Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003, 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 on 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, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

This bill includes significant changes to the way that the Resource Management Act operates. It has three main objectives: reducing compliance costs, simplifying the use of national instruments, and strengthening historic heritage provisions. The issues addressed in this bill are not new to the House. The provisions are essentially the same as those reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on the previous amendment bill. The main differences are the reintroduction of limited notification, which was removed by the select committee; the removal of appeals of notification decisions to the Environment Court, which was put in by the select committee; and minor amendments to the provisions relating to national environment standards and national policy statements. The bill does not raise any new policy issues from those previously considered by the committee.

I have reintroduced the bill in this form to clarify what is actually being enacted, instead of what was in, and then went out. There is nothing in this bill that was not previously considered by the select committee, and I see the committee’s role as only verifying that this is indeed the case.

Before going on to outline the main provisions in the bill, I need to thank United Future for its help in getting this bill into the House. United Future members shared this Government’s frustration that the useful and important reforms implemented by this bill were not proceeding through this House, and have lent their weight to seeing the bill progress. Without their partnership this bill would still be languishing on the Order Paper. The Resource Management Bill has been there since 1999; it was reported back in 2001, and now, in 2003, with United Future’s support, the legislation in that bill is back before the House.

My partnership with United Future members to address problems with the Resource Management Act does not end once this bill is passed. United Future members have raised other problems with the Resource Management Act, and I intend to work with them to achieve positive outcomes, such as reducing even further the backlog at the Environment Court, and removing unnecessary impediments to major roading and energy proposals.

The process to amend the Resource Management Act was initiated by the former National Government. The bill that emerged included a range of controversial proposals to reduce compliance costs, including contestable resource consent processing, and mandatory use of hearings commissioners. Such changes would have compromised environmental outcomes and reduced opportunities for public participation. They would have reduced the role of local government, which is counter to a key principle of the Act that local government is best placed to make the majority of decisions on environmental and resource management matters. I am pleased to see that, following lengthy consideration of that bill, the committee recommended against those measures.

This bill includes a number of provisions that, though individually modest, will collectively provide meaningful reductions in compliance costs. Processes for the ordinary tasks associated with resource consents will be improved. There will be a simplified list of matters to take into account when making decisions on resource consent applications. The number of rules in district plans will be reduced, as new rules will replace the old as soon as they are beyond challenge, unless councils specifically state otherwise. There is also a range of improvements designed to offer certainty to applicants, such as clarifying the lodgment date, and the effect of requests for further information, meaning that time frames to process resource consents will be reduced. All these provisions offer improvements to the Act, to allow local authorities to deliver better process without compromising the quality of decision making.

In response to concerns raised by the business compliance cost panel, the Government announced its support for further changes to the Act. One such change is the introduction of limited notification—a new method of processing resource consents for activities with minor effects on the environment. I want to say upfront that these new provisions retain the current presumption in the Act in favour of notification. Limited notification will be applicable only where the resource consent application is for a controlled activity, or where the effects of an activity will be minor. As proposals with more than minor environmental effects will continue to be publicly notified, I am confident that there will be no additional environmental costs borne by communities.

This new process provides for reasonable compliance costs while maintaining good environmental outcomes, and opportunities for effective involvement by affected parties. It will reduce the cost for applicants, by avoiding the cost and time associated with a fully publicly notified consent process when such a process is unwarranted. I also want to make clear that the provisions do not change the definition of who can be an affected party. Residents associations and other community groups will still be considered affected parties, and I say that I fully expect local authorities to notify community groups when consent applications bear upon those groups’ reasons for being.

Limited notification does not undermine the role of plans and decision making. Plans will continue to establish the range of activities that are permitted and the issues that are of particular concern to local communities. Decisions about whether the environmental effects of an application are minor, and who is affected, will continue to be guided by plans and the extensive case law in this area. The bill formally introduces a concept of a permitted baseline confirming the existing case law established over the years.

The bill also contains some changes that will directly improve the efficiency of the Environment Court. The backlog of cases in the court is already reducing, and these changes will ensure it reduces even more quickly. The original bill as reported back from the committee included a new right to appeal decisions on notification to the Environment Court. This would have been a change from the existing provisions, which allow only for judicial review at the High Court. The Government is concerned that the Environment Court is currently overburdened, and this would be a significant new work area for it. We have recently invested significant additional resources in the Environment Court to help it clear its backlog, but such an amendment would undo much of the progress currently being made. For this reason, the bill introduced here preserves the status quo, and does not give the Environment Court this new role.

One of the main criticisms of the Act is that there are inconsistent approaches to similar environmental issues throughout the country. The bill as redrafted provides for a greater range of matters to be addressed through national environment standards, and clarifies their scope and effect. It makes clear that where a national environment standard conflicts with a rule in a plan, the more stringent of the two prevails. The bill also improves the provisions for making national policy statements by removing unnecessary steps in their development. These changes will enable central government to provide better guidance to local government, and more certainty and consistency to business and the community about appropriate environmental bottom lines. We expect to develop a package of national environmental standards, and, potentially, one or two national policy statements.

To ensure that heritage values are accorded increased importance, the bill elevates the protection of historic heritage to a matter of national importance. It also gives increased status to iwi planning documents, by requiring local authorities to take them into account when they draft their own policies and plans. Clarifying iwi interests, through iwi management plans, will provide greater certainty for developers and local authorities. It also puts Māori in a position to participate more effectively in resource management decision-making.

In conclusion, the changes in this bill will ensure that the processes of the Resource Management Act work better, without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): Never have I seen such an abuse of the parliamentary process. That the Minister for the Environment is hiding under the bombs of Baghdad to pull off this trick is something that every member of this Parliament should feel ashamed of.

This bill matters. This issue matters. There are energy stations that need to be built and there are roads that need to be built, and there is nothing as important as ensuring that the Resource Management Act is properly changed and amended. But what is outrageous is this. For nearly 2 years, the Local Government and Environment Committee considered over 400 submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. It sat for 80 hours, and reported back to this House in May 2001. For 100 weeks this Government stymied progress on that bill. Now the Government has pulled this trick. It has introduced an identical bill to that which was reported back by the select committee, but under a new name. It even says, in the explanatory note, that the bill is virtually identical. What an outrage!

