grounds for it to be withheld. There is authority for the department to intercept, monitor, disable, disrupt, and interfere with wireless transmission to prevent cellphone use. And the bill now enables information to be shared with the police, and to be extended to relevant social agencies. These are all important means of achieving compliance with law reform to improve the operations of the corrections system.

The smuggling of cellphones into prison has long been a problem. Having access to mobile technology ensures access to a means to organise criminal activity. Access to a mobile can also provide the opportunity for those on the inside to harass and threaten victims, witnesses, or other members of the public on the outside. Furthermore, increasing the capacity to monitor prisoners’ telephones calls increases the chance of being able to prevent illegal activities or the harassment of members of the public by inmates.

It is, of course, noteworthy that the staff of prisons are to be included within the scope of this bill. We do, of course, recall that there have been unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct and corruption laid against staff at Rimutaka Prison in the last 2 years, and that many of those staff were Māori. Bearing this in mind, Māori Party members will be watching carefully to see that these new provisions do not, in fact, escalate harassment of prison staff, and Māori staff in particular.

Finally, I return to the dirt under the mat. The Department of Corrections administers a screening test of offenders at the pre-sentence stage. That test can be used to develop sentence plans, and to refer inmates to appropriate services, including prison-based drug treatment units. Currently, there are enough treatment places for about 500 prisoners per year. That is a mere 6 percent of the total muster. We know that substance abuse treatment does make a difference in minimising criminal behaviour and reducing the recidivism rate. Treatment, if associated with community supervision and social support upon release, is even more likely to be successful. Although we support this bill as a very positive move to ensure that search, detection, and offence provisions are introduced to improve the justice system, we cannot rest easy until a comprehensive approach is taken to address drug and alcohol abuse, to provide effective education and training opportunities, and to invest in success rather than systematic failure. Thank you.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). Firstly, I acknowledge the excellent work of the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Judith Collins. It has been outstanding. I also acknowledge the previous speaker, Rahui Katene. She was quite right when she said there is a lot of work to do.

The previous Government dragged the chain for 9 years. It dragged its heels and nothing happened until towards the end of that period of 9 years. It was disappointing to see that the minor parties opposed the inclusion of this bill in the legislation that went before the House before it rose for the 2008 election.

I agree with David Garrett that this is just the start. Let us face it, why should prisoners have cellphones? People seriously wonder why prisoners should even have televisions. This legislation takes a giant step forward in making sure that prisoners realise they have done the crime and must now give up the privileges that law-abiding New Zealanders enjoy, do the time, and do it hard—and rightly so.

New Zealanders are tired of criminals being seen as pandered to. On numerous occasions I have received, as I am sure a number of my colleagues have, emails that outline the rather innovative approach that is taken in Arizona. I am sure members are very aware of what I am talking about. Prisoners sleep in tents, wear pink overalls, and work on the roads in full public view so that they are shamed and do not want to reoffend. They do not get any luxuries. It is no surprise, then, that reoffending rates are incredibly low in Arizona. Offenders do not want to go back. A huge part of the population here in New Zealand wants to see that sort of tough approach to criminals in this country.

Another request I get constantly is that we go into contracts with the private sector and contract out prison services to Indonesia, or establish prisons on islands. That is the sort of comment that a big sector of the New Zealand public is making in relation to dealing with criminals in this country. New Zealanders have lost their patience on this matter. This bill is an acknowledgment to those people that, yes, we received that information, and, yes, we have heard their concerns, but we will not necessarily take that really hard-line approach. That is why I acknowledged the previous speaker.

This bill is a start. Changes contained in this legislation reinforce this Government’s tougher approach of clamping down on contraband, drugs, cellphones, and weapons in our prisons, and restricting the ability of prisoners to abuse the few privileges they have. Those prisoners should consider themselves lucky. All of these changes are long overdue, which is no wonder given that the previous Government had 9 years in office but did nothing.

Prisoners will now not be able to get on the phone and dial a prostitute. They will not be able to get on the phone and dial a drug ring. Once this bill is enacted we will be able to say: “Tough, get over it, shape up, ship out, and don’t come back.” We want to make sure that people in prisons really have time to think about what they are doing with their lives, and about the directions they are taking. We want them to be able, with further support, to get out there and have a productive, contributing, meaningful life where they get to enjoy the privileges that law-abiding New Zealanders have—where they can feel the wind on their face, feel the heat of the sun, feel the patter of the rain, and enjoy family and friends. That is what we enjoy. They should have the opportunity to do that, too, but unless they get with the programme they will not, and we do not want to make it easy for them.

My heart goes out to the victims, because they never felt they had the justice they deserved under the 9 long years of the previous Government. I will tell members one of the reasons for that. A former Minister stated in this House that he did not denounce criminals.

Hon Judith Collins: Who was that?

SANDRA GOUDIE: It was the Hon Jim Anderton. He did not denounce criminals. What is the opposite of denounce? Well, the opposite of denounce is condone. If you condone the activity and the actions of criminals, you do not support—[Interruption] I beg your pardon. My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate.

