Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

It has been a very interesting conclusion through to the Committee stage of a bill that has been rushed through in only a month. If we were to go back to the previous National administration when we had a review and came up with the 1999 Resource Management Amendment Bill, there were 400 submissions and a huge input into that whole process. But what do we have today? We have a bill that has been languishing since 1999 now coming through as the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), with only 4 weeks in which to go through what were 18 parts but have now been reduced to two parts. There will be a truncated debate on 18 parts—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

A truncated debate on 18 parts, taken down to two parts. We will be arguing to spend as much time on this debate, starting with the title, as if it were 18 parts. I tell members that this bill has been a means by this Government to bring through legislation, just like we saw last night with the customs and excise legislation brought in under extraordinary urgency. The debate that we are having now could have been held under urgency because it is significant, and I will come to the title.

The Government is ramming through this legislation without the proper consultation process. So when I talk about what the title of this bill should be I have major concerns. I will call this the “Banana Bill”. Banana stands for “build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody”, because that is what this bill does. This bill is so prescriptive that one will not be able to do a thing about it. There will be that many laws and costs. It is interesting, is it not? Everybody has said so, and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, has also made some interesting comments. I hope she will take a call. She has been quoted as saying: “The RMA is a beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation.” That has a ring about it, does it not? “A beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation” has a bit of a swing about it. She went on to say: “I don’t think the RMA is a particularly friendly Act for the average New Zealander.”

So what do we have? I have a quote from the Hon Jim Sutton in a primary industry management magazine, and I am a member of this organisation. He stated: “One thing about the RMA let me say straight away. We do not believe that wholesale revision of the Act is needed. The Government considers that sustainable management of our unique natural and physical resources is vital to New Zealand’s social, economic, and environmental well-being. Agriculture is dependent on the sustainability of natural and physical resources such as soil, water, and biodiversity, and the Government strongly supports the RMA because it provides an integrated, participatory, and transparent approach to planning and sustainable management.”

That is what the Minister said in this magazine some time ago. But when we look at the compliance costs, and I am getting back to the title, the ministerial panel recommended 52 changes to the Resource Management Act and I will talk about that at a later date. That is why I am suggesting that the title of this bill should be the “Banana Bill”. It could be the “Banana Split Bill”, if we would like to call it that.

💬 An Hon Member: Yes, well it has got two parts!

That is why it should be called the “Banana Bill”—build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody. The bill is just so prescriptive. Week in and week out, developers and farmers—and I represent a farming community—come and talk about the consent process, and how difficult it is to be able to build. The big one to deal with at the moment is chicken sheds. Chickens—factory-farming—are a big industry in my area, and this bill does nothing for them.

What is in a name? What is in a title? Well, this legislation is called the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), and it looks and sounds so innocuous, but in reality it is not at all. I first want to make some comment about the absolute delays in bringing this bill to the House. In May 2001 the Minister said that this bill would be passed in that year. It was not passed. In August of that year she said that the second reading would be in September. It was not. In October 2002 she said that the bill would be passed that month under urgency, but it was not. So maybe the title of this bill should be the “Resource Management (Delayed Action) Amendment Bill.” That has been an issue for a lot of people who are wanting to proceed with development. In Auckland in particular, with its infrastructure issues and its roading issues, those things are holding up the economic growth of that city and of this country. Therefore, we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Delayed Action) Amendment Bill (No 2)”.

The Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, must take full responsibility for the delays. She should be ashamed of herself for signalling time and time again that this bill was coming to the House when it has only just reached us in Committee in 2003. The way that the Minister has described this bill, and my colleague has already referred to it, was as a beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation. What sort of a description is that? This is serious, serious stuff. New Zealanders should have the ability to develop resources where that is proper, while ensuring the sustainability of our environment. So what on earth has that sort of comment got to do with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)? What on earth has that comment got to do with it?

Then, in another breath, the Minister said: “Increased flexibility for business and more opportunity for public participation are the major aims of the RMA.” Has she talked to business about this? Has she been worried about the delays that have occurred? Maybe in the title there should be the word “delayed”. Has she honestly, really, considered whether there will be reduced costs? Because that is not what we are hearing from business, and that is not what we are hearing from Māori businesses, either. Are not Māori also developers? Māori are in business. They want to get on with business. They want to get on and develop and show that they are major contributors to the economy of New Zealand. Who pays for the delays and the costs that are imposed? The prescriptive nature of this legislation, and the added bureaucracy, which is a feature of this Government in everything that it has done, results in a build-up of bureaucracy here in Wellington and at local government level. Who pays for that? It is the very people who have been wanting this bill to come through and wanting appropriate changes so that we can see development, but in the context of a sustainable environmental programme.

So hopefully the Minister will take a call and let us know how she reconciles statements about the intention that she has made comment on—the intention in the policy statement—with all of the complaints we have heard around the country, and particularly the complaints about bureaucracy and added costs stifling business.

I was told that it was intended that the titles of modern legislation from this House should be more descriptive and more informative, so that when readers look at the title of a bill they will get a better feel for what the legislation is about. Because of that, I suggest that the Minister should look seriously at being upfront and informative in respect of the title of this bill, instead of calling it the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), which I suggest is very misleading.

The National Party originally passed the Resource Management Act in 1991. National was a very responsible Government, and after the legislation had been in place for a couple of years, it consulted and listened. The Hon. Simon Upton responded to the feedback from the community in terms of implementation problems and drafted a raft of amendments. Those amendments were intended to simplify the Act and reduce the delay in compliance. This bill pretends to fix those problems, and in actual fact does not deliver. So I suggest that the Minister should accept an amendment to the title and correctly call it the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Act.” It is deceptive in a sense that it continues to try to tell the business community and the public that this amendment would make the legislation easier to implement, reduce compliance costs, and reduce delay. It will not.

I hope the Minister will take a call to confirm the feedback we have had from the business community, the public, and the councils that the consultation process under this bill would mean that nobody will be able to put any significant projects through under this legislation. In effect, interested parties and people who are opposed to any project would tie up the application for a very long time. I suggest that the Minister, after collapsing an 18-part amendment bill into two parts, should at least attempt to answer some of the valid questions that have been raised by parties on this side of the Committee. I invite the Minister to take a call to confirm whether it is true that the requirement for consultation under this amendment bill will be long and arduous. I hope the Minister will make a change for this Committee process and prove that is not true that Labour Ministers never answers questions during the Committee stage, by taking a call.

I would also like to invite the Minister, if she refuses to take the call, to accept that the title should be anything but the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). It could also be known as the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Bill”. Everyone outside the Labour Government is convinced that the implementation of this amendment would increase bureaucracy. Apart from the Minister and a few people close to her, people are convinced otherwise. However, everybody else would get a better feel if this legislation had the title of either the “Resource Management (Bureaucracy) Amendment Bill” or the “Resource Management (Deceptive) Bill”. The title could also be the “Resource Management (Missed Opportunity) Bill”. This is the biggest lost opportunity for this Parliament to prove that we can work in a bipartisan way and that we are serious about economic growth.