That members of the United Future party would disgrace this Parliament with that sort of conduct is really bringing this place into disrepute. But I have to say I understand why members opposite do not want to have a full and frank debate about that select committee report, or about what the Government is doing with the amendment to the Resource Management Act.

I will go through just what the Minister has said, and show how it contradicts the record. Back in May 2001 the Minister rejected limited notification. She told everybody it was a bad idea. Martin Gallagher and four other Labour members voted against it. So why has there been a U-turn? Well, the Minister says we got the business compliance costs report, but that does not stack up, because 5 weeks after the business compliance report, the Minister told the environmental law association that she supported 100 percent the recommendations of the select committee.

What has been pulled off here is a dirty trick. There is one difference between the two bills: the bill from the select committee has 18 parts—each of which could be debated by Parliament—whereas this bill has about 18 subparts. What sort of con is that? Did the Minister tell Parliament that that is what she is doing? Is she telling Parliament that the Local Government and Environment Committee can sit for 2 years, listen to over 400 submissions, then have its report ignored? Why do we bother sitting on select committees?

💬 David Cunliffe: Oh, sit down.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Cunliffe pokes his head up. I want him to get to his feet and tell members why they should sit on select committees, when the Government uses that sort of perverted process to avoid a debate on the select committee report on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

Then there is the behaviour of the United Future party. Mr Dunne has put out a press statement saying he supports this bill because it has got standing. Well, I have had a look through every single page, and he has misled the business community. He has told people that this bill has standing in it, but it does not.

Most significantly, at a time when this Parliament and this country are crying out for changes in the Resource Management Act, this bill makes things worse. This bill will provide more uncertainty, more delays, and more costs. The Minister went on the Holmes programme the other week when I raised the issue of Ngāti Pu up in the Coromandel. They said they will just object to everything: the first rule, object; the second rule, object; and, if in doubt, they will go back to rule one. The Minister said she would fix it. I challenge the next member to tell us whether there is anything in this bill that will stop Ngāti Pu or any other organisation from objecting to anything, anywhere. This bill does nothing to stop that.

I then look at what else is in this bill about extending Parliament’s business in respect of spiritual definition. When this Parliament starts allowing regulation around Māori spiritual values and ancestral landscapes, it is getting itself into a serious pickle. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says we cannot have prayers at the Prime Minister’s dinners or at formal occasions, but we can—

💬 Jill Pettis: What’s that got to do with the bill?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will tell the member what it has to do with the bill. Can the member answer why we can move a motorway for a taniwha? Why will this legislation extend the ability for courts to chase taniwha, when we cannot have a prayer at a formal Government ceremony? That is a disgrace.

What is missing from this, the single most important bill, and from the Environment Court? Direct referral. Simon Upton did all the hard, intellectual work for Marian Hobbs. She sat around for over 3 years, ignoring the proposals that were put forward, and rejecting some of the most important ones. What will this bill do to facilitate the development of Project Aqua or any of the other energy projects around the country? Zilch. What will this bill do for an organisation like the Whangamata boating club, which has spent $750,000 over the last 7 years in trying to get a resource consent to build a marina? It has been told it will be another 2 years before it will get a decision. What is in this bill that will change that? Absolutely nothing! To those in the United Future party who say that this bill will somehow make a difference to the bureaucracy that swamps us from the Resource Management Act, I say they are telling porkies. I say they have got it wrong.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use that expression in this House. He will withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. The leader of United Future has told the business community that this bill introduces standing; he is not telling the business community what is in this bill. I refer to the legal opinion given by Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young. It has said this bill provides no assurance of any improvement in the uncertainty, costs, and delays of the Resource Management Act. That is what Chapman Tripp says. I challenge any members opposite, including those from the United Future party, to tell us that that legal opinion is wrong. Are we to reject the legal opinion of that firm about what is in this bill?

Then we turn to the provisions that extend the bureaucracy: the increased weight that is given to iwi planning documents, the extension of the historic heritage measures—all of those things that will make this bill a lot worse. Then we come to the granddaddy of them all. The Minister, having sat on her hands for 100 weeks in relation to the previous select committee report, moves in the House that the select committee has to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. She does nothing for 100 weeks, then wants the select committee to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. What sort of respect is the Government showing to the select committee process of this Parliament? Absolutely none!

If New Zealand is to get economic progress, if we are to raise our standard of living, then we need to sort out these resource management laws—and we need to do it properly. We should have issues such as direct referral to the Environment Court; we do need to readdress the definition of the environment; we do need to narrow the definition of the environment; and we do need to provide for commissioner hearings. National will be arguing every step of the way that this Parliament’s processes are being totally abused by this Minister, and that the United Future party is consenting. Remember all those highbrow United Future speeches made by Peter Dunne about how United Future would be the party that stood up for proper parliamentary process? Proper parliamentary process! You have to be kidding! We will be arguing every step of the way on this bill that the Government is cheating, that it is abusing the parliamentary process, and, most important, that it is not serious about fixing the problems with the Resource Management Act.

The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) has been a long time coming. The original Resource Management Act was written by Labour, then amended and passed into law by National more than a decade ago. It is important to remember that, because in recent years it has become very common for some parties to engage in Resource Management Act bashing. It is important to remember that this bill is a product of both Labour and National Governments in the past 15 years. Perhaps it is timely that United Future has arrived to be able to support this bill coming into the House, so that some of the much-needed amendments to the Act can be finally addressed.

Since that time, 15 years ago, many problems have emerged in the way that the Act has been implemented and administered. But I think that most people would agree that, whatever problems the Act has, it is still a vast improvement on the Town and Country Planning Act and the plethora of other legislation that it replaced. However, despite the Act’s superiority to the previous state of affairs, it has been apparent from at least the mid-1990s, when National was in Government, that the Act is in need of extensive reform, particularly in the way it is administered. The reform process was started in the late 1900s by the then National Government, and resulted in Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill being tabled in 1999. Unfortunately, the reform process, which was slow even to get going, has been the victim of highly partisan politics in this Parliament, and it has been stalled ever since. The real and increasingly urgent needs of New Zealand families and the business community have taken a backseat to this in-house politicking.

