Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

Yesterday the Government announced a multimillion dollar injection into the Historic Places Trust tagged for the expansion of wāhi tapu in New Zealand. At the very moment that the Prime Minister was appearing on television earlier this year, telling the people of Welcome Bay near Tauranga not to be concerned that 180 hectares of land was covered by a single wāhi tapu, that the council could decide the use of the land, she was sitting in a Cabinet committee room approving this bill that will expand wāhi tapu beyond the wildest dreams of the Hon Margaret Wilson.

The bill states that wāhi tapu will now have to be treated as matters of national importance. What does that mean? What we know from the Resource Management Act is that if something is a matter of national importance, then the council shall have total regard for that matter, and no discretion. What that means is that if a group of local Māori decide they are going to declare wāhi tapu on someone’s private land, then they now have the power of the Marian Hobbs amendment to the Resource Management Act to override completely both the will of the landowner and the view of the district plan. This Government announced an extra $4.5 million to $8 million to expand wāhi tapu throughout New Zealand and give it the full—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Rubbish!

The press statement states it. It expands the use of wāhi tapu across the whole of the country and denies landowners their rights to have a say on what happens on their land. What annoys me is that the Prime Minister was giving assurances to the people of Tauranga that the wāhi tapu did not matter, and she was sitting in a Cabinet room agreeing to amendments to the Resource Management Act that give wāhi tapu the highest status possible in the Resource Management Act, and remove completely any discretion the council has. It is deceitful to be on television saying one thing, when one knows that one is in a Cabinet room doing the complete opposite. It is a real message to New Zealanders. The extra money given to the woolly liberals in Wellington on the Historic Places Trust will cost a whole lot of landowners in New Zealand. That wāhi tapu of 180 hectares is nonsense. This bill will deny the rights that those landowners and the Western Bay of Plenty District Council have to manage that land for future generations of those who have a legitimate interest in that land.

Who is this Parliament to say to those four affected landowners that they cannot cut down their trees, they cannot put in a roadway, they cannot build a garage, unless they consult the locals down the road, who do not have an interest in their land. That is what this Government is doing. That is what the liberals opposite want to do in this country.

I have to say that the real disaster of this bill will be visited upon this Government in 18 months’ time. That extra money they are giving the Historic Places Trust to expand wāhi tapu further throughout New Zealand, in an unfettered, undemocratic, and unrealistic way, will have a negative impact on a whole lot of New Zealanders. That is another reason this National Party in Opposition says that this Government must go. Those amendments will go when the Government changes at the next election.

We will not stand for this. We represent mainstream New Zealanders who have had enough of the sickly white paternalism that one sees from people like Marian Hobbs and Margaret Wilson. One can imagine them sitting in their spa pools with their glasses of Chardonnay deciding what is good for people around New Zealand, and it is not right that we should be giving $4 million to $8 million extra. The Minister can laugh. Obviously, she has not met the four landowners in Welcome Bay who do not have a say in how their land is run. She is laughing about that. What about Mr John Kilpatrick, who bought the land 20 years ago, planted trees for his superannuation, and now the local marae will decide whether he can cut them down.

I move, That the question be now put.

In case the—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

I suggest that the Government whip should sort that out.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Will people have their disagreement outside the Chamber, please.

We are looking at Part 1 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), which forms pretty much the whole of the substantial provisions of the bill. The Parliament and those listening may not realise that the progress of this bill through the House has been a constitutional outrage. This bill is very significant legislation, which the Parliament has waited on for 4 years, and the Government decided there should be no public hearings. I will give one example of why there should be public hearings.

This bill introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes into the Resource Management Act.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: What?

It introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes. No one knows what that is. We do know that it is land that was owned by one’s ancestors. But, according to the commentary on the bill, unless one is Māori, one does not have ancestors. If one is Māori, then the whole of New Zealand could justifiably be called an “ancestral landscape”. Of course, the Government will say that no one will see it that way.

I visited the wāhi tapu site that Tony Ryall is talking about. I have no problem with showing respect for the places of the dead; I believe in that. But I do not believe that the cemetery on the top of that hill is 800 acres. I do not believe that anyone ever meant the provision for wāhi tapu to do more than protect burial areas. In fact, what has happened is that a designation is being used to curtail the rights of owners of whole farms, whole hillsides. What will happen to ancestral landscapes? The whole of the area one can see from the top of the hill at Welcome Bay must therefore be an ancestral landscape—and it includes the Mount, the beautiful area of Tauranga, which is deeply culturally significant to its local people. How could one argue it is not an ancestral landscape?

Those issues have not been discussed in the Local Government and Environment Committee at all, let alone by people who know anything about this. It has been hatched behind closed doors. As my colleague pointed out, when the Prime Minister was on television, saying, “Wāhi tapu makes no difference; the council is still in control.”, she had come from a Cabinet meeting, where legislation was written making ancestral landscapes and wāhi tapu one of the highest priorities in the Resource Management Act; making wāhi tapu a matter of national importance.

I say to the Government that this is not how to progress sound, cross-cultural understanding in New Zealand. This is pushing it too far; this is pushing against the rights that every New Zealander might have, in order to privilege the spiritual values of a few. It is overbalancing the equation. That is why the public and the Parliament deserve the opportunity to discuss the bill; and that is just one provision of the 18 provisions we are talking about—just one.

This bill removes the capacity of a court to order security for costs from objectors. Whoever asked for that, apart from the Greens and Labour? Nobody did. The precise reason people want the Resource Management Act changed is to speed up the processes and to make them less expensive. This bill opens the door wide to every spurious objector imaginable, because objectors do not have to offer security for costs. That is a significant step backwards. Has that been discussed by anybody?

💬 Opposition Members: No.

It has not been discussed. The Minister tried to tell the Parliament that this bill was like the No. 1 amendment bill. How many differences are there?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: There are 18 significant differences.