It is with some regret that I find myself having to stand to speak in opposition to this bill, and I say that sincerely. There is an expectation out there amongst New Zealanders that this legislation will bring about the change that they have desperately been asking for. I suggest that we look back at some of the old clichés that have been said about socialist Governments over a long time. One of them is that if business is moving, tax it and regulate it; if it keeps moving, tax it and regulate it a bit more; and if it stops moving, subsidise it and regulate it to get it moving again. That would be a very good title for this bill—“If it’s moving tax it and regulate it, if it keeps moving, tax it and regulate it a bit more, and if it stops moving, subsidise it and regulate it to get it moving again.”

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: When it dies hit it for death duties!

That would be absolutely right as an appendix to the end of that title. I suggest that an amendment along those lines would be very suitable in terms of naming this bill.

This is serious legislation. It was with some fascination that I noted the Minister described the bill as beautifully written and beautifully balanced. If we look at the bill we see that it initially had 18 parts, which have now been reduced to two, and the general policy statement is in a subpart. We can only conclude that the Minister is right. The bill is beautifully written and beautifully crafted. That is the only way one could describe it. She is right.

I suggest that never in the history of the New Zealand Parliament has there been such ingenuity in terms of the way that the Government has been able to truncate the debate and bring the legislation down from 18 parts to two parts. So in that sense the Minister is absolutely right.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: What about innovation strategy?

I have some questions for John Tamihere and other members of the Committee, and in particular for the Minister. I hope the Minister will take a call. I know that this Minister has spent some years, over two Parliaments, promising these amendments. At every campaign meeting she has ever been to in her life somebody has raised the Resource Management Act as a major barrier to growth in this country. I am sure of that, because that is what happens at every campaign meeting I have ever been to. I know that Wellington Central people are just as concerned about growth and development in New Zealand as anybody else is. I know that the Minister will have been exposed to that.

I ask the Minister why it is that after the 400 submissions were presented, she turned down absolutely the 16 recommended changes that were brought forward by the original Simon Upton bill. Why did she turn those down? After a long period of consultation with a wide community, in particular those who were involved in environmental and development issues, why is it that this Minister absolutely, in an arbitrary way, put a red pen through each and every one of those recommendations? Only under political pressure from the Government’s new-found friends over here—the Christians who have been fed to the lions—did she capitulate on one particular item, and then only half-heartedly and not in a way that will bring about the changes that are necessary. In a half-hearted way she actually backed down on one of those things and changed it.

The Minister might care to take a call to explain to us why that is so. She might also explain to the business community out there why this legislation, which was described as important legislation by many Ministers in the current Government, sat on the Order Paper for over 100 weeks. This legislation was described by the Government as significant, and as very important by this Minister. She assured people that it was important to them and that the Government would do what it could to bring about the changes they were asking for, but it sat on the Order Paper for 100 weeks.

Some very good points have been made in this debate on the title Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). The real question we should be asking ourselves is what on earth happened to the No. 1 amendment bill. The history has just been outlined very well by the member for Taranaki - King Country. That bill was introduced way back in 1999. Unfortunately, we needed the No. 1 amendment bill long before that, and I regret having to say that.

The original bill was introduced in 1991, and it was blatantly obvious quite early in the piece that it was fundamentally flawed. I say that as one who was closely aligned to the resource management law reform process through the late 1980s, and indeed co-chaired the first Resource Management Bill, along with Philip Woollaston, before it was passed. We did not pass it as a Government as we went out of office in 1990. Thank God we did not pass it. It was fundamentally flawed, and that was why that Government did not pass it. We were philosophically deeply split on it by that time, on the basis of the evidence heard. However it went for 9 years without amendment, when it was screaming out for amendment. Simon Upton, I have to say, was very thorough. I had a huge respect for his thoroughness. He consulted widely, but in a way he never got the job done.

He spent too much time talking about it when he should have driven those changes through. Perhaps he did not anticipate the change of Government. None of us anticipated how bad it would actually be with the change of Government. The Government then referred the bill to a select committee chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons, I believe. The 16 recommendations that Simon Upton came forward with—which were all necessary and important but not sufficient, to the extent that they did not address the fundamental flaws in the Resource Management Act but were just process measures—were all overturned. I think the Greens had a huge influence on that, because as members will remember they were holding that Government to ransom. The committee reported back in May 2001. We are talking about the No. 1 bill, which sat there, week after week after week, languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper, bouncing along the bottom. From time to time, members might recall, we used to ask questions. But, oh no, the Government was deep in thought.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was going to be passed by October.

Oh yes, the Government promised at one stage that it would be passed by October. It did not happen.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was going to be passed by October 2002.

Yes, 2002. The Government promised it would be passed by Christmas, but forgot to say which Christmas. Clearly, the Government knew there were problems, and it knew that the select committee had been captured by the Green influence and all the measures had been overturned. This relates specifically to the title, because this is the No. 2 bill. My question is: why is it the No. 2 bill? What happened to the No. 1 bill? That is the key point.

Then, all of a sudden, the Government found a cosy new friend, United Future. They were green—not in the sense of this lot of Greens, but in the sense of wet behind the ears. The Government knew it could use this little bunch of patsies, and it did. So immediately that it knew, it promised United Future members they would get standing.

I remember Peter Dunne bailing me up in January—I think it was before the House started—and saying, “I’ve got standing, I’ve got standing. Fantastic. Isn’t this wonderful?”. I think he was confused with limited notification. He was totally confused. But he sold it to his wet-behind-the-ears new chums, whose numbers in Parliament astounded the whole country, I think. Anyway, that is why the passage was cleared for the Government to ram the bill through. Then the Government said it had a problem, because there were actually 18 parts. It knew the Opposition parties would oppose it, so it wondered how it could be sneaky. It cancelled the No. 1 bill. That bill disappeared, and the Government came up with the No. 2 bill, which states on the front page, under “Background”, that it is virtually identical to the No. 1 bill as reported by the Local Government and Environment Committee. They are virtually identical, but a whole new bill needed to be introduced—but then the Government did not refer it to a select committee. There was no select committee process.

💬 Judith Collins: Why is that?

The Government did not want it exposed to scrutiny. What other reason could there be? While the Government claims that there have been all those weeks of submissions, the new measures were never heard by a select committee.

I take this call with a huge amount of disappointment about the title. We have in the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, a person who, when it comes to resource management law, is absolutely pure on the process. She says we should do this and do that, but when it comes to Parliament, that Minister repeatedly comes in here to the Chamber and cheats on the rules. She cheats on the rules by repeatedly going about the process of—

💬 Jill Pettis: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That word is not acceptable. Would you withdraw it, please.

Let us be plain about just what the Minister has done.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We will not have any member of this Committee accused of cheating.

Even when she is cheating on the rules? Well, I have to say that I withdraw.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: And?

I withdraw, as the Chairman asked. The Minister is going to get sensitive about this, but there is absolutely no way around it. She has not respected the processes of this Parliament.

I want the Minister to answer a question. When she became the Minister, the Resource Management Amendment Bill was before the Local Government and Environment Committee. She let that committee go along and do work on that bill, consider 300 submissions, and sit for over 100 days—[Interruption]—my colleague tells me there were 400 submissions. But when are we to have the report back of all that select committee work? Can the Minister tell me that? When are we to debate 2 years of hard slog by that committee? I say we will not do so, because she has dorked it and thrown that bill in the rubbish. If she wanted to do that it is the prerogative of a Government to do so when it changes, but she did not do so then. She told our select committee to get on with the job. We did just that, and the Minister then abused the process in respect of that bill. Having worked our little guts out, having heard submissions all over the country, and having put 400 organisations to the work of making a submission, then she said that she wanted a No. 2 bill rather than the No. 1 bill. That is why I say this Minister has absolutely no respect for Parliament.