For this reason, today’s first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a real and much-needed breakthrough. We in United Future have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament, and today our efforts have reached fruition. We did not get everything we would like to see in this current bill, of course; but we do believe that it represents a significant step in the right direction. Of particular importance to us was that we did make sure that the bill includes limited notification provisions, and that council decisions not to notify a resource consent application remain appealable to the High Court only, and not the Environment Court.

I am also pleased with the provisions requiring councils to take into account iwi planning documents. The smart thing for councils to do in response to this provision will be to put the details from hapū and iwi planning documents that are reasonable into their district plans. If this happens, then everyone will know what hapū and iwi would object to in advance, and Māori will know that everyone is aware of their concerns. This provision, therefore, could lead to increased certainty for everyone involved in the resource consent process, and mean the avoidance of many of the Resource Management Act – related costs and delays that are now common.

One concern I do have is the implications of both the existing and the strengthened and expanded heritage provisions—a major feature of this bill—for private property rights. This is something that will require vigilance and, maybe, further legislation at some stage in the future, but it does not necessarily have to involve amendments to the Resource Management Act. One of our colleagues, Gordon Copeland, is working on a member’s bill to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so that it specifically includes property rights. This alone could go some way towards addressing the problem I have outlined. I have no problem with—in fact I strongly support—the protection of New Zealand’s beautiful and unique heritage. However, when this protection infringes an individual’s or family’s use of its own private property, that family should be adequately consulted and, if necessary, compensated.

United Future is keen to ensure that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a first step, rather than an end point, in the Act’s reform process. We have several innovative reform proposals on the table, which the Government has agreed to discuss further with us, and I look forward to more progress in the near future. As I have mentioned, we are particularly interested in protecting the rights of families, and property rights in general, and we will be working closely with the Government to achieve further practical outcomes in that respect. We also want to remove unnecessary impediments to making much-needed improvements to New Zealand’s infrastructure, particularly with regard to roading and electricity developments. We already have a common basis with the Government for continuing the process of reform of the Resource Management Act, and that is a belief that reducing the backlog at the Environment Court is the first step towards other meaningful reform in the long term. Once the backlog is addressed—and today’s bill goes some way towards this—it will become clearer what other specific reforms are needed.

I thank the Minister, Marian Hobbs, and her advisers for listening to our concerns and working so closely with us, and I look forward to continuing and building on our working relationship in the future. It is a relationship that, it seems, is going to last for a long, long time.

I note that National and ACT have been complaining loudly that the Government is somehow violating parliamentary process by moving to pass the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in its current form. I wish to make it very clear that United Future is committed to correct parliamentary processes and to the observing and upholding of the Standing Orders. It is important for all parties to have the opportunity to debate all legislation thoroughly in this House. If Nick Smith’s concerns are about the lack of time for the Opposition to debate the clauses of this bill when it gets to the Committee stage, then that is a matter that can be raised with the chairperson at that time, and I am sure that the chairperson, as the defender of all parties’ rights, will take that into account.

But I am sure that the taxpayers of New Zealand do not want the Standing Orders used for time-wasting opportunities by the Opposition, like the time that Nick Smith moved frivolous amendments during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill last year, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That process lasted for 2 hours of this debating chamber’s time. I have never before seen such a waste of taxpayers’ money as I did on that occasion. I know that I cannot use the “h” word in this House—so I will not—but I am struggling to find any other word to describe the actions of the National Party and the ACT party when they complain about how long this Resource Management Act amendment bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. Now, when the amendments it contains are about to finally become law—a law that will benefit businesses, residents, and iwi in New Zealand, and improve the operation of the Act—we find that the National Party is trying all kinds of tricks to delay it. I say that, no, it is time for this bill with its amendments to the Resource Management Act, which have been debated ad infinitum, to be passed into law for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and in the interests of achieving a greater balance between our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s own country, which He has given to us, and allowing freedom to pursue our personal, family, and economic interests in the land.

We in ACT—along with the business community of New Zealand, and any landowner or property owner—say that the Resource Management Act has become the single biggest block to investment and wealth creation in this country. I certainly find that deeply regrettable. Indeed, the Government’s own compliance cost assessment came to that same conclusion. Regarding the response the Government has delivered here today in Parliament, not only is the content perverse, but the process—the way the bill is being rushed through—is indeed very perverse.

The point has already been made, but I will reiterate it. It was May 2001 when the amendment was introduced, and I would like to reflect on the work that Simon Upton did. I supported the 12 significant changes that Simon Upton proposed in a review process that went on for about 18 months to 2 years. There was wide consultation. All those changes, I believe, were necessary. However, they were not sufficient. I would put them in the category of tinkering, because I think more substantial changes were needed than those that were proposed. Then with the change of Government in 1999, that bill was referred to the new environment select committee, chaired by the Greens’ Jeanette Fitzsimons, and, essentially, everything was overturned. Then the Government left the bill languishing for 100 weeks on the Order Paper.

It is a substantial bill. It comprises 18 parts, and what we have here is a bill introduced yesterday, tabled and having its first debate here today, and now the Government wants to rush it through the select committee process in about 3 weeks. It says by way of background that the bill is virtually identical to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee—virtually identical; those are the words. But the bill comprises only two parts. The Government has condensed what were 18 parts down to two parts, and, just by chance, there are 16 subparts. That means that there are only two debates.

I know that United Future members are new to Parliament, but surely they are not that green. Surely they are not that naive. They have rolled over on their bellies, with their legs in the air, and said: “Tickle my tummy.” They have been taken for a bunch of suckers—absolute suckers. For his whole time in Parliament, Peter Dunne has championed the Resource Management Act. He has been the great “man in the middle” who knows all about the Act, saying that nothing will get passed his scrutiny. I remember him proclaiming that he had managed to reintroduce “standing”. Well, he has not, and his party does not even understand what standing means—as we used to have it under the old Town and Country Planning Act. Let me assure United Future members that they do not have standing. If you sold out because you thought you had standing, then you were hoodwinked and taken for suckers. You were sold a pup.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not use the word “you”. He is bringing me into the debate.