But, do members know what, Marian Hobbs cannot tell the difference. That is the problem. She cannot tell the difference between the original bill and this one. She knows she is supervising a process that is profoundly anti-democratic, and the results will be visited on her head. All those people who have sought change in the Resource Management Act for over half a decade have been told to “Get lost!”.

I just want to correct something, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition to remain and hear it. There was no decision—

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister may be a relatively new member but she should know that she must not refer to the presence or absence of members from the Chamber.

Yes, I accept that.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member that it is out of order to refer to the absence of members.

I hope that applies to another member who made reference to my absence.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It certainly does. It is a longstanding convention in the House.

Good. I will make my point very clearly, and I will do it by reading, as I did last night, from the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999. At page 7 it states: “Government and Green members recommend that the definition of ‘historic heritage’ be modified”. It goes on to state: “We also recommend including the phrases ‘spiritual qualities’”—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The portions she is quoting are from the No. 1 amendment bill. That bill was dispensed with by that Minister. Members on this side of the Committee would love the opportunity to be able to debate the select committee report on the No. 1 bill, but this Government prevented it. I seek leave to debate the select committee report on the 400 submissions on the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill, because it seems that the Minister wants to debate it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s original request was a debatable issue.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it was.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders are very clear. We are debating Part 1 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), so the Minister cannot suddenly start talking about the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill, or the select committee report, just because it suits her. If the Minister would like to debate it, I again seek leave to debate the select committee report on the No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill, because it seems that that is what the Minister seeks to debate.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: It seems to me that in the House we frequently quote from a wide range of documents that have a bearing on the matter at hand. The report back of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the No. 1 bill, is one such document. It should be clearly distinguished from the report of the committee on the No. 2 bill. But I cannot see how you can rule it out of order to quote from that document, given that people quote from submissions that were made to a pretend select committee, which actually had no status at all.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to make two points. First of all, the Hon Dr Nick Smith sought leave, and that needs to be put. The second point is that a ruling was given by the Clerk to the select committee that the submissions heard by Mr Nick Smith’s select committee were quite in order. Indeed, they were referred to in part of the report of the select committee on the No. 2 bill. So members are well within their rights to debate that aspect. If we are allowed to debate other bills, and if we are to go that wide, why do we not talk about the Ngāti Tama bill or the Fair Trading Amendment Bill? The fact is, we must generally stick to the bill that is before the House at the time. One cannot go to other bills; that is quite outside the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member. The No. 1 Resource Management Amendment Bill is not before the Committee. It is not within the Committee’s terms of reference to debate that bill. However, members may discuss that bill to the extent that it is relevant to the provisions of this part. I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has sought leave, but I am advised that, as a result of the ruling, he does not need to seek leave. However, I will ask whether there is any objection to that course of action being taken. There is.

The Leader of the Opposition made a comment that a decision was made in Cabinet, and I point out that the decision was made in the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dail Jones, because he has not spoken in this—

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

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You can take the point of order, Mr Shirley, but in reality I have already made the call, and, under Speaker’s ruling 23/3, that call cannot be taken away.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: You are anticipating my point of order, which is often a dangerous path for a presiding officer to take. My point of order is about a totally different matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry. Will the member please proceed.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: My point of order is this. As I think you are aware, the Speaker gave clear directions to the Business Committee as to how this debate would be handled, and I think you were present there, as were other presiding officers. Time was to be given, reflecting the complexity of this bill. I heard you say you were looking at a list of who had already spoken. My point is this: I am the ACT spokesperson on environmental, conservation, and energy issues, and on a whole lot of other things, and, given the complexity of this matter, and to fulfil the clear understanding that was given, I would expect to have more than one call on each of these parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I can assure the member that we will do that. In fact, Standing Order 178 has been suspended for the rest of this year to enable smaller parties to have more calls.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Indeed, and in view of that I was wondering why you were consulting a list of who had already spoken, because I would have thought there was scope for all here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just trying to look for some sort of proportionality. The honourable member Dail Jones has not spoken, and that is why I gave him the call.

The main point I want to refer to today is the point that has just been taken up by the leader of the National Party, which is to do with the removal of security for costs. Speaking as a lawyer who has done some resource management work—though I try to avoid it, because it goes on for ever, and sometimes it is very unsatisfactory—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: On legal aid?

No, never on legal aid. Fortunately, I had a practice that did not seem to warrant that; we are quite lucky sometimes. If the right of the Environment Court to award security for costs is removed, one will get the problematic situation that existed before, whereby people who have no real interest in the matter will delay the Environment Court. There is a suggestion from the Greens that the Environment Court will award security for costs on a willy-nilly basis, which is quite wrong.

The Environment Court does have certain grounds and rules under which it may award security for costs. The insertion of this clause is a rebuke to those judges who sit on the Environment Court. It is saying to those judges: “We don’t approve of the decisions you have made in the past, and we don’t think we can trust you to make the right decisions in the future.” That is what the Labour Government is saying to the Environment Court in this situation. It is saying: “We are very, very unhappy with the way in which the previous clause was used. We don’t want you to have this power”—which really boils down to a discretion—“any more.” What sort of way is that to run the country, when the Government can take the view that the court is not doing its job properly and will rebuke it on the matter of security for costs? All that the judges were doing was trying to say to some people: “That’s fine, you can object, but, really, if you’re going to object, you’ve got to put some of your money where your mouth is.” And that varies—it is not always $50,000. If the person does not have much money, that fact is usually taken into account by the court, which has discretion in those matters.

This particular clause would, on its own, make me oppose this legislation, because this little clause alone will result in great delays in resource management consents. Once people are allowed to get in there and lodge an objection willy-nilly, we can say goodbye to the proper administration of the Resource Management Act. That was proved before the clause was put in some time ago.