But the issue is more serious than that. Do members know what we should call this bill? Its title should be the “Take Delight in Big Traffic Jams in Auckland Bill” because, without substantive changes to the Resource Management Act, the people of Auckland will carry on having congested traffic. That is not a laughing matter. People die in Auckland because of that traffic congestion, and this Minister does not give a hoot.

This country is in the middle of an energy crisis, so I will put another proposal forward. Perhaps we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Ignore the Energy Crisis) Bill”. I propose that title because it is not just National but also the Government’s own State-owned enterprise that says there is a problem. I have tried twice to ask the Minister questions in the House about the submission by Meridian Energy, a Government State-owned enterprise and New Zealand’s largest producer of electricity, which has identified 24 clauses in this bill that, it states, will create additional obstacles in granting the necessary approvals for the construction and operation of electricity generating stations. The Minister bunks Parliament and does not answer my questions. She does not come here to answer them, but I will continue to ask her those questions because the issue matters.

It matters that people are having cold showers, and it matters that 500 people in Nelson were put out of work for a day because there was not sufficient electricity generation. That is why the title of this bill should be changed; we should be upfront about just what it is. This bill should be called the “Dirty Tricks for a Parliamentary Process Bill”, the “Extra Delays in Roading Bill”, the “Ignoring the Electricity Crisis Bill”, the “More Compliance Costs for Business Bill”, or the “Dupe United Future Bill”. I will explain the latter title. The United Future party said it had got limited notification put into this bill, and that that was its big gain. We asked officials at the select committee when they received the drafting instructions for limited notification to be added to the bill. It was in October 2001.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: No, 2002.

Sorry, October 2001; it was indeed then. How can the United Future party wave and say it had limited notification put into the bill? How come Cabinet agreed to it—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: United Future sold out for nothing.

It sold out for absolutely zero. Then the ultimate hypocrisy was—I withdraw and apologise. The ultimate contradiction was for United Future, the party that believes in proper parliamentary process and in common sense, to then arrogantly—[Interruption] Larry Baldock refuses to listen to anybody—not to a soul. Perhaps Jeanette Fitzsimons, who listened to the 400 submissions on the No. 1 bill, can say she has a pretty good understanding of the range of opinions, but did Mr Baldock listen to anybody before he came to his decisions on this bill? He listened to nobody—absolutely nobody. In fact, he voted for this Minister’s motion that refused to allow the select committee to receive submissions from anybody other than the Minister, and that is a disgrace.

New Zealand First had an influx of new members after the last election, and we moved up from 5 to 13 members.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Worse for it.

Worthwhile? I thank Mr Tamihere very much. That is the first time I have agreed with him since I have come back to the House. Sometimes he can say the right thing, though it is a pity that when he does say the right thing he does not follow it up as often as he might. The eight new members of New Zealand First have taken some considerable time to find out what is going on in the House. We have familiarised ourselves with the legislation, and we have been trying to come to grips with this resource management legislation.

There was a resource management bill before the House before the election, and we have heard much about it today. We heard about it before, when this bill was introduced, and I am sure we have all gained the clear impression that what we have here on the part of the Government, in terms of the way in which it is ramming this Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) through the House, is an absolute breach of what we would call the rule of law. This bill should really be called the “Resource Management Act (Abuse of the Rule of Law) Bill”. When one is in doubt one tends to say something is a breach of the rule of law, but the ultimate principle of the rule of law is that Governments should not act arbitrarily.

If there is a better example of the Government acting arbitrarily than the manner in which the Government is acting on this bill, then I would like to know it. This Government has arbitrarily rejected all 400 submissions on the first resource management bill, and has arbitrarily introduced the No. 2 bill. It has arbitrarily given no select committee time for the consideration of that bill, and now it is arbitrarily ramming it through the House over the best intentions of all the members of the Opposition. There is no better example of the breach of the rule of law and its requirements for a Government not to act arbitrarily than the way in which the Government is acting on this bill.

The person who protects Parliament from that sort of behaviour is the Attorney-General. Yet I have not heard the Attorney-General say anything about that on this particular bill, or, for that matter, on any other piece of legislation. It is that person’s role to protect Parliament and to act as the supreme law officer of the country, in a way, and to advise Cabinet as to when it is breaching things like the rule of law. But that Attorney-General, the Hon Margaret Wilson, deafens us with her silence. She has no concern for the principles that the Westminster system, the New Zealand constitution, and suchlike would require an Attorney-General to follow. One can hardly, in a way, blame the members of this Labour Government if they are not receiving that advice from the Hon Margaret Wilson. She is so busy ramming through her “republic of New Zealand”—her Privy Council bill—and all those other things, that she is not interested in anything else. Perhaps there is a pay-off. Perhaps she takes the view that if she keeps quiet on the resource management bill, then other members of the Labour Party will keep quiet on her wish to make this country a republic.

But this bill is clearly an abuse of the rule of law. Does this minority Labour Government not have any regard for the fundamental principles on which this country was based—the rule of law? It has none whatsoever, and this bill is a classic example of that from this Minister, Marian Hobbs. I understood that once upon a time Marian Hobbs was one of those protester types, and that she earned her stripes at one of those places down in the South Island to prove how much she supported democracy, the rights of the individual, and all those things—and perhaps even the principle of the rule of law, if she understood that. But here she is today—[Interruption] Strangely enough, I saw that station being built in Washington in about 1982, when I happened to be there, but that is a separate story. But there was Marian Hobbs, opposing all that sort of thing and giving the impression that she stood up for the rights of New Zealanders, and here she is now with the Resource Management Act, which affects every New Zealander.

The Resource Management Act affects the ownership of land, so any New Zealander who owns or rents any property is affected by this bill. This bill affects the way in which a person’s current property, and any future property of that person, can be developed. This bill affects every New Zealander, whether an owner, a renter, a tenant, a future owner or whatever he or she is. This minority Labour Government, supported by United Future, is ramming this legislation through the House without any regard for the views of the public of New Zealand. There has been no select committee hearing on this bill; it is just being rammed through.

Something that upsets lawyers considerably when they read this type of legislation and see a bill in two parts is that they wonder why there are all those subparts. I had to speak to a member of the New Zealand Law Society the other day and explain the reason for that to him.

I have been waiting so far for something to debate, in terms of what this bill is supposedly all about and the effect of its title. That is actually very difficult, because although we have heard assertions that this bill will cause bureaucratic costs and delays, that it affects the ownership of land, and that it will be responsible for a heap of terrible things, we have not heard a single reason for those assertions. We have not heard a shred of evidence for that view. We have not heard reference to anything the bill actually does that would support those claims. Dr Smith got closest to it, when he alleged that this legislation was responsible for the energy crisis. This bill, apparently, is the reason that Maui Gas will run out 2 years earlier than it was going to otherwise, and is apparently also the reason for the faulty electricity market set up by the previous National Government. This bill is apparently the reason that it has not rained. I think that New Zealanders will take a bit of convincing of some of those allegations.