I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker. United Future members were taken for suckers. They were clearly hoodwinked, and it seems right—even to this point—that they do not even know what has happened to them. That is rather sad in many respects.

If it wanted to make changes, the appropriate process for the Government would have been to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. What is the Government’s dilemma? Why has it left the bill languishing for 100 weeks? We know why. It is because the Government cannot get the Greens and United Future all of one mind to pass the bill through this Parliament. That is why it does not want to have 18 debates for the 18 clear parts, because some of them would be supported by the Greens but others would be opposed, and United Future might oppose some and vote for others. Rather than having to try to manage that, the Government has just condensed the bill down to two parts. That is a perversion of process, and I believe it is deeply regrettable.

When the whole Resource Management Act process started out in the mid-1980s, it was meant to streamline our environment laws. It was part of deregulation, and meant to be a much-reduced process—a one-stop shop. It was the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. But something happened on the way to the forum. The whole process has been subverted and captured, and we have welded on to it all these nebulous concepts of social engineering, community goodwill, consultation, and metaphysical beliefs. That is why the Resource Management Act has become a nightmare for anyone who has to work with it.

The administration of the Resource Management Act will be carried out by local government, and regrettably, the Local Government Act, which was rushed through by this Government late last year, will greatly compound the nightmare. We have abandoned representative democracy in this country in the name of participatory democracy. Now we have all this woolly-woofter, endless consultation, and endless process—somehow thinking that we will get a better decision if we consult with and empower everyone, rather than having representative democracy. The two Acts working together—the new extension of the Resource Management Act working alongside the Local Government Act—will be a nightmare, an absolute quagmire of woolly-woofter humbug and process. It is all about process rather than outcome.

I indicated earlier that while I believe that Simon Upton’s amendments were necessary, they were not sufficient. They were minor tinkerings to the extent that three major changes need to be made to the Resource Management Act. Firstly, we have to introduce standing, as we used to have in the Town and Country Planning Act—in other words, the “Twigs and Tweet Society” of Gore cannot object to a resource consent application in Whangarei.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: They do not do that.

They certainly do. Nor should someone in Hamilton object to something in Christchurch. That is outrageous. So why not have standing? In other words, unless someone is clearly affected by the application, it is essentially none of his or her business.

The second key point is compensation. I reckon we all value major—

💬 Jill Pettis: Some of us care about the whole of the country.

Oh, absolutely. If society says that that bit of coastline, or that river valley, or that mountain top, is of such significance that the public sector needs to take it, that is socialism by stealth, unless we pay compensation to the property owner. Where the public good requires the confiscation of private property, then full compensation should be paid. We cannot have a law that allows a sneaky socialisation by stealth. We must respect property rights in this country, and unfortunately the Resource Management Act is increasingly becoming a vehicle for socialisation by stealth. That is why the socialists over there love it. The more tied-up processing consultation they can have, and the more they can confiscate and restrict property rights, the better. So it all goes into this big package of consultation and public committees, where they will all discuss it and talk it out, and somehow the Government thinks it will create wealth in this country with that format. Let me assure the Government that it will not.

The third and final change must be to turn the bill back to the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. We should not have nebulous cultural things like taniwha, and hobgoblins, or whatever, appended to this legislation. It is hogwash to put into resource management law things like kaitiakitanga that are not even defined in the Act, but that somehow confer guardianship on one particular group in society. Those are the sorts of problems we are getting in this country, and increasingly it is becoming a vehicle for extortion. There are numerous examples where it is now an established process for extortion. It is losing its credibility fast, and ACT will certainly be opposing this legislation.

The Resource Management Act was already deeply in trouble. There was an opportunity to try to turn it back and get the trend on the right path. Unfortunately, this bill continues down the wrong path.

To quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith, this bill matters. It is a good bill that will improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act. It will help to remove and reduce costs and delays without undermining the Act’s objective of delivering a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. The sad thing is to hear the Opposition playing politics with it and trying to have a buck each way. On the one hand, the Opposition says that compliance costs are too high, and on the other hand, it tries to criticise us for moving expeditiously to reduce them. Every one of the issues contained in this bill was openly discussed and debated amongst the 400 submissions that were heard over several months. There is nothing new in this bill. It is simply a reformatting, and some rejudgments—and they are often rejudgments on the basis of issues that the Opposition believes it stands for: reduction of compliance costs, making the Environment Court more effective, and making parliamentary democracy work.

Now Dr Smith has alleged—and I think it is an abuse of the Office of the Clerk—that this is a violation of parliamentary process. If that were true, this bill and this motion would never have been cleared for introduction into the House. That member is reflecting on the Speaker’s office and on the Office of the Clerk. He may think that he is attacking the Government, but he is attacking Parliament. If the Speaker or the Clerk believed that the Standing Orders were being violated, they would simply not have allowed the motion. If you want to have more of a say, you should put that call in the Committee stage and see how many numbers you get.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not bring me into the debate.

I am sorry, I mean that member.

To conclude: as a result of the Government’s initiatives, we are moving ahead on a raft of initiatives to reduce compliance costs, of which limited notification is only one. I commend this bill to the House.

My colleague Mr David Cunliffe made several references to the report of the select committee. I seek the leave of the House to debate the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

The member alleged that I drew the select committee report into the debate. I did not. I referred to the select committee process, but not to the report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debatable matter. The member has sought leave, and it is up to the House to decide whether it is granted. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) is effectively the No. 1 bill as reported from the select committee in 2001, plus the Government’s changes of policy since that time. The introduction of this bill is an abuse of process, because when a Government plans to introduce just two policy changes—both of which were to do with matters discussed extensively by the select committee—when it has changed its mind from the way it voted on the select committee and decided to do something differently, the way to do that is through a Supplementary Order Paper. It is not normally done by introducing a whole new bill that is largely the same as the old bill. That, of course, would have allowed us to have a proper debate on the report back of the select committee, as well as debates on the changes.