There was a good reason for that clause being put in, and I again ask, as I did earlier on in the debate on this bill: where is the Attorney-General in this matter? What responsibility is she taking to earn her money and to advise the Government in regard to the running of the court and the ability of court officers and judges to run their affairs? Where is the Minister of Justice? What advice has the Attorney-General given to Cabinet? What advice has the Minister of Justice given to Cabinet? Clearly they are saying: “If we give in to the Greens on this one, we will allow endless delays in Resource Management Act applications, and all of the things that have been said about the Resource Management Act, allowing delays and such like, will well and truly apply again.”

I find the administration of the Resource Management Act generally pretty good. I am not in the camp that says that the Act is necessarily bad. I believe that the administration of the Act is poor, but under the situation where there was security for costs there was some control over the people who lodged applications willy-nilly. It is the people who run the system who sometimes are not as efficient as they could be. Now we have lost control over the people who put in spurious objections. Everybody in the House knows that. The Greens know that. We have seen people put out notices stating how they could delay resource management applications. I really think that the Government should have a close look again at that provision, because it will create considerable problems in the future. I warrant that within 2 years, if the Government has any sense, that provision will be repealed.

I move, That the question be now put.

The issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition and then spoken to by Dail Jones is a very important issue. The provision is one that not only would prevent frivolous objections in the case of resource management applications but also would have the potential to protect ratepayers when a large proposal is put to a council about a particular project. Perhaps many, many hours of hearings may go into the proposal. Perhaps at the end of the day, because the application was put in on behalf of the shelf company, the bill has not been paid. Then, finally, if the project does not go ahead, the local authority—therefore, the ratepayer—will be out of pocket because there was no security-for-costs provision awarded against the applicant.

That is not uncommon. I would have thought officials would give the Government some advice about the frequency with which security for costs are ordered against applicant bodies. It is very, very regular; it is a normal practice, and it protects ratepayers. I think that the amendment to remove section 284A(1) should be supported by the Committee. The provision should be taken out of the legislation.

I commend my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for putting forward an amendment that would insert a right for a big project to go directly to the Environment Court. Everyone knows that this country has at the moment a crisis in electrical energy—in other words, a massive shortage. The worst thing is that it is not hard to see that that could become a year-on-year circumstance. We have not had any significant new generation built in this country in the last 4 years. Between 1996 and 1999, we had about 1,200 megawatts; since then we have had 166 megawatts—most of which was started in construction prior to the current Government taking office. Just to illustrate how problematic that is, let us consider that this country, with its current rate of growth, needs about 150 megawatts of new generation each year. I look at an answer given to me by the Hon Pete Hodgson that states that there are generation proposals on the books now—what he calls “probable options”. I hear that tomorrow he is to announce a whole new list of “probable options”. Every one of those options will require resource consent.

There is some talk that there will be a proposal that has a cumulative amount over some 5 to 10 years of 2,000 megawatts. That is less than what we need on an annual basis. But each of those megawatts is dependent on the resource management process. How much simpler it would be if, on an issue like energy, direct appeals or requests for consent could be made to the Environment Court. That does not in any way take away the environmental obligations that those who propose these generating projects face. It does not take away the right of objectors to make their points known, but it does remove some years of the bureaucratic process that goes into the ultimate decisions around those types of consent, which, by and large, end up being referred to the Environment Court, anyway. One can see that there is a whole layer of bureaucracy that could be cut out by those particular projects being allowed to go direct to the Environment Court. So I hope that Parliament will sensibly support the amendments moved by Dr Nick Smith.

Let me make it very clear. On the books at the moment, we have hydro, wind, geothermal, gas, and what are described as “various other options” for new electrical generation in this country. Tomorrow the Minister will stand up and tell the whole country that we have another 2,000 megawatts proposed, as well. But none of that will come on stream unless it gets a resource consent quickly. The earliest we will get new generation in this country is likely to be late next year, but that is because that generation already has a consent. So every one of those projects, and every one of the projects the Minister will talk about tomorrow, is, realistically, 5 to 7 years away. Supporting Dr Nick Smith’s amendment in order to shorten up that process would be a good idea. That could reduce some of that lag time to 3 to 4 years, and this country desperately needs that generation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I do not know why the National Party ever agreed in the first place to support a bill that allowed any hearings or submissions. It seems to me that the ideal resource management bill, from its point of view, would be one in which people got any application they applied for, with no community participation at all. National Party members do not agree with anything that makes it possible for community groups to get to court and have a say.

I am sorry that Dail Jones does not appear to have heard anything I said on the subject of costs yesterday. I made it very clear that the new provision on security for costs does not remove the award for costs. I will quote from yesterday’s speech: “If the case has no merit, there must be some sanction for failing to comply with directions of the court, and there must be some incentive for people to prepare a case properly and observe the normal rules that go with running the process. That sanction is the ability of the court to award costs against any party to the court that misuses the process.”

I said specifically that the court does not use the award of security for costs very often. The Local Government and Environment Committee was very clear that it was not criticising the way the court behaves. What we were criticising—what we were trying to deal with—was developers using stand-over tactics and threats to try to prevent community groups from ever having a say in the first place, and that is totally contrary to the purpose of the bill, which is about bringing all the evidence to the table. If some parties are excluded because of this sort of behaviour, and because they do not have very deep pockets, all the evidence does not get to the table. The fact is that National is supporting those stand-over tactics and threats from big developers against community groups.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Will the member please desist.

It is hard to see how—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We want a withdrawal and an apology.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have asked the member to desist in using that terminology, and that is where the matters rests.

I have desisted, and I assure the Committee I will not make those claims again. I simply say that the effect of what the National Party is proposing is that developers would be able to continue unchecked with their stand-over tactics and threats to community groups.