When a previous Minister says he does not denounce criminals, then by definition he condones their activities and their actions. Can any of the members opposite actually understand what it means to victims to hear a statement like that? I ask where the support is in such statements from an Opposition that thinks it is wrong to denounce criminals and that, by that definition, condones their actions. I think that is absolutely appalling. It is no wonder this bill languished for 9 long years and we did not have the sort of activity that should have taken place during the 9 years of the previous Government—now the Opposition.

In the last 9 years National has consistently highlighted the unacceptable levels of contraband within prisons. Upon release Rachealle Nāmana, the killer of 23-month old Lillybing, claimed that while in prison she had access to a range of drugs including P and to a cellphone on which she downloaded pornography. How about that! Labour is an Opposition that does not disclaim—what was the word I used?

Hon Members: Denounce.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Thank you. I say to members bear that word in mind. The Opposition does not denounce criminal behaviour.

In 2006 a prostitute was found in the grounds of a Department of Corrections staff college near Rimutaka Prison after her services had been procured by an inmate using a cellphone. But we should not denounce that behaviour, should we? Is that what Opposition members say? In 2006 an inmate at Christchurch Prison was sending obscene text messages to women. Did the Opposition denounce that behaviour? No. And in 2006 P was being consumed in the exercise yard at Mount Eden Prison. Did the Opposition denounce that behaviour? No. What is the opposite of denounce? Why, it is to condone.

I would like to get that message very, very clearly across to the New Zealand public because I think it gives them a sense of the sort of ideology we are dealing with. That is why it is so important that we get things started, move across all fronts, and identify the precursors to crime and deal with them. We have to identify how we give support to those criminals to get them out of our prisons and back on to the streets as responsible New Zealand citizens. At the same time, if they have done their crime they have to do their time and do it hard.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) : I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). I liked the tail end of the speech by the member for Coromandel, Sandra Goudie, when she began to talk about rehabilitation, about getting people back on the streets, and about reducing reoffending. But I say to the member that prior to that point in her speech my head was spinning with what was essentially a sort of tabloid horror show of crime stories. I want to finish the parliamentary week on a positive note, but I cannot pass up the opportunity to note what a display that last speech was of how low the standard of political debate has fallen.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, I tell you what, she has been sent here by an electorate, so—

PHIL TWYFORD: I say to the member for Northcote that we are better than this. We are better than this. [Interruption] Well, we should be. Is this what our political system has fallen to? Is this what our political debate has fallen to concerning matters of crime and punishment? Do we want our politicians and political parties to engage their minds simply in outbidding each other on how tough they are, and in recounting an endless stream of stories—some kind of tabloid horror show of nasty criminals?

We do have problems in this country. We do face challenges in the field of crime and punishment. We have a proportion of our population behind bars that is one of the highest in the world—the highest outside the United States. We have high levels of recidivism. No one is proud of that. But if there were simple answers, then I tell members that those answers would have been implemented and turned into policy by now. I call on all of my parliamentary colleagues to lift the standard of debate and to talk about practical measures that will actually improve our justice and corrections system.

On that note, I say that I am happy to stand in support of the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a practical bill, it is a reasonable bill, and I am proud that my Labour colleagues did the hard work in putting it together during the last term. The Corrections Act is relatively new legislation, and, generally, I think, pretty much all observers would say that it is working pretty well, but there are some fine-tuning amendments that need to be implemented.

Significant progress has been made over the last few years in this area. Prison escapes in the last 9 years were down by 84 percent to just one-sixth of escapes in the prior period. Drug taking fell to less than half of what it was in the period prior to 1999. Fewer inmates returned positive drug tests. Those are all very positive developments. But we need to meet some of the challenges that face us, in particular by cracking down on illicit drug use and on the illicit use of cellphones to conduct criminal enterprises from behind bars. That is one of the things that this bill seeks to achieve. It is a sensible bill, as I said. It is a practical bill, and I think it is patently self-evident to the New Zealand public that the conducting of illicit drug use and criminal activities within our prisons is utterly unacceptable.

I lend my support to my colleague Rahui Katene for her comments about the kind of problem that substance abuse poses in our corrections system. It is clearly a problem for the management of good order within prisons, but it is also a major factor in the high rate of recidivism. I am very proud that the previous Labour Government made big strides in the last 9 years in setting up additional drug treatment units within our prisons. I think that is very creditable. As far as recidivism goes, I think everybody knows that, along with high rates of illiteracy, high rates of substance abuse are among the factors that drive people on the road to crime. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, then helping people to get off drugs in prison is one of the best things that we can do.

In order to tackle the whole problem of contraband, the legislation has a number of very reasonable and very practical initiatives. It enhances provisions for the searching of staff lockers, amends the definition of “strip search” to allow a more comprehensive approach, provides for retesting of drug tests, and generally gives prison staff the tools that they need.

I noted with some amusement that both Caritas and the Catholic bishops made substantial submissions to the Law and Order Committee about their concern that the Act prohibited prisoners from consuming alcohol, even small quantities of wine, in connection with the celebration of Mass or Holy Communion. That iniquity has been addressed by the legislation. I do not know whether any of my colleagues can put me straight on this, but I wonder whether any Rastafarians made similar submissions to the select committee. It would be interesting to know the select committee’s response to that.

• Debate interrupted.