I concur with Opposition members who have said that 5 minutes at the Committee stage is not sufficient to discuss the 57 pages of complex and controversial legislation that is now all in one part. Admittedly, it would be challenging to get through 18 parts in the Committee of the whole House. The Greens actually offered the Government extra sitting hours to enable it to do that, but the Government did not choose to avail itself of that opportunity. I do not know why the bill sat there for 100 weeks. It certainly was not because we were impeding progress. Everyone knew that we would vote against the reintroduction of limited notification, but plenty of other people in the House would have supported it, so it is still a mystery to me why it had to take so long. It is very much a slight to the select committee, and it has been worsened by the reference back of this bill. What are we expected to do with it in the very short time available? We have other hearings planned on other bills, and we are travelling outside Wellington. Are we supposed to just give a rubber stamp to somehow legitimise that process?

I am very puzzled as to what United Future thinks it has got out of this process. Both of the policy changes that are accomplished by the No. 2 bill, compared with the No. 1 bill, were announced by the Government well before the new United Future members came to Parliament. They have not achieved any policy change whatsoever in the bill. They have simply allowed themselves to be used as a tool to prevent parliamentary debate on the many important matters that are now all rolled together in one part—subparts 1 to 16. The House needs to debate the decisions of the select committee on the Upton bill. It needs to debate the Government’s changes to those committee decisions in this bill, and it needs to debate any amendments that are introduced in the Committee stage of this bill—and I am sure that amendments will be introduced in the Committee stage.

Today I will confine myself mainly to talking about the select committee’s work, because as the chair of that committee, which spent more than a year travelling around the country, hearing 400 submissions and considering those submissions very carefully, I feel that our work has been undervalued.

The Resource Management Act controversy reflects a divergence of interests, and therefore a divergence of views in society. No amount of talking will reach agreement between those divergent views, but at least we should ensure that the drafting of the bill carries out the policy intentions. Developers see the bill as an obstacle, as a compliance cost, and as a source of delay. They oppose public participation, and they want the right to do what they like on their own land, and with the public commons, as well, because this bill deals with matters like air and water, which are not anybody’s property. Developers are calling for a reduction in the rights of the public to bring evidence on their proposals to hearings.

On the other hand, many members of the public see that the Act is not protecting the environment as it was intended to do. Councils are constantly permitting things that are contrary to Part 2. Just one example of that is the inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastal environment. In how many places around New Zealand do we see councils giving permission for inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastal environment, which under section 6 of the Act they are not supposed to do? The public want a say in how the areas where they live develop. It is not just about personal property rights and whether our land and buildings are affected. It is about our rights as citizens to help shape our living environment.

The Act relies on contestable evidence at a hearing to establish whether the environmental effects of an application are acceptable to the community, and whether what is planned might be better remedied, mitigated, or avoided. There is no inquiry function at the Environment Court. There is no independent authority protecting the environment. It is left to the community, and to those who care to put up the evidence—which the developers themselves will not provide—on the likely effects of the proposal. Therefore those hearings, and those things called objections, are vital for the proper functioning of the Act.

The community has often been right, and the developer wrong. I think of the Golden Cross mine at Waitekauri near Waihi, where people got up and said that they had lived there for generations, they knew that land was unstable, and that it slipped. The developer brought in expert witnesses to say that it was quite stable, and so the resource consent went through. What happened? The land started slipping. At last count they had spent $30 million trying to stabilise it, but still have not completely succeeded, so we should not just dismiss the evidence that the community can bring to the hearings. Public participation is at the very heart of the structure and the philosophy of the Act. It cannot work without it.

Simon Upton’s bill planned further restrictions than the current Act. The select committee, including the Government members, voted to remove those restrictions, but they are being put back in this No. 2 bill. I hope United Future members will explain to families who will lose their rights to affect the way their neighbourhood develops why they have voted for this limitation on notification. I hope they will be able to explain to the families who find their property being undermined when the bulldozer suddenly moves in next door—as has actually happened—that they voted for those families not to have a right to object in those cases.

The approach of the select committee was that it would support anything that would reduce compliance costs and delays without reducing environmental standards or the public’s right to participate—but only those things. We were also very mindful that case law had established a lot of precedent under the Act, and that changing definitions and the wording of clauses without very good reason was going to impose huge compliance costs and delays on applicants and everybody else, while people rushed off to the courts to get new case law. So we tended to be conservative in changing wording unless there was good reason for it.

The Opposition is fond of saying that the bill has been gutted, or that compliance costs have been increased. Let me run through the positive things that came out of the committee’s deliberations. First, we got rid of some silly, over-the-top proposals like allowing developers to choose their own consultants to process their applications; like bypassing the council altogether and going straight to the court, if the developer wants, immediately putting the hearing right out of reach for many of the public; like mandatory use of commissioners to hear cases for councils—people who have no accountability to the district, and no long-term association with it. Those omissions enraged the Opposition. But the Chapman Tripp people quoted by another member have clearly not read the bill. There is a lot in the bill that will reduce delays and costs, and could have been doing so for the last 2 years, if the Government had been prepared to give it legislative time.

A major criticism of the operation of the Act has been that no effort has been put into the central government part of the deal. The decisions are devolved to councils, but those decisions are meant to be guided by national policy statements and standards, and training and guidance, and for nearly a decade none of that happened. The national policy statement process in the Act is too long and unwieldy, and there are too many stages of consultation. We worked hard to improve that without losing public participation, and the new process is workable. I hope we will get some national policy statements, because that will make things easier, faster, and cheaper for councils.

Environmental standards can be developed under the Act, but there is no mechanism to make them operational through plans. The bill provides that mechanism. That will save a lot of duplication of effort and costs for councils. There is a lot of extra cost if an application has to be heard under both an operative and a proposed plan at the same time.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation for New Zealand. This bill has been in the redrafting process for some time, and I am delighted that with the support of United Future we have been able to bring this bill back to the House. It is a good bill. [Interruption] If only ACT and those hard-line right-wingers would read something, for a change. This bill gives people an opportunity to be involved earlier on in the process. It encourages debate, rather than the hard-line attitude that ACT and National would prefer. I am surprised at the criticism by ACT of participatory democracy. That is what we have fought to preserve all these years, is it not? The legislative process that ACT and National would prefer, which would ride totally roughshod over people, is absolutely ridiculous and does not bear contemplation. I am delighted this bill is back in front of the House. It will be good for our society, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: “Back in front”? It’s the first reading.