Community groups do not always know that the court is quite unlikely to agree to the threats of the developers. They do not have the experience in court to know that, and many groups came before us that said they had been deterred from taking action where they had a good legal case because they were threatened with costs. In another case just recently, the court turned down an application for security. The group involved was wondering how on earth it was to raise $30,000 through cake-stalls, if the court awarded security, which, in the end, it did not. That issue was discussed with a judge and legal experts, and it was made clear to the committee that going back to the 1996 situation would not create any great difficulties for the court.

I move, That the question be now put.

There are three key points I wish to make. The first is in response to the issue of the courts awarding security. In fact, our courts are more sensible than that. I am critical of many decisions that our courts make—we know we should not criticise them in Parliament—but they have been shown to be very sensible in terms of awarding security. I would challenge the member who has just resumed her chair to name one case where an injustice has been committed on that issue, because I cannot think of one. There is not one instance, so to create it as the bogeyman and to do away, on that basis, with the measures that were there is very, very foolish.

The other aspect I would like to address is clause 10, “Functions of territorial authorities under this Act”. A new requirement for local bodies, in subparagraph (iii) of section 31(b), is “the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:”. That is a bumper sticker. Nobody knows what it means. By way of background, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was all about national reporting. It started out with a general concern in UN forums that we were losing biodiversity, and that nations should report on that. It was intended for things like the Bengal tiger and the white rhino, and maintaining the Amazon rainforest, the Congo and the Sumatran rainforest, and so on and so forth. It was never intended to be acre-by-acre or hectare-by-hectare maintenance of biodiversity.

Unfortunately, in this country our zealotry and our public institutions have picked up a UN convention on biodiversity and imported it into our planning laws, to the point where we are now giving instructions to local bodies that every time there is a planning consent or an application, they have to consider biodiversity on a hectare-by-hectare basis. That was never intended. We have gone right off the rails in this country. This is a nice, warm, fuzzy bumper sticker. It is only sensible when it is kept in the context of each jurisdiction at a national level annually reporting on its efforts to maintain significant biodiversity. Importing it into legislation in the way that we do in this bill is just a bizarre concept. It can only create further problems for us. We know the sorts of problems that the “significant natural areas” concept got into as it was applied to the Northland district scheme. Members should think of this concept being applied under the Resource Management Act.

The Minister in the chair thinks that importing phrases, terms, and provisions like this is, somehow, streamlining the process. Let me assure her it is just introducing more uncertainty, more nebulous concepts that no one knows the meaning of, and is a recipe for endless litigation through the courts.

There are several other aspects in this bill that concern me. I go back to the diversity aspect. Members should just think of Card Creek, of applying that aspect to a power scheme like the Dobson one. There only needs to be a wee bit of native flax or whatever on the valley floor, and one would never do anything. Local authorities now have a clear instruction, whenever there is a proposal. It is bad enough the Department of Conservation influencing this Government to the extent it does—prohibiting access to sites like that, prohibiting access to Pike River coal, and all the rest of it—but now local government, in applying its district schemes and planning applications, will have to virtually block any development that might in any way compromise biological diversity.

At the end of the day, it is a bumper sticker. No one knows what it means. The convention was never intended to be applied in this way. It was only ever intended to be applied as a national reporting tool.

The second aspect of real concern is the heritage order provisions. I would like to raise with the Committee a submission from Federated Farmers. It is unfortunate that the Government members did not participate in the select committee, because some very good submissions were made. Federated Farmers had grave concern about this provision, but one check that they did propose was that the heritage order provisions be amended so that where land-use restrictions for heritage or conservation values were of such significance, one was actually paid compensation.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is interesting that Government members, who are not participating in this debate, also did not participate in the select committee. That really tells members the whole—

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is not appropriate to refer in this House to an ad hoc body as a select committee—as it has been called by some members. The term “select committee” has a very particular meaning in the rules of this House, and the meetings that National members have several times now referred to as those of a select committee were not, in fact, the meetings of a select committee. It was a committee of members. I would like the member to correct that for the record, please.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I was a member of that committee. Most Opposition parties were represented there. The point is that committee is actually mentioned in the report back, which is under debate now. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) includes reference to that committee. So I contend that it is very much part of this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank Mr Shirley. It actually is a debatable issue.

As I was saying, the Government members who decided not to participate in the select committee process and hearings of evidence on this bill have also decided not to participate in any debate on the bill in this Chamber. That really says a lot about where this Government is at when it comes to legislation such as the Resource Management Act. Government members approach it from a simple premise of there being only one view, and that is their view, and that is the way it is going to be.

That view might make them feel comfortable at night, but it certainly does not make business in New Zealand feel comfortable at all. In fact, it is a view that makes doing business in this country very, very difficult indeed. Not only is the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that we have before us a difficult bill for business to cope with; it is a bill that is driving many businesses, for the first time ever, to engage in practices that are as close to blackmail and corruption as one can get. I have had business people tell me that, in advancing developments and other propositions around the country, they have come up against objectors under the Resource Management Act who have said: “We’re going to take you right through the process, right through to the Environment Court, on this. There’s no cost on us, but if you want to drop around a case of wine,”—in one case—“then the objection will disappear.”

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That’s cheap.

Well, I think that is outrageous. A case of wine is a bit cheap, one might argue, but it just shows how shallow the objector was, and it shows that we have passed into law, and now are amending and making worse, legislation that forces business people to make those sorts of choices.

Members opposite know that is the case. I have had business people tell me that they have spoken to Labour members and told them what is going on. Labour members tut-tut, and say: “Oh well, you know, the Greens are really dominating us on this, and we have to do this because of the Greens.” Well, I tell Labour members to come out from under the Green shadow and influence and do what they think is right for business and for New Zealand. They should not tell the business people who talk to them in their constituencies that they agree with them but they need to do this because of the Greens.