The fact remains that most of this bill is based on the issues that Simon Upton introduced in his bill in 1999. There have been amendments to it, and we have got rid of some silly ideas. Some members who have been here a little bit longer than others might remember the proposed scam of contestable consent processing, where a developer was supposed to be able to go out and choose from the market a planning consultant to process a resource consent application for him or her. The council was then to have only the information provided by that person, paid by the developer, on which to base its decision. We got rid of that in the Local Government and Environment Committee. I will call that the No. 1 committee because it dealt with the No. 1 bill, and I am proud of the fact that we got rid of that proposal. But most of this bill actually retains many of Simon Upton’s quite sensible ideas.

As the report back to the No. 1 bill stated—which we have not had the opportunity to debate in this Parliament, and I concur with the Opposition in its anger about that—“We support the retention, with amendments, of a number of provisions in the bill.” That referred to Simon Upton’s bill. The report back went on to state: “Some of the more significant provisions include:”, and the report back listed 10 major issues. There was a whole host of other issues that we did not have time to list. So let us forget the idea that our committee somehow gutted Simon Upton’s bill. There are, in fact, only five changes to the No 1 bill that are introduced by this bill. It is just as well that this bill did come to the No. 2 committee, because we were told in the explanatory note of the bill that there were only two changes, when there are, in fact, five. But, never mind, we fixed that up in the report back. One of those five changes actually puts back something that was in Simon Upton’s bill: limited notification. The Opposition ought to be pleased about that, although I am not.

I am rather flattered by suggestions from the Opposition that I single-handedly gutted Simon Upton’s bill. Well, I have sat on a few select committees in my 6½ years in Parliament, and I have never yet been to one where one person exercises a vote that outweighs the other 11 votes on the committee. A majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee chucked out the silly ideas in Simon Upton’s bill, and that was the right thing to do.

The fact is that this No. 2 bill actually reflects two things. First of all, it reflects the Government’s panic at the thought of spending 2 weeks in the Committee stage on this bill, and it has therefore collapsed it into two parts. I actually would have supported collapsing the bill into, perhaps, five or six parts, but I think that collapsing it into two parts is completely over the top. Secondly, the bill reflects the Government’s loss of nerve during its first difficult winter, when business revved up its anger and fury at public participation in consent decisions and somehow threatened the Government that if there was to be any democracy left in the Resource Management Act, business would not be pleased. And that is responsible for two of the big changes: the putting back in of limited notification, and removing the democratic opportunity to have notification decisions reviewed by the Environment Court, in order to bring into line some of those councils that have already been found by the High Court to be seriously abusing the fact that there is no review of their decisions.

I recommend the title of this bill to the Committee. This bill is about amending the Resource Management Act in a very positive way. In fact, I am tempted to consider as an alternative title the “Resource Management Reform Bill” because we are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly and with some very small steps. Unlike the Prostitution Reform Bill, which is going in the wrong direction and does not have a right to use the word “reform” in its title, in the case of this bill that would be good.

I want to begin by thanking the officials who have helped us through the process on this bill. It has been an informative process for me, and continues to be in this Chamber. This bill has opened my eyes to a whole new gamut of power plays and political stunts, as we have sought to serve the public of New Zealand by getting this bill finally through the House—and that will happen. We are very encouraged by the progress we are making today, and we look forward to the bill finally passing later on.

The title of the bill is significant. This is the No. 2 amendment bill. We look forward to the continuation of this process with, perhaps, the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3). I do not know whether the bill will be called that, but we will continue the process of reform. We are constantly thinking up and generating ideas for how the Act can be improved, in response to our consultation with people across the business and planning communities, and with the general public.

I want to make a quick response to something that the Hon Nick Smith said earlier. He questioned our claim that we were getting limited notification into this bill. Nick Smith needs to understand that just drafting something does not necessarily get it through into the legislation. The Hon Nick Smith could write things all day long, and he still would not change a single dot of the law. We fully understood that the Government had already drafted something, but we are assisting in getting that part of the legislation through in this bill, and we are very proud of that. People have wanted limited notification. Even the National Party itself, which initially put forward the idea, should be thrilled today that limited notification will finally be seeing the light of day in law.

We have enjoyed the cooperation we have had from the Minister, Marian Hobbs, and I commend her today. We will continue to enjoy working with her and working on improvements to the Act.

It was most enjoyable to listen to the last few lines of that fairy tale from United Future. I am always very positive about United Future, because I think that its members are just slightly wayward and will come back to the right path in time. As I address the title of this particular bill, I think what a disappointment it is. I have to take up some of the suggestions of my colleagues. I will even, at this stage, mention the suggestion from the United Future speaker when he drew some relation between this bill’s name and that of the Prostitution Reform Bill. I think both bills should be put in exactly the same place, which is in the rubbish bin. They are both rubbish, and that is where they both belong.

This bill could have many particular titles, and we have talked about them this afternoon. I would like to talk about a new title. What about the “Cunliffe Bill”? Let us call it the “Cunliffe Bill”; it is all promise and no action. I think that I could probably move a non-controversial motion of support for that name. I think that my parliamentary colleagues in all parties, and particularly in Labour, would probably agree with that. This is the “all promise, no action” bill. Minister John Tamihere is very positive about that one, and I thank him.

I take resource management issues very seriously, as the MP for the great electorate of Clevedon. Just recently, on Monday, I held meetings with Auckland business people. A lot of those people were either developers of properties or businesses, or lawyers involved in working for thoe people. The No. 1 issue that they wanted to speak about, after the Privy Council and the denigration of this country’s rule of law, was the Resource Management Act. This bill will not address their issues.

I would like the Minister to take a call, but particularly I would like to hear from Jill Pettis, the MP for Whanganui, who I know always wants to be included in the debate and never gets a chance. That is just not fair, because she is a good member, I am sure—but probably not for Wanganui. That particular member should get a chance to address the title.

I will come back to the point. This bill, named the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), will not address the issues of the developers, and it will not address the issues of the environmentalists who were also at my meeting. This is a patsy bill. It is a “Cunliffe Bill”. It will not achieve anything. Nowhere in this bill does it state that objectors will not be able to hold developers to ransom, or that a developer on one particular site will be unable to demand money from the developer of another site just to go away. That is what happens all the time in Auckland and everywhere else. We all know of instances in Auckland, in particular, where that has happened, and a developer on one side of the street turns round and is paid—sometimes up to $1 million—to go away and not object to the building that another developer wants to build.

The people who lose as a result of that are the ordinary people of New Zealand, who have to pay higher prices. So this bill could be named the “Higher Price Bill” or the “Bureaucracy Bill”. The ordinary people of New Zealand, the Joe and Janet Bloggs of New Zealand, are the ones who have to pay more. They have to pay more in rent, more for services, and more for their rates—more for everything. It is the farmers, too, who miss out—the farmers of Clevedon—and the people who own property. Why should they not be able to put up a chicken coop on their property, without a namby-pamby wimpy white liberal from the local council or from the Labour Government telling them what they can do on their own land? For goodness’ sake!