Well, that member did not mind rapid progress on the Te Puke bypass, so he should get his priorities right.

The Labour member who preceded me obviously has not been following this bill. She talks about this bill coming back to the House, but this is the first reading. The bill is not coming back to the House; this is the first reading of the bill. She constantly talked about the bill coming back to the House, yet this is the first reading—or that is what this House is being led to believe by the Government. Secondly, that member seemed not to understand what was in the bill, insofar as local involvement and participation in resource consent management is concerned. She seemed to be totally unaware of the way in which this bill works in that area, much to the astonishment of Mrs Jeanette Fitzsimons, one of the previous speakers.

I am quite staggered at the way in which this bill is proceeding. I could have spoken earlier in the debate, but I thought I would listen to some of the members who have worked on this bill, in its previous incarnation as the Resource Management Amendment Bill, in order to find out more about it before I said anything. I have had the opportunity to discuss it with Jim Peters, the New Zealand First spokesperson on the matter, and I am making my comments on that basis, as well. The main point is that this bill is really just a mishmash of resource management law over many years. The Resource Management Amendment Bill sat here in the House, as we have been told, for 100 weeks after it was considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and it is really out of date already. If we really look at resource management law, we see that that bill passed its use-by date a long time ago.

This bill will be referred to a select committee. If the House wants to do the job properly with resource management law, we should be starting all over again. This legislation is historical now. We talk about Simon Upton’s involvement with it and what he did, and then what the Labour Party did when it came in. It really is just a dog’s breakfast now. If we are to do anything in resource management, we should get rid of this bill altogether and start all over again, with a clean slate.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: And get it right.

This bill certainly will not get it right. It will really make another mess of this whole difficult area. I have done some resource management work, and I know how difficult it can be.

I am really staggered that the United Future party should take credit for this bill and the way in which it has been drafted. The first principle of the democratic process must be to allow one’s representatives in Parliament to speak on an issue fully and fairly, so that all aspects of a bill can be considered. I do not think I have ever seen an Act of Parliament—and I have seen just about every Act of Parliament that is on the book in my 41 years in legal practice—that has 110 clauses in only two parts. The first part has 95 clauses, and the second part has another 15.

I was speaking to a senior lawyer from one of the big law firms only last week, and we were discussing a particular piece of legislation. I mentioned in passing that the particular part we were discussing has five subparts, because of the way in which the Government uses that situation in the House to cut down on speaking time, and he was quite staggered to learn that. Finally he understood why it is that in some commercial legislation a part of a bill can have many subparts, some of which make no sense whatsoever: because that is only a debating tactic in Parliament to stop the Opposition speaking on a bill.

That is what the Government is trying to do here: it is trying to stop the Opposition from speaking on the bill. If there were 16, 17, or 18 parts, we might have been able to spend half an hour on each part and to have a debate of about 8 hours or so. Now, with just two parts, the Chairperson would be entitled to take the view that the debate should be much less than 8 hours. We will be lucky to have 2 hours’ debate on the bill, and that will be a matter for the Chairperson to decide at that point, based on the way in which the bill is presented. So what United Future is doing is cutting down the Opposition’s right to debate the bill in the Committee stage by 75 percent, in my generous estimation. That is an utter disgrace in a democracy. Yet United Future is taking delight in cutting down the Opposition’s debating time on the bill. Mr Baldock had the cheek to say that we were just trivialising the bill, by making the debate on it last for so long.

I will tell Mr Baldock what this bill does. I will explain the bill to him, although I will not have enough time to do that. For example, Part 1 has a subpart 1, which is the interpretation clause. Everyone knows that usually the interpretation clause in a bill can stand on its own, but it is now part of Part 1. The purpose and principles are in subpart 2. Matters of national importance will now be built into a debate of possibly 1½ hours on 95 clauses. Matters of national importance are of so little importance to this minority Labour Government and its partner, United Future, that they want virtually no time to be spent on that debate, at all. It will be difficult for members of the Opposition to spend enough time on it.

Then subpart 3, “Duties and restrictions under this Act” relates, for example, to restrictions on the use of the coastal marine area. Members could spend quite some time just on that issue alone, but debate on that will be cut down by the way in which United Future and this minority Labour Party have structured the bill. Subpart 4 is entitled “Functions, powers, and duties of central and local government” and clause 9 relates to the functions of regional councils. I would have thought that regional councils feel that they have some standing in the community, and that their powers and functions should be the subject of some debate. But no, they will be put into this short debate on 95 clauses. In relation to regulations prescribing national environmental standards, surely everyone in this country and this House wants to have a good look at what the bill provides for those matters, but no, that is part of a subpart. Other areas such as the content of regional policy statements, the content of regional plans, and district plan rules will all be crammed into this very short debate. Resource consents would otherwise take an hour on their own, but no, subpart 6 relates to resource consents and that issue will be crammed into that debate, as well.

Coastal tendering is near and dear to the heart of many members of this House, but this minority Labour Government has no regard for democracy. We have made a lot of noise about Saddam Hussein, what a tyrant he is, and what he does to his people. In a democracy one would expect that a Government that talks like that would allow its own Parliament to debate an issue, but no, it has purposely changed the debate on what should be 18 parts into a debate on just two parts. That is about as undemocratic as it can be. If we had an Attorney-General in this House who adopted the rules of an Attorney-General, we would have expected her to threaten to resign over such undemocratic and unprincipled political behaviour. After all, the Attorney-General, as the principal law officer, stands in a special relationship with Parliament, the courts, and the executive. One would expect that type of person to ensure, when she was discussing matters in Cabinet, that this Parliament had a proper right to debate those issues. But no, this Government is prepared to ram through the Supreme Court Bill or to turn this country into a republic, and this is the type of way that we would see legislation being passed in a republic, without any regard for the duties of the Opposition.

As an Opposition it is our duty to go through this legislation and to point out any defects in it. There would be many occasions where a bill was much the better because of the points raised by the Opposition. I am sure there are Government members in this House who have taken up points raised by members of the Opposition and have given them effect.

We have looked at other areas of this bill, such as declarations, enforcements, and ancillary powers. We looked at the right of appeal. Obviously, that is one of the most important areas for anybody on either side of the resource consent application process, but, again, that is all to be crammed into the debate on Part 1.