I also want to raise the issue of roading. This legislation will, almost single-handedly, do more to stop any roading initiatives taking place in this country than any other piece of legislation. It does not matter how much people are taxed and how much money is put aside for Auckland, and it does not matter how much one promotes public-private partnerships, this Resource Management Act and the amendments that the Labour Government is pushing through the Committee today will mean that roading projects grind to a halt. The select committee on the Land Transport Management Bill heard all sorts of people, from councillors to developers, to business people, and to road-user groups, say that roading in this country is being strangled by the Resource Management Act. People cannot get consents. It is impossible to get consents. There is a case not far from where I live where someone wants to save a row of macrocarpa trees. That has forced a delay in that project for at least 3 years. This bill will make it worse. Anyone from anywhere can object. Objections from people in the Coromandel, who are not too far removed from the Green Party, to roading developments north of Auckland are stopping development and roading.

The Minister for the Environment might think that is OK, that is fine. One has to assume she thinks it is OK, because she has been silent in this debate and silent in the Committee.

I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to do this before the vote is declared. I note that during question time, which is the time when the House fills up, 22 Labour members were not present. We know that Labour is entitled to have a group absent, but I hope the Labour whip is sure that he has got his numbers here. We are happy to take the whip’s word, but there were 22 members away at question time, and it is my experience that, on a Thursday afternoon, people do not come back to Parliament after question time. In fact, they stay away. I want an assurance that, with that number having been away, Government members have returned to the House since question time—in the last hour. A substantial number of them would have had to come back.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. All members in this House are honourable members. Their word is unreservedly accepted; their word is their bond. If for any reason it was found to be otherwise, there are courses of action that can be taken in this Parliament.

The next amendment is to clause 3, and is in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to insert a new subclause (17), dealing with the definition of “environment”. As many as who are of that opinion will say “Aye”, of the contrary will say “No”. The Ayes have it? A party vote called for? The Clerk will conduct a party vote. A party vote is called for? It is agreed? No?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I said “No”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Did you say “No”?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Yes, I did. Quite clearly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Noes have it. Party vote called for? [Interruption]

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I said “No”, and I was quite clear.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister has called “No”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is up to the Minister, but you said “The Ayes have it.” We did not call a party vote, no one from the other side called a party vote, so one presumes that we move on.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a ruling that the Chair knows what the majority in the House is. The majority has indicated that it is not in support of this amendment, and the Minister has indicated that she is not in support of this amendment. Is a party vote called for?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but I could not quite comprehend what you just said. Could you run that by us again, please, for my benefit?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not have it with me, but there is a ruling from the Clerk’s Office that where the majority is known, and, in this case, with the Government—[Interruption] I am sorry. It is for the Chair to make an interpretation of the votes, I am advised. In this case—

💬 Stephen Franks: The vote was clear.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member on my right, the Minister—she is an honourable member, and I accept her word—has said that she called “No”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not hear the Chair’s call of the determination, but I do know that I voted “No” on the Nick Smith amendment under discussion, and I know that the Minister in the chair also did, because I was watching her.

I am not going to doubt whether the Minister whispered “No”. The issue is—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I said “No”.

The Minister should not interject while points of order are being heard. From where we were sitting—from where I was sitting—I did not hear anyone call “No”. But that is irrelevant. You called “The Ayes have it.” It is not my responsibility or my whip’s responsibility, when you have called “The Ayes have it.”, to call for a party vote. You said “The Ayes have it.” No one called for a party vote. From my angle, that means the vote was passed. If you had said “The Noes have it.”, my whip would have called for a party vote. I am sure the other parties would have done the same.

The position that we are asked to accept the word of a member may well not govern. Even if a member does say he or she has called, if the Chair did not hear that, and proceeded, is there any ability to go back and reopen a vote?

I actually think it is quite simple. People call “Yes” and “No” in the Chamber, and the Chair makes a determination and says “The Ayes have it.” or “The Noes have it.” We have just had a series of votes on amendments in the name of Mr Baldock. We voted against some of them by voice. You called “The Ayes have it.” We did not want a party vote on those, so we did not call for a party vote. That happens all the time. We had a voice vote; we did not have a party vote. On this amendment from Dr Nick Smith, people voted, you said “The Ayes have it.”, no one called for a party vote, and I understand that at that point the vote was locked in.

Just to add to what I said before, one of my other members has just confirmed that she heard me vote “No”, and your memory will remind you that I stood to vote, and waited for the Clerk to call the vote. It was clearly my expectation that we were about to call the detailed vote, and I ask that we proceed with that.

I think the point is being perhaps inadvertently obfuscated. Mr Sowry made it very clear that the issue is that the presiding officer makes the declaration, and at that point either the Opposition or the Government makes a decision whether it wants to call a party vote, based on the declaration. I put to you that you cannot make one declaration as a presiding officer, then, if the Opposition does not exercise its prerogative to call for a party vote, relitigate it later and say that, in fact, you heard someone say “No”, and therefore there is a majority, and that precludes the Opposition from exercising that option. Clearly, that is not right, according to the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say that it is for the Chair to interpret the results on the voices. I may have made a mistake. If I have, I accept that, but I have determined that the Noes have it, and any member who voted “Aye” can call for a party vote. I now call for a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What you are saying is that you called “The Ayes have it.”, and when we went to move on to the next vote you decided you had made a mistake, and you have changed the vote. So we do not need any leave of the Committee or anything else like that—you can just change a vote. I find that extraordinary, and I think we need to have a Speaker’s ruling, if we are going to be in a position where a Chair, without the leave of the House, can just say: “Oh no, I am going to change the vote.” You called “The Ayes have it.”