This bill should address people’s property rights. It should state that people are able to do pretty much what they need to do on their property, as long as it does not harm or affect badly either the environment or other people. But this bill does nothing to address that issue. This is a nonsense bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, there cannot be any points of order. There is no debate on the closure motion.

That is because you speak so fast that it is not possible, when you take the closure, to raise relevant points of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member well knows that there is no debate on the closure motion. That is solely the decision of the Chair.

A very unusual parliamentary process has gone on with this bill. There has been no opportunity for public submissions. [Interruption] I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to try to explain that parliamentary process. I would be happy for him to explain the truncated process that the Government is putting this bill through.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That is debating the closure, and it is not for debate.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have just ruled five amendments by my colleague Dr Nick Smith out of order because they were not relevant. I would have thought that Parliament, this Committee, would decide whether they are relevant and that we would have the chance to put that to the vote. What has happened is that you have ruled out of order five of his amendments. I want to know what the position is, and how you can justify that. I would have thought that under the democratic process—if we have one—the Committee would determine whether those amendments were relevant, and vote accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The process is very clear. It is the Chairperson’s call, and obviously—[Interruption] I tell the Hon Nick Smith that that comment is not in order. He needs to look at the Standing Orders.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We received many submissions from individuals who agreed that this bill will increase the costs, the uncertainties, and the delays to members of the public in respect of the Resource Management Act. I challenge the view that an amendment that includes those words cannot be put to the vote of this Committee. It is for the Committee to decide what it wishes to call this bill—it is not for the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is not correct. If he reads Speaker’s ruling 15/2 (Supplement), he will see that it is very clear: “An amendment to the title of a bill must be a serious description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”

We have seen bills introduced—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry but we cannot relitigate that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a different point of order?

It is a point of order in respect of what amendments you will consider in the Committee stage of this bill and those that you will not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The decisions on the amendments are made by the Chair. The Speaker’s ruling is very, very clear on that.

The Speaker’s ruling is a matter of whether the amendment is relevant and whether it is not serious. I have to tell you that members on this side of the Chamber are absolutely serious in saying that this bill will increase the costs, the uncertainties, and the delays for those who use the Resource Management Act. I suggest to you that we have had before this House bills that are, according to what the Government has stated, about compliance cost reductions. It has been acceptable within the Government for the titles of bills to make reference to compliance costs, so why is it not possible for the Opposition to move amendments to include such words in the title of a bill?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Speaker’s ruling is very clear on that, and we have had clear rulings on that before. That is the end of the matter.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it on the same point?

It is a new point of order. I seek clarification. This is not a time-limited debate, and I want to know when speeches stop if someone has new information. We have heard that this bill, the No. 2 bill, is a very truncated version. I want to know, if I never had a call—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have to rule the member out of order. She is debating the closure again.

I am seeking clarification, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The clarification was clearly given in the Speaker’s ruling when this bill was introduced. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling on 26 March when the bill was introduced. The Speaker made it very clear then. He said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case. This is something that I will discuss with the chairpersons when the bill is scheduled for its Committee stage.” The Speaker has discussed that with the presiding officers, as has the Business Committee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 and 63/2, which make it very clear, particularly in the second ruling, that in Committee the chairperson is the sole judge of the question of relevancy. It would be helpful to members to read the rules of the Committee, particularly that Speaker’s ruling, because it establishes clearly the responsibility of us all to accept the appropriate judgments of the Chair when they are made.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: If they’re fair.

The member cannot keep saying that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. The point of order has been dealt with and it cannot be relitigated.

The acting Leader of the House has raised a point that I wish to elaborate on, as I think it is very important from a procedural point of view.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order, because we are not relitigating—

Yes. Mr Burton—I presume in his capacity as acting Leader of the House—stood up and drew our attention to Speaker’s rulings 63/1 and 63/2. I think they were the references he used. He said that those rulings refer to the matter of relevancy. Now, the point is not one of relevancy. That is the key thing. Lynda Scott was not raising an issue of relevancy; she was seeking a clarification from the Chair on how this matter would be dealt with. We are here for a long session tonight. We know that; we accept that. A number of closure motions will be taken, and members have a right to be quite clear on how that issue will be dealt with on future occasions. It was not a question of relitigating, and it was not a question of relevance; it was simply a question of seeking an indication from the Chair as to how it would be dealt with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, and that has been given. I will now call clause 2.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order? We are not relitigating.

No, I accept the ruling you have made, but I want an assurance from the Chair that you understand that we have speakers in this team who have been members of the select committee. They have taken an active part, and they understand the issues. Right from the word go, when we started this debate at a quarter past 4, there have been members on this side of the Chamber who have been seeking the call. They are speakers who have an understanding and who have made a commitment—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, but I am going to rule the member out of order. He is relitigating the closure.

No, I accept what you have done.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): He is relitigating the closure.

No, I want some assurance for the future that the speakers we are putting up will be given a fair go. I am not relitigating what you have done. We accept that we have gone through the closure motion—I am looking forward to the rest of the debate, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes. I refer the member to the Speaker’s ruling that was given when the bill was introduced, and I also refer the member to Standing Order 138. That is the end of the matter.

Clause 2 Commencement

What we see with this clause is so typical of the fiasco that the Minister and the Government have brought about in terms of resource management law. I need to remind the Committee of just how long the history is in respect of this commencement date, and of just how often this Minister has broken her word. The Local Government and Environment Committee, in considering the Simon Upton bill that was introduced in May 1999, set about listening to 400 submissions all around New Zealand. The committee worked its little butt off. It heard long submissions. It spent 6 weeks on deliberation. A huge amount of work went into that part of the process. Then in May 2001 that bill was reported back to the House. National members did not necessarily agree with all the amendments adopted by the select committee. The report sets out what we agreed and disagreed on. We have never been given the opportunity by the arrogant Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, to debate that work of the committee. Never has she given this House the opportunity to debate that select committee report back. What does that say about this Minister’s respect for the institution of Parliament and its select committees? It says that she has no respect at all for her fellow parliamentarians and the work that they put in to that sort of process.

The Minister in the chair promised that the bill would be passed by October 2001. She went on the public record, when speaking at the Resource Management Law Association, and said that the bill would be law by October 2001. And was it? Has the Minister ever provided an explanation to those thousands of people who work in the resource management area, to the members of this House, or to anybody? Or is it that we cannot take her word on anything? Is she a Minister who just says things then provides no explanation when she moves away from them? My first question to the Minister is this: why did she not keep her word and pass that bill by October 2001, as she said at that time? Then, more recently—in August last year—the Minister said: “The bill will be passed next month.” Was that commitment by this Minister followed? Was the bill advanced? I myself, and others who were on the select committee, said “Good! At long last we’re going to have the opportunity to debate the work of the select committee.” But no, that did not happen. It was not dealt with before Christmas, even. Then there was the sneaky dirty trick of introducing a bill that even the mover says is near identical. Rather than have separate parts, whereby members on this side of the Chamber can debate those issues part by part, she put them all into one part of the bill. I say to the Minister that I have never seen such a devious trick in all my years in this Parliament.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: And he’s seen a few.