I was very impressed with Ms Fitzsimons’ speech. It was interesting that she made the point that the United Future members have achieved nothing by their support for this bill—absolutely nothing. As a new member I was staggered to learn that. I would have thought that a party that claimed it was here in the House on the basis of some sort of desire to reduce compliance costs and to improve business in the community would at least try to achieve something. But I am told that all the things that the United Future member referred to in this debate were already the subject of public statements by the Labour Party prior to the election. Well, really! United Future says it has certain standards, but one can only assume that if it has those standards it does not have any idea of what is happening. If United Future had any idea of what was happening and it made the statements that it has made, we would wonder what its standards were based on. Really, there is a great contradiction between what United Future has said and what it has done. Common sense dictates that there should be a similarity between the two, but clearly that is not the case here.

I would have thought after all the debate since the introduction of the bill’s predecessor in 1999, and after building on improving the legislation that was introduced by the previous National administration, the people who have been bleating for the last 3 years about the whereabouts of the amendment bill, asking why it was not back in the House, saying we have terrible delays in resource management, and asking what was happening with that bill, would welcome its return to the House in this form and the opportunity they now have to debate it. Instead, we have this pathetic bleating from the Opposition, and the extraordinary procedural obstruction that we saw at the start of the day from the man who says he wants the legislation back in the House. Well, we have found a way of giving the National Party the opportunity to debate the issues and to tell us the other things that need doing. I am pleased to support this bill in its process to the select committee, so the committee can check that the content of the bill matches that of its predecessor.

I have rarely taken more enthusiasm in opposing any piece of legislation than I have in opposing this bill. When the Resource Management Act was introduced in the early 1990s it was a well-intentioned law that made some significant improvements on what had been before. But it has been obvious for a number of years that there were some significant problems with that law, and the last National Government moved to introduce some changes to it some 4 years ago. Sadly, the bill before us today does almost nothing to improve the situation, and almost nothing to remove the problems that the Act has created. Every survey of business compliance costs over the last 5 years at least has talked about the problems and the compliance costs caused by the Act. The problems are very substantial, and this proposed legislation does almost nothing to fix them.

There are at least four distinct problems with the present Act that this bill does not adequately address. The first and most obvious problem that we are aware of is the one that involves the extra costs and the long delays caused in any major project, and the huge costs involved in lost growth opportunities, in particular. Before I was elected, Transit New Zealand told a select committee of this House that it can take up to 7 years to get approval for a major roading project through the resource management process. That contrasts with the situation in Singapore, which can get approvals through in about 7 days.

The Prime Minister has estimated that the cost of traffic congestion in Auckland City is approximately $1 billion a year. We will wait for years through the current process, and through the process created by this bill, to get those problems fixed. The mayor of Auckland, the Hon John Banks, has said that the problem is not one of money but of getting the consents through the process. This bill does almost nothing to fix that.

We have been warned, not simply about the problems of electricity generation this year—a dry year—but, perhaps more ominously still, about the problems that loom 2, 3, and 4 years down the track. They can be dealt with if we have a process that will enable those who can invest in more generating capacity to do so briskly, without undue delays. We know that Meridian Energy is having major difficulties, and faces major delays, in getting its Project Aqua through. I saw in the Dominion Post last December an article about the problems that Windflow Technology faces in getting its wind generating power facility established. The article states: “We can get by for several months, but we can’t get by for a year. The Environment Court wait could be 1½ to 2 years, and unless we can find a way round it, we could run out of money.” This legislation does almost nothing to fix those serious problems that have a major impact on our growth.

The second problem is that this legislation engenders “greenmail”, blackmail, and corruption. Bill Day, one of New Zealand’s leading entrepreneurs, stated, again in the Dominion Post of late last year, when talking about the impact of the Act: “That is the thin end of the wedge of corruption in New Zealand and, as a society, we have got to do something about it.” This bill fails to deal adequately with that problem. If we see more “greenmail”, more blackmail, and more corruption, those will be some of the consequences of dealing inadequately with this important legislation.

Thirdly, the Act strains race relations in this country. My colleague the Hon Nick Smith talked about Ngāti Pu and its advice to its iwi to object, object, and object. What it said was: “Time is of no importance to us, only the applicant.” Not only does that stop development and investment; perhaps even more seriously, it badly damages race relations in this country. Pākehā and, indeed, many Māori resent that kind of behaviour. Let me quote another comment, this time from Ngāti Whātua: “The Resource Management Act is being ‘exploited to the max’ by Māori, says William Kapea, an environmental and heritage consultant for his Auckland iwi, Ngāti Whātua. It’s a shame because there is a role for iwi. The RMA presented that, and we are abusing it and it will end up disappearing on us.” We had a similar problem with Ngāti Whātua members in Auckland recently, when they objected to the wrong kind of sand being used to rebuild a beach. Then they objected to the wrong kind of shells being used in rebuilding some nests for dotterels. Let us leave aside, as I say, the damage to growth that that creates. It does huge damage to race relations in New Zealand, and the Act makes that possible.

The fourth serious cost that I think the Act has created, and that this legislation does nothing to deal with, is that it pushes up the price of residential sections. It has been pointed out in a number of studies that the cost of residential sections in the city of Auckland, and, indeed, in the city of Christchurch, is substantially higher than the cost of similar-sized sections in some of the largest cities in the United States. And why is that? It is because the Act has enabled local authorities to create restrictions on the supply of land, thus pushing up the cost of residential sections and the price of homes for ordinary working New Zealanders. This legislation that we see before us does nothing to deal with that serious problem.

So it worries me that one of the most important pieces of law on the statute book, the Resource Management Act, is recognised as an Act that creates major difficulties for the New Zealand economy, by blocking investment, deterring growth, engendering corruption and “greenmail”, straining race relations, and pushing up the price of residential sections. We have an opportunity in the House to fix those problems, and we are failing in our responsibility to do that. This bill could have been one of the most important bills before the House this year. Sadly, it falls a very long way short of realising that opportunity. The Government has talked about its objective of getting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. It has obviously decided to abandon any attempt to put a date on that objective, so that makes it a substantially easier task—indeed, it makes it no objective at all. But in this legislation we have an opportunity to do something constructive to increase our growth rate—the Act is recognised by the business community and by all objective observers as being a major impediment to growth—and this House is on the brink of flunking that opportunity. I believe it is a sad day for this Parliament that we are missing this very important opportunity.

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a speech. The member is entitled to say whatever he likes.

It is enlightening to follow on from the new member from Otago, who gave a very, very deep and meaningful speech. We are at the brink of going through a process in the House that could only be described as a misuse of Parliament’s Standing Orders and the way that the process should work. I invite United Future members to sit down with the clerks and other members who have been in this House for a long time, and ask them what the normal process is. What we have here is definitely not what could be described as normal process. How can we take a bill, which in its first form had 18 parts, and turn it into two parts, describe it in the commentary as being more or less exactly the same as the bill put up in the first place to the select committee, and then say in the commentary: “This new Bill is required to make sure the passage of the amendments through the House is as efficient as possible.” How can that be described as proper due process in Parliament? I ask the leader of United Future, Peter Dunne, who has been somebody who has championed that type of thing for years—for as long as I have been in this Parliament—to take a good look at that, come back to this House, perhaps take a call, and tell us how that can be so.

As the previous National speaker said, we are missing a great opportunity here to fix up what has been a major problem for some time, in terms of growth in this country. I go right back to the original passing of the 1991 Act—which was brought in by National. At the time, under the leadership of Simon Upton, it was described as environmental legislation that was world-class. The most important part about that legislation was that it was enabling. It is quite an indictment, I guess one could say, not only on local government representatives, but on New Zealanders at large, that they have misused that basic principle to the extent that they have.

We have heard many examples of that in this House. There is one example that I can give, just briefly, as an aside. State Highway 3, going through Taranaki to the King Country and on to Auckland, is the major link between Taranaki and the north. It is the link to the biggest city in New Zealand, Auckland, where most of our produce goes, and it is the highway where most of our connections to the outside world, one could say, pass up and down. Trade is absolutely affected by that highway—and we had its realignment held up for 6 months because of the discovery of six hāngi stones. I suggest to this House that that is an abuse of legislation that was never intended at the time it was introduced. It is high time that was fixed. We had an opportunity to fix it in this process, and we have missed that opportunity. The old Act was very permissive, and very enabling, and, unfortunately, those qualities have been abused.

The 400 submissions that were presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the 80 hours of select committee time put in, in the last Parliament, have totally been ignored. United Future members talk about the fact that they have a deal, and that they have brought to this House some changes that will be significant. Well, we learnt earlier from a previous speaker that all of those changes were in the original draft, before United Future came to the House with the members that they have. I thought that they had achieved one change, and I learnt that that was not the case. They need to sit down with the Green Party and learn how to negotiate, because when the Greens were propping up the Government, at least they used to get some changes. Most of them were negative, but at least they used to achieve changes in their negotiations. United Future has totally rolled over on this legislation. This is the one opportunity—probably the only opportunity—that it will get, as a support for the Government, to bring about significant change in its time in Parliament, but it will go down as an absolute failure in terms of the constituency that that party represents.

Chapman Tripp said, when it presented a submission to the select committee, that the proposed amendments will bring no certainty whatsoever to further development in New Zealand, and no certainty whatsoever to the process of how resource consent is handled. I challenge any Minister or Government member to stand and tell us why that advice has been absolutely and totally rejected and ignored. Sixteen substantial amendments were brought forward by the Simon Upton report, after the Owen McShane report recommended 12 amendments. I invite the ACT member Ken Shirley, my colleague on the select committee, to have a look at that. There were 12 recommendations in the Owen McShane report, and 16 amendments were recommended by Simon Upton. Most of those have been totally ignored and rejected by this process.

We have now ended up with a bill that has 110 clauses and two parts. Subpart 2 outlines the purposes and principles of the bill. I suggest to the House that if something as substantial as the purpose and principles of the bill can be a subpart, then what would we put in a whole part? What would be significant enough to be included in a whole part? If the purposes and principles of the bill are a subpart, then what goes in a full part? With regard to the drafting of legislation, that is a question I would like members of the Government to stand and answer, because I am absolutely at a loss to know why the purposes and principles could be a subpart.

It has also come to my attention that one of the major amendments provides that we are now going to provide legal aid to a person who wants to object to a development. Let us remember that this Government—since it has been elected, in two elections—has championed the need for supporting our entrepreneurs, the need for growth, the need for development, and the ability for business to flourish and for jobs to flow from that. But in this legislation we will be providing people, even if they are just objecting for the sake of objecting—and we have heard about the types of objections that take place—with legal aid to allow them to object.

I am absolutely at a loss to understand how that will meet some of the comments made by the Government over that 4-year period, that it is about helping and assisting business to flourish and do well. It would be really useful for the Parliament and for the listening public if somebody within the Government—a Minister preferably, but not necessarily—would stand and tell us how offering legal aid to vexatious claims against development, such as the realignment of State Highway 3 out of Taranaki, is going to aid and abet the Government’s objective of assisting the country to grow and prosper, and for jobs to flow from that. There is an absolute tragedy here, in the fact that we are missing an opportunity like none other, to help New Zealand to grow, to help our environment to be maintained, to help our economic standing, and to help our climb up the OECD to improve. The only opportunity for improving this bill is to change the Government.

I move, That the be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on 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, despite Standing Orders 193, and 196(1)(b) and (c).

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding tradition that select committees do not sit during urgency. One of the dangers we have, and I have written to you about this matter, and I think it needs to go to the Standing Orders Committee, is that the Government can subvert the clear intentions of the Standing Orders through this referral motion. The motion just put by the Minister would authorise the Local Government and Environment Committee to meet during urgency. That does pose an intolerable pressure for smaller parties. I am sure that United Future, perhaps the Greens, and others would share that concern. We in the ACT party know that it is an intolerable situation to have select committees meeting during urgency.

Just in response, it is totally understood by the Leader of the House and myself, and by the chairperson of the select committee, that meetings would not happen during urgency.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a statement by the Minister in the House. Her word must be accepted.

Motion agreed to.