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. It is up to the Chair to decide whether he or she may have made a mistake. In this case, I have determined that the Noes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You called “The Ayes have it.”, then moved on. Your words were “The Ayes have it.” I am saying to you that either you seek the leave of the Committee to re-put the vote on the basis that, as you have explained, you got it wrong, or we will have to get a Speaker’s ruling on whether that vote can be changed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say, based on advice, that if we have not moved on to the next question, we can have a party vote to clarify the matter. So I am now seeking the leave of the Committee to carry out the party vote. [Interruption] I am sorry; I do not need the leave of the Committee, because I have not proceeded to the next question.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am looking at Standing Order 141. I ask you to indicate where there is room for a mistake. This Committee heard the votes. You declared them as we heard them. You then proceeded. There was no call for a party vote. Where is the room for a mistake? Are you saying that you declared wrongly?

💬 David Benson-Pope: I called for a party vote. I stood up.

There was no call for a party vote. There is a point of integrity here, and the fact that it may be embarrassing is not a matter for the Chair to take into account.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just say to members that I may have declared the result in a certain way, and then decided to adjust it. That is the Chair’s prerogative, and we have not moved on to the next question.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not the Chair’s prerogative to determine the declaration of a vote. The outcome of a vote is the vote of this Committee. The Chair is merely the functionary.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am not hearing any more. The outcome of the vote is that the Noes have it, and that is where the matter rests. Is a party vote called for?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am trying to assist, because I think you have come clean and said that you had made a mistake, and that is fine. In my view, the correct way forward would be for you to seek leave to put the vote again. I do not think that any Chair can sit there and declare a vote, then decide that he or she got it wrong, and just change it, particularly after the vote was finished. We can get into an argument about whether we had moved on, but, clearly, the voting had finished. You had called “The Ayes have it.” That is when we move on. In fact, I think you had even started your next sentence, but had not actually put the next vote. I think the proper way to do it is by leave, because I would hate us to get into a situation where we created a ruling—and I think it would be quite improper to create a ruling at this level—that the Chair, having put the vote and declared the vote, can then say: “I’m going to change it.”

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I do not actually need to seek leave.

I thank Mr Sowry for that contribution. I can assure the Committee that if he seeks leave for this vote that you have declared to be retaken, the Government will not object to that leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise the Committee that the result has not been finally determined. The Committee has not moved on to the next question. The Noes have it. Any member who disagrees can call for a party vote. So I am saying that the Noes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am starting to worry about the advice you have been given. You had clearly called “ The Ayes have it.” The issue is when is a vote finished. If your adviser is telling you that that is not the finish of the vote, then I think that is wrong. You had actually started your next sentence. I do not know what your adviser is going to say about when a vote is finished or not, but, certainly, members of this Committee need to know when a vote is finished. It is usually finished when it is declared. The point I am making is that if you declared it wrongly, then it is appropriate that you seek leave to re-put the vote. We are trying to help you here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I appreciate that. I realise that.

I think Mr Sowry made a suggestion that had the right spirit about it. Without in any way commenting on the authority of the Chair, and in order to help clarify the matter for the Committee—and I think the Chair made a clear indication that he had declared the vote—I seek leave, in order for all members to be clear, that we simply take the vote again.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(17) Section 2(1) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the definition of the term “environment”, and substituting the following definition:

environment includes—

(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts; and

(b) all natural and physical resources; and

(c) the health, safety, amenity values, and cultural values of people and communities.

Here we are again, with an 18-part bill that has been condensed to two parts, and we are now debating Part 2. Never before in the history of this Parliament has there been such an abuse of the parliamentary process as we are experiencing in this Chamber today. This bill has had 18 parts brought down to two parts. There were 400 submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill, and 80 hours of work in the Local Government and Environment Committee on it, including visits to seven cities throughout New Zealand, where many people submitted their views. Yet all those 400 submissions have been totally ignored. There is not one single acknowledgement that the concerns brought forward by those people during that process are represented in this part.

In fact, none of the recommendations of the Government’s own compliance cost committee, which came back and recommended substantial changes be made to Part 2—I note there is a section in this part that refers to that—has been upheld. At this point in time it would be very useful if the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs could take a call and explain to the people out there in radioland, and to others who are—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member must not refer to radio listeners, according to Speaker’s ruling 39/1.

OK; I hear what the Chairman is saying. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to those nearby—and not so nearby—who are taking a close interest in this legislation why the concerns of the committee that this Government put in place in the forty-sixth Parliament, have not been upheld by that same Government in this forty-seventh Parliament, and are not reflected in this legislation. That is an issue to which hundreds, maybe thousands, of people would like to know the answer. Certainly, there are millions of dollars tied up in knowing the answer to that question. So the Minister could take a call and help us with that.

The Minister could also help us by telling us why, in the amendments earlier, we have seen placed in this legislation cost overruns such as I have not seen in legislation before. As I said in an earlier speech, the title of this bill—and certainly its connection to Part 2—should have reflected the bill’s emphasis: if something moves we should tax it and regulate it, if it keeps moving we should tax it and regulate it a bit more, and if it stops moving we should subsidise it and regulate it in order to get it moving again. Perhaps the Minister could take a call and tell us why that suggestion was rejected in earlier debates, as well. Clearly, a lot of people have an interest in this legislation, and they would want to know why that suggestion was rejected out of hand.

Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell us why contestable consents, and the process concerning those, were changed in the way that they have been, and explain why they are no longer in the form they had in the original bill that the select committee looked at. Maybe the Minister could take a call and tell us why the clarification of the roles of district and regional councils has been overlooked in the way that it has, and why the ambiguity that exists in terms of development on the question of who is in charge of what between regional and district councils has not been rectified. A large number of the 400 submitters to the select committee said that that was an increasing concern and there was a major cost involved in that. Certainly, there have been huge delays in development when district and regional councils had different standards or rules between themselves when it came to developments within their areas. Why was that issue not cleared up when there was an opportunity like no other, I would suggest to the Minister, to rectify that?