I probably have seen a few, but I have never ever seen a trick as dirty as that one. Why is the Minister not prepared to debate this bill part by part? I shall tell members what the Minister did do—and this is unheard of. The Minister gave a directive to parliamentary counsel that the bill was to be in only two parts. I thought that we had respect for the institutions of this House, and that when parliamentary counsel draft a bill, they would determine the parts on the basis of the content. That is a pretty fair judgment. So how far are we going to go? Does this situation mean that we will now have Ministers who will always instruct parliamentary counsel, so they do not have to front up for their dopey decisions? Is that what this Minister is on about? I have to say that her predecessor, Simon Upton, was a person of integrity. It was not particularly convenient for the previous Government that there were 18 parts in the resource management intermediate bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Are we not discussing the commencement clause?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, we are discussing clause 2, the commencement.

💬 Jill Pettis: It would be useful to have some reference to the commencement.

The issue of commencement is absolutely relevant to this. The Minister in the chair promised that the bill would commence in October 2001, but it did not. She promised that it would commence in October 2002, but it did not. What is more, the dirty trick the Minister has pulled by putting this bill into just two parts, rather than 18 parts, is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to this Parliament and to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The really ironic part is that this Minister is passing legislation that is purer than pure in respect of process. If poor old Joe Average wants to build a cow shed, he has to go through all the processes—but not the Minister.

I follow on from the Hon Nick Smith, also to talk about the abuse of process here. Have members ever seen anything like this? Part 1 has been condensed down to 14 subparts. We know that the Minister has had difficulty in getting the No. 1 Resource Management Act Amendment Bill organised into this House. It has been delayed and delayed. The commencement date of the legislation was October 2001, then October 2002, and now it is supposed to be 1 August 2003.

The bill had the opportunity to improve the Resource Management Act. When major legislation is brought in, there will always be problems. We will get some things right and other things wrong. Simon Upton identified a lot of the things that had gone wrong, but there are good parts. Some people say that the whole bill should be thrown out, but Simon Upton decided that the best way to deal with things was to make serious and significant amendments to the Resource Management Act. But what a huge waste of opportunity this Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) is. Fourteen amendments have been thrown out, and this Government will not make the significant changes to the Resource Management Act that will be needed to stop the delays in development and the delays that will cause our roading to be congested, or to address the lack of development in energy generation that is causing problems in infrastructure in this country.

The fact that the commencement date was originally October 2001, then October 2002, and now August 2003 shows us how long it takes to get a bill through this Parliament. This Government has taken credit for the fact that it has all those fiscal surpluses. This bill shows the lag between the time someone brings a bill to the House, develops it, and gets it through the select committee and the time the effects are felt. That time delay has been really significant in terms of the Resource Management Act.

I am the member of Parliament for Kaikoura, and many people have come to see me with their concerns about the Resource Management Act. Absolutely they have been waiting for changes to be made. They will be extremely disappointed with this bill. Marlborough is at one end of the Kaikoura electorate and the Hurunui is at the other end. Marlborough is very good. The council there has done a great job in terms of managing the Resource Management Act. But in the Hurunui, farmers have had massive problems in applying its council’s interpretation of the Resource Management Act. One could not get two councils with two such different approaches to the Resource Management Act. The people in the Hurunui have been hanging out for changes to improve the Act, and they thought that those changes would happen much earlier on.

National had significant amendments it wanted to make to the bill. But, no, the commencement of this No. 2 bill has been delayed until August 2003. I can use a few examples of how this has affected people I know. One of the things that National wanted to do was to allow applicants to choose to go direct to the Environment Court, if that is what they wanted to do. That would have been an extremely good thing, because councils really like that. They did not really want to be clogged up with things that could go directly through. I shall give the Committee an example of someone I know who was doing a small development and how it cost them $20,000 extra—

💬 Jill Pettis: Relevance?

I am talking about the commencement date. They wanted to see this bill get through so much earlier. They wanted to see the bill commence. The problem the people I know had was that their development cost them an extra $20,000, and an extra 3 years. They were very keen to see National’s bill go through—not the bill before us now but National’s bill with its 16 significant amendments to the Resource Management Act. That is the bill they wanted to go through and commence.

Clause 2 refers to the commencement date, and in Supplementary Order Paper 86 we have made a distinction between the dates. Members will notice that clause 2 has two subclauses. In the bill as introduced, subclause (1) had a commencement date of 1 May in respect of clauses 18 to 23. The Supplementary Order Paper amends subclause (1) so that those clauses will come into force the day after the date on which the royal assent is given. The reason for the distinction between those two dates is that clauses 18 to 23 refer to the national environmental standards. I can just hear Opposition members bemoaning how long this has taken. They are not the only ones to be concerned about that.

💬 Opposition Members: Well, we know that.

Absolutely. I have been doing work on a national policy statement on biodiversity that has been totally held up by this process and waiting for this bill to come through. The only comment I really want to make about the length of time it has taken is that this bill is very much a creature of a minority Government and a mixed-member proportional representation Parliament. It is a bill that is a child of democracy. I have never had to horse-trade so much as on this bill over the last 3 years. To just give one example, it is not only the trade that goes on inside. Simon Upton did a great job and came in with a number of ideas, and, as Jeanette Fitzsimons has pointed out, many of them are still in the bill before us. That legislation itself then had a business compliance cost panel look at it. So the bill came back from the select committee, the panel looked at it, and from there came a Supplementary Order Paper. I then had to win support in the House for horse-trading for that Supplementary Order Paper. That is why this bill has taken some time.

I could not help but notice that the National Party was always absent in coming forward when it came to trying to move this bill forward. So when I hear National members complain about delay, I know it is the parties to the left and to the centre that have done the work to get this bill on the move.

In speaking to the commencement date, I agree we have all wanted to see some substantial progress with the Resource Management Act, but we have been let down in that regard, and so I do not support the commencement date put forward in this bill.

The Minister says the bill is a “child of democracy”, but that is absolutely wrong. This bill is not a child of democracy. Democracy is being denied. People are being denied the opportunity to make submissions on a bill that is significantly different in content, in such a way that the impacts will be huge and have great social and economic consequences on this country. That material difference is so huge that the bill should have gone back to the select committee. The public of New Zealand should not have been denied an opportunity to make submissions on this incredibly different legislation. This is reflected in the submissions that we did get on the bill. I shall read out some of them. There was one from St Heliers Glendowie Community Committee, which was: “Thank you for recognising the importance of public participation in relation to this important area of the law, in offering to represent our views in the legislative process.” Those people said that to Nick Smith, Ken Shirley, and Jim Peters for giving them the opportunity to be heard, because the Minister in charge of this bill denied them that opportunity.

This Minister denied the people of New Zealand the opportunity to be heard on this bill, and that is why National opposes the commencement date. The people of New Zealand should be heard. They should be able to respond to what has been a huge single change in legislation that will have a huge impact—that is, the definition around heritage provisions. The changes to that definition will have far-reaching social and economic consequences. Those concerns are also reflected in the submissions received. You may well laugh—you who call this a child of democracy. This is actually a complete—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I just remind the member not to bring the Chairperson into the debate.

The Minister who calls this bill a child of democracy could not be more wrong, and it is a flagrant disregard of the public’s involvement in substantive changes to legislation that will affect them. I think of the grannies who will have to pay for this, and the families. They will pay through their rates and their taxes. We oppose the commencement clause because of that. We oppose it, because those changes should be debated. The cost of them will be significant. When we have a definition for “heritage” that includes cultural and ancestral landscapes, and the word “spiritual”, one will not be able to avoid costs.

We have numerous submissions that identify the hold-ups for all infrastructure, including roading, and that is particularly significant. The Minister might smile. She is quite happy to see those added costs going on to ratepayers and taxpayers. I could read out the things that have been pointed out to her by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The commissioner found that “existing opportunities for Government intervention through the Resource Management Act had failed to achieve the desired results”. So the Government is going to interfere. It is also looking at new non-regulatory options. These will allow organisations like the Department of Conservation and the Historic Places Trust not only to make submissions to resource consents but also to take appeals to the Environment Court. Not only will resource applicants have to pay for their own applications; they will also fund, through their taxes and rates, the process by which the department and the trust will challenge those applications through the Environment Court. I personally think that is an atrocious breach of justice.

This bill is supposed to be a child of democracy, yet the Minister is giving nobody the opportunity to debate those issues. She has closed down that debate. That is why it is a breach of a person’s democratic right to participate and challenge those substantive changes. I want to talk about the compliance costs of this bill, because they are relevant to the commencement date.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A lot of what has been said is not relevant to the commencement date. I call this to members’ attention..

The coming into force of this bill in 2003 lies at the heart of the anger many of us feel about the process that has occurred. Nearly all the measures in this bill, which should have come into force in early to mid-2001, were in the No. 1 amendment bill. The Government’s obsession with limited notification caused it to sit on the bill for 2 whole years, until it could get support from United Future for the Government’s earlier decision to shut the public out of many resource management decisions and ensure there would be no challenge to councils that do not comply with the law on notification.

There are many sensible measures carried over from the No. 1 bill that councils, applicants, and submitters have been crying out for over the last 2 years, and that could have been in place and working during that time. As there was no debate on the No. 1 bill before it was discharged, and as I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee for a whole year looking at the No. 1 bill, I want to go through some of those measures—measures that are entirely relevant to the commencement date.

Currently, extra cost and delay are caused by the requirement to consider an application under both an operative plan and a proposed plan. This practice is confusing, as well as time consuming. The amendment we agreed to in 2001, which has remained unchanged, provides that if a provision in a proposed plan is beyond challenge, if submissions have closed, and either there have been none or they have been resolved, then that rule becomes operative, even before the proposed plan, as a whole, is operative, and there is no need to consult the older operative plan on that matter. Applicants and councils could have had the benefit of that for the last 2 years, if the bill had been passed when we reported it back to the House.

At present, if a consent authority finds part-way through considering an application that it needs more information, the time allowed for processing the application starts again from scratch, once that information is provided. That provision can be abused by councils by keeping a developer waiting. Simon Upton’s bill proposed that the applicant could refuse to provide further information but would have to live with the consequences, if the consent was refused because of it. The committee felt that was potentially a waste of effort for everyone and, instead, provided that if more information is required, the clock stops while it is collected, but then restarts from the same place. In other words, we hit the pause button rather than restart. This will save developers time and costs during the processing of a consent, and it could have been saving them that time and those costs for the last 2 years.

Combined regional and district plans, as well as combined regional plans and policy statements, are now allowed, turning two documents into one, where that suits the council, and streamlining the consultation process. That has also been held up for 2 years. Consents that have not been acted on currently lapse after 2 years. We extended that to 5 years, recognising that many large projects take some time to raise finance and get started after a consent is issued. How many people have had to apply specifically to have their consents extended because that clause was delayed for 2 years? Appeals under section 274—typically made by those who agree with the decision of the first hearing, but then want to join an appeal when the other side lodges one in order to protect their position—can currently occur right up to the time of the appeal hearing. That creates uncertainty and costs for everyone. Now they will have just a month to lodge a section 274 appeal, but they will be full parties, so that if the party they joined pulls out they will not be affected. That is another useful measure for everyone, which we have had to wait 2 years for.

Those are the sorts of sensible measures that reduce costs and delays for applicants and that the previous committee—far from gutting the bill, as the Opposition claims—worked hard to implement. It is unreasonable that we have had to wait 2 years for the House to progress them, and there are many applicants and councils that will remember who caused the delay.

I will make a few brief comments on the commencement clause, particularly in response to Jeannette Fitzsimons’ comments. I think what we in this Committee are still not understanding—and this is what we in United Future are delighted to try to bring into the Parliament—is an understanding of how MMP really does work. The reason this bill was sitting around for so long was because two parties would not give each other any ground at all. The Greens held the process up, because they refused to budge on their ideology on the issue of limited notification. They could have had the good measures that the people of New Zealand are waiting for, if they had been simply willing to give a little.

United Future is able to introduce this bill with the Government now because we do not hold the Government to ransom. We acknowledge that we are eight members in this Committee, that we have only a certain percentage of the voters of New Zealand behind us, and that we do what we can to advance the things that are of benefit to New Zealand. We will never get all we want in any negotiation, but I have lived a great deal of my life on a very, very good principle, and I hope members in this Committee might listen to it this evening. It is based on the idea that if we give, it shall be given unto us. If one gives first, one may get back something that is very, very valuable and rewarding. People may treat us differently if we are prepared to meet them halfway. That is something we want to introduce to this MMP Parliament, and this bill is an excellent example of that. The people of New Zealand will not get everything they wanted, but they will get some improvements to the Resource Management Act, which they have long been waiting for.

I was not going to take a call on this part of the debate, but I have been provoked by Mr Baldock—I want to say Mr Baldrick, as something about him reminds me of Baldrick; I cannot remember what it is, but it is something in my past.

The Greens do not realise they have been duped. The speech we just heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons really epitomises that. Let me just walk members through it, for those in the Committee who have perhaps not been following this process. The first bill came in here in Simon Upton’s time. Labour then put it to a new select committee, which did a very thorough job—I think Nick Smith was involved, and Jeanette Fitzsimons chaired the committee. The select committee heard a lot of submissions all around the country, and did a very thorough job. It reported back way back in May 2001, and the bill then sat languishing. Why? Because Labour had an absolute obsession with the limited notification, which the Greens and the chair of the committee were emphatically opposed to.

I support limited notification, and would actually go a whole lot further. I believe in full standing. [Interruption] No, I believe in consultation, but there is a point where consultation debases democracy, and we end up with so-called participatory democracy, where everyone just talks to each other for ever, and nothing actually gets done. However, I do believe in appropriate consultation. But that is an aside.

Although I disagreed with them, the Greens stuck to their principles—and that is to their credit. The bill did not go anywhere. All of a sudden, there was a new Parliament. We got the babes in the wood, United Future, which is happy to say that it will go with limited notification. It will support that. So the Government then cancelled the old bill, and introduced a whole new bill. It has been truncated from 18 parts, down to 2 parts, and Mr Baldock has just put out a press release about how he is emphatically opposed to terms like “spiritual”, “cultural landscape”, and “ancestral landscapes”. I agree with him—they are absolute nonsense, and he should be opposing them. He should be standing with Opposition parties and opposing the whole bill, as the Greens did in principle. It really shows that United Future does not have the same principles as the Greens—United Future will go with anyone. Having been as quiet as a lamb through the process, the member has the audacity to vote for it now that it is going through. He does not realise that he is the instrument of passing into law the very measures that he rails against in the press release he put out just this afternoon. Is that a lesson in politics, or what?

As I say, I was not going to get up and take a call, but the member was so full of puffery, and was so pleased with himself—as though he had been such a good politician in doing all the work—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind the member of the commencement date.

It is all about the commencement date—that is the point. It would not be going anywhere if it were not for that member. It would be going nowhere—which is all about commencement in any bill—just as it went nowhere when the Greens stuck to their principles, as misguided and confused as they were.

This member is right on the issue of limited notification, and he could stop it going anywhere. Instead, it seems that it could well be passing through, over the next few days, and possibly even receiving the royal assent. That member and United Future have to realise that they have been duped. They are being manipulated by the master manipulators over there. We had a term for them before, which was “deceitful”, was it not?

💬 Pansy Wong: Devious.

Devious. They have been very devious in this process. It is a lesson to that member and his party that Government members are a very devious lot. I say to United Future, do not be duped again. Mr Baldock has definitely been sprung. If Mr Baldock were sincere in not wanting nonsense terms like “cultural landscape”, “spiritual landscape”, and “ancestral landscape” melded into the Resource Management Act—and they are terms that can only compound it and make it worse—he could stop the commencement date from being what it now is in this bill. In effect, he is the author of this legislation. He is the instrument for it being passed into law.

The Greens knew how to play the game—they are quite canny. I disagree with them philosophically, but I have a sneaky respect for them.

I will speak on the commencement date of the bill, which is 1 May 2003. I note the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to delete the expression “1 May 2003”, and to substitute the words “the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent”. Obviously, 1 May 2003 has passed, and this bill will be rushed into law as soon as the Government can get it through the House and get a signature on it.

As I think has been explained by Mr Shirley and other members of the Committee who have spoken in opposition to this bill, it will be coming into effect only because of the support of United Future. As Mr Shirley said, one has a grudging respect for the Greens. They have abstained from voting on the title. They will not be voting on this, so it means that the Government must rely on United Future to get this bill through—that is the clear message that is coming through to the people of New Zealand. This bill will come into force only if United Future supports it.

It is typical of United Future that, on the one hand, it says by way of a press statement that it has some criticisms of the legislation, while, on the other hand, it is willing to give effect to the legislation, and to let it become law. One cannot really have it both ways. United Future was calling this bill the “Thank God for United Future Bill” when it was being discussed in the first reading. I am very pleased that it has stopped using that sort of expression, but it is taking full credit for this bill. So when it comes to the next election, if United Future is still around then, will it take credit for the fact that terms like “spiritual”, “cultural landscapes”, and “ancestral landscapes” are in this bill, or will it vote against those clauses? That is what we really need to know. Will United Future be voting against those clauses? If it does vote against them, this bill will not come into force.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s why they’re doing it in parts.

But if they are going to do it in the first part, and if they try to vote against it in Part 1, are they assuming that the Greens will support words like “spiritual landscapes, “cultural landscapes”, and “ancestral landscapes”? Are those words to be deleted from the bill because United Future is going to stand up and be counted—so that this bill will not come into force, because the Government may decide it will not proceed with it any further? That is what needs to be made clear by United Future. No doubt it will be made clear shortly.

Of course, the United Future member said that “you give, and it shall be given unto you”. That is a nice trite phrase. OK, United Future members have given, but what will be given unto them? Will we find out at some stage? Limited notification is something the Labour Party has always wanted. The Greens said they did not want it, and resisted any pressure to continue with the bill. We would like to know what has been given unto United Future. We have heard one part of that trite saying, but what is the other part? What have United Future members got in return? So far, we do not know that they have ever received anything in return for anything.

Maybe this is an example of a psychological relationship between United Future and the Labour Party. United Future members like their psychological relationships. I think it will be a new phrase. In the Families Commission Bill they have this psychological relationship, and maybe this “give and it shall be given unto you” is part of the psychological relationship that exists between Labour and United Future. It is a relationship whereby Labour gets something and, psychologically, United Future gets something in return. Just what it is psychologically we do not know; but psychologically it is getting something back—psychologically, spiritually, or in some other way or another.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Give and take.

Labour gets it and United Future psychologically receives in return. I think that is a wonderful relationship for any Government to have with its minor party. Psychologically, or whatever way, this bill is going through this House only because of United Future’s support. Despite United Future’s objection to terms like “spiritual landscapes”, “cultural landscapes”, and “ancestral landscapes”, and, probably, to matters to do with the heritage aspects of this bill—despite the fact that it says it opposes them—it would seem in practice that its members will lie down and agree with the Labour Party. They will be like lambs to the slaughter—a nice biblical phrase.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put. All those of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary opinion will say “No”.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My colleague Dr Nick Smith was trying to raise a point of order before you put the question. He had risen and asked for a point of order. That is true, is it not, Minister?

I think so, but to be fair I doubt that the Chair could hear, because there were so many people seeking the call.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I am trying to help the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Did the Hon Dr Nick Smith call for a point of order?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I tried to, Madam Chair. My point of order is that I have a number of amendments on this specific clause being printed. I assumed that, because the standard practice of the Committee of the whole House is that there is about an hour per part or clause, the debate in respect of this part would be pretty typical and we would stick to that custom. What has happened is that because you have not given any of my three colleagues who have been seeking the call the opportunity to speak, you have removed my capacity to be able to table those amendments, and for those amendments to be voted on in this particular clause.

I recognise that coming after this very narrow clause 2 debate will be the body of a wide-ranging debate. I sought the closure because the contributions that had been made thus far were all over the place.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The closure cannot be debated. I refer to Dr Nick Smith’s point of order. As he knows, the amendments have to be on the table. We have not received them.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I explained why that was the case.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Does the member want to seek leave in respect of the late tabling of the amendments?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave for the Committee to rise, as it is only 4 minutes to the break, and for it to resume at 7.30 p.m.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Does the member wish to seek leave for those amendments to be tabled late?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the vote begun yet?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The closure has been accepted. I am listening to the member’s point of order on the amendments. I have suggested that he seek the leave of the Committee to table the amendments now.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to sign and table my amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If anybody requires those amendments, they can get them from the Table Office.

💬 Shane Ardern: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I know that you noticed that right throughout the whole period of the debate on clause 2, I was seeking a call. I sought every single call right from the start.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is now relitigating the closure, and that is not possible.

💬 Shane Ardern: My point is this: is it going to be the practice in the House once we get into the main part of this bill for you to accept closure when there are members who are clearly seeking a call, and that you will deny those members an opportunity to speak on that particular clause?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. As I said previously, there are two things that are taken into account on this, and they come under Standing Order 138.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It is a procedural matter, Madam Chair, and I am trying to assist the Committee. Given the proximity to the dinner break, and that many of us were here to 5 o’clock this morning, no one is of a mind to vote through our dinner break on the amendments. I note that the Standing Orders provide that if voting has commenced, we continue voting, even if it is through the dinner break or after the House would normally have risen. I am wanting information or clarification from you that there are two discrete votes. One is the acceptance of the closure vote, as distinct from the commencement of the voting on any amendments. I would hate to think that we got ourselves trapped. It is getting very close to 6 o’clock now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the member’s point. I am going to put the closure.