Why has the Minister not taken into account some of the concerns raised by a particularly large business in the country with regard to vexatious objectors involving themselves in the process? Why was that not attended to in this amendment, when the Minister had an opportunity to fix up some of the concerns about the Act with regard to that? Certainly, there are many examples of where that has happened under the Act thus far. Once again, I remind the Committee of the example of highway 3 in north Taranaki, where the major route out of Taranaki was threatened by a landslide. For 6 months that situation was allowed to continue.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a further contribution to this debate on Part 2. I say at the outset that I am desperately concerned that legislation that was previously in 18 parts has now been condensed into two. I am desperately concerned about that, because this legislation has far-reaching consequences. This could have been very good legislation. It is very significant legislation, but now we have lost our opportunity to do something worthwhile for the people of New Zealand.

In particular, I believe that fixing up the Resource Management Act is the most critical thing that underpins our economic prosperity. Constituent after constituent has approached me and asked me to go and see the nice people in the Government in Wellington and to talk sense to them, because my constituents believe they will surely listen to a reasoned approach.

💬 Shane Ardern: Those constituents are misguided.

They are. What has happened is that we now have the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) going through this Parliament, and that is an abuse of the powers of this great institution. Fixing the Act would have done more for decongesting our roads, for new electricity generation, and for sustainable irrigation than any other thing that I can think of.

I shall use sustainable irrigation as an example of why my constituents are so desperately concerned about what is transpiring here today. They understand that water is the lifeblood of their economy. They understand that, and they have beseeched me to come to Wellington to take that message to this Parliament. Unfortunately, it falls on deaf ears. There is a body of opinion that says that people who want to exploit water in a sustainable way are bad. That is absolute nonsense. The people of Rakaia are some of the best conservationists that I can think of, and they deserve better from this Government than what is happening.

Fixing the Resource Management Act would underpin our hospital standards, in terms of the hospital care that we have all come to expect that we deserve. It would underpin our education system and enhance it. It would do a lot to reduce our crime rate, because people who are actively engaged in society and who are stakeholders do not wreck things. It would put us back in the top half of the OECD. We have lost our opportunity to do something significant for the people of this country. We know that we have an electricity crisis, but what is happening? We are thumbing our nose at it, and we are telling the people of New Zealand to get used to incompetence, because that is what they will get from this Government. When Bill English is Prime Minister, I can tell members that those things will be fixed, and we will do what is right for the people of this country.

The Minister has made a lot of claims that businesses have been consulted and that they are happy. I would say “insulted” not “consulted”. I have taken the opportunity to do a little bit of research, and I have come up with a couple of press releases. A fairly significant business body, Federated Farmers, had this to say: “Federated Farmers of New Zealand’s national board member, Neil Barton, says the federation is outraged that the parliamentary committee considering the bill will only hear submissions from officials.” That is disgraceful. That is not justice, nor is it parliamentary democracy. That is not what I came to this institution for. I had thought better of the people on the Government side of the House until I heard that.

Federated Farmers went on to state: “Contrary to the Minister for the Environment’s claim that the bill has been discussed to death, there are significant changes to the intention of the original legislation. Mr Barton says that Federated Farmers does support limited notification, and changes to the bill that will reduce the cost for consents that have little environment impact.”—and we endorse that; we think that is sensible. “However,”—and this is the piece that really made my antenna go up—“this will not offset the likely increases in cost if changes are made in the way the Act is administered, or if proposals to increase the importance of historical heritage sites are implemented.” I understand that we have made some progress on that today, and I commend the Government for that.

How can we come to Part 2 so quickly, when Part 1 has 61 pages? Part 2 has only five pages, and is titled “Amendments and repeals of other enactments, transitional provisions, and savings”. The public would have been astounded at that. This bill was hailed by United Future party MP Larry Baldock, when he said this “significant reform” of the Resource Management Act needed to be passed through the House under urgency. That was in October 2002.

💬 Brian Connell: When?

In 2002.

💬 Brian Connell: That’s a year ago!

A year ago! One year ago United Future thought this bill would be passed under urgency, and that was wrong. But the point I want to make is that although United Future thought this was a significant reform, the bill has only two parts. So how can it be a significant bill? We would call something like that a little bill—like a Statutes Amendment Bill—containing technical amendments. That is the type of issue that the public would expect a bill with only two parts to deal with. They would think it was going to amend only some technical inaccuracies in the principal Act.

How can a “significant” piece of legislation have only two parts? In fact, Part 2 of this bill only amends and repeals other enactments. [Interruption] I see that Murray Smith from United Future wants to make a contribution. I look forward to his taking a call and explaining to us why this legislation was not passed under urgency in October 2002. His colleague Larry Baldock announced in the Chamber yesterday that when he came to Parliament he learnt something: he learnt how to horse-trade. That is interesting. He said he learnt to convince Labour it should trade a Green vote for a United Future vote—that it was give and take. I invite his colleague Murray Smith to take a call and explain to us what sort of horse-trading United Future managed to achieve in this legislation. We know United Future lost out on the issue of timing, because the bill was not passed in October 2002.

I am really concerned about this issue because Peter Dunne, who was leader of United NZ in 1999, cautiously voted for the referral of the original Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999 to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but on one condition. He said the legislation was not supposed to be gutted. That bill had 18 parts. This one has only two parts. It has gone from 18 parts to two parts. How else can one read it, other than that this bill has been gutted? So the Opposition really looks forward to hearing a contribution from United Future MP Murray Smith, to explain how a bill of 18 parts could become a bill of two parts and not be described as having been gutted.

It was a great disappointment to us that the minority Labour Government chose to rush this bill through the Committee stage by condensing an 18-part bill into a two-part bill. I think the public has come to expect certain things under an MMP Government. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said that her Government would be a transparent Government, where the democratic process of the Parliament would be respected, yet our ability to question the Minister and also to debate each part of this bill in full has been condensed. So how can we do justification to this legislation?

I want to debate an issue in Part 2 in relation to the amendments that have been made. During this week we passed a taxation bill that the Government said was there for another reason, and the public saw through that. Now, all of a sudden, something very odd has happened. All the way through the debate when the bill was introduced, in the select committee, in the second reading, and even—up until recently—in the Committee stage debate, the Government has been right behind the issues of “spiritual”, “cultural landscape”, and “ancestral landscape”. It has all been there. Suddenly, the Government has allowed United Future to put in an amendment—which we supported—that took those definitions out of the bill. The Government rolled over, so that it will be able to say, no, it was a good motion, and it wants to thank United Future for that.

I want this Government to understand that the public will see through this ploy, as well. Does it think that the people of this country cannot think for themselves? It was obvious that this is just a set-up to try to give some credit to United Future. What a joke! For goodness’ sake, if the Minister is trying to give some brownie points to another party, she should be more subtle. Bless my soul, I have never seen anything like it in my life! An amendment was put in and rammed through. Talk about “culture”, “cultural landscape”, “ancestral landscape”, and how important that is to everybody, then flick the switch on and roll over, so that somebody can stand up here and say: “We did that.” I have to tell the Minister that the public will see through that, as well.

We are pleased that provision is not in the bill, as we fought against it all the way through. Did United Future do that in the select committee? Not on your nelly! There was not one comment. Who of those who were on the select committee can remember United Future rallying against that provision? Can anyone? No, but we got an amendment through, so that United Future can get a bit of credit. The Labour Party rolls over, and they think that no one will see through it. Some of us have been around here long enough to see these sorts of funny things going on—and see through them. We are not going to stay dumb and not tell people about it. What a joke! What a way to run a country, and what a way to try to hold on to power. The people of this country see through those things. Believe you me, we had 9 years’ experience of knowing that. The Government has been in power for 4 years or so, and it still has not learnt. It should have learnt from us, but it has not—nor has it learnt from its own experience.

Again, I say that the Government will pay the price for this bill—it is a folly. One does not go out there and frighten the horses, then expect people to jump on them as they are bolting away. It will not happen. That is exactly what will happen with this bill. It is a vote-loser for all the parties that are involved with it. They should not try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, because the public do not like it. They like people to be straight up and down with them, and to tell it as it is.

If the Minister never intended to keep that provision in here, it should never have been put in in the first place. It is just not proper for the Minister to now step back and let it be taken out. The public will see it with a degree of cynicism. They will see it as an act of arrogance, and as an act of folly. They will not like it at all. We are pleased that that provision is gone, because it was a lot of nonsense to ever have had it in there in the first place—and an act of cynicism.

This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on Part 2 of this iniquitous bill, and I am very glad to see the Minister, Marian Hobbs, in the chair. She is grinning like a Cheshire cat when she should not be, because in the 3 short years that I have had in Parliament, no legislation has caused as much concern in the great electorate that I represent, Port Waikato, as the Resource Management Act. Of course, the Act is not only a source of concern in the electorate of Port Waikato, but in the whole of New Zealand. It just so happens that I have been asked by Federated Farmers to talk on land ownership at its conference in Auckland tomorrow.

I was fascinated to see a quote from the Minister in the chair regarding this legislation. She said: “The Resource Management Act is a beautifully written, beautifully balanced piece of legislation.” Unfortunately, that reminds me of one of those old, time-honoured stories about Winston Churchill and Lady Astor. I am glad the Minister is listening. Winston Churchill and Lady Astor had been having a party one night, when Lady Astor came up to Winston Churchill and said: “Mr Churchill, you are drunk—very drunk.” Mr Churchill turned round to her and said: “Lady Astor, you are ugly—very ugly—but when I wake up in the morning, I will be sober.”

Here we have a Minister who has said that the Resource Management Act is beautifully written and beautifully balanced legislation. I say to her that this is ugly legislation—

💬 John Carter: And it will be in the morning.

—and it would be at absolutely any time of the day. That is absolutely the feeling up and down the country, and I am sure that will be the message the Minister will be given by those who attend the Federated Farmers conference tomorrow.

Here we have 18 parts of a bill compressed into two. Only yesterday, the biotechnology task force put out a very important report, which the Minister’s colleague the Hon Peter Hodgson said was a high-quality report. Its recommendation was that regulations must be efficient, cost-effective, and equal to international best practice. It also said: “Compliance costs and delays relating to public consultation are climbing. The public consultation process requires streamlining to improve cost and time overheads without compromising quality control.” It went on to say that industry must have a regulatory environment that is transparent and predictable.

I ask the Minister in the chair whether she can confirm that this bill has a regulatory framework that is efficient, cost-effective, transparent, and predictable. I would like her to stand up and say to the people of New Zealand, with all sincerity, that that is the case with this bill. I do not believe she can. I ask her to take a call after this speech and confirm that what her colleague Pete Hodgson said was a report of high quality applies to this iniquitous bill that she and her Government—the lazy Labour Government—are perpetrating on the people of New Zealand. This is not only one of the greatest abuses of regulatory process, but also one of the worst ways we have ever seen of achieving an efficient regime that will contribute to economic development in New Zealand. I put that challenge to the Minister. Can she take a call and say, with all sincerity, that this bill has a regulatory framework that is efficient, cost-effective, transparent, and predictable?

I move, That the question be now put.

I remind the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs—whom I hope will respond to our pleas to take a call—that in October 2001 she promised the wider community that this legislation would soon be passed. In August 2002 she promised the wider community again that, because of its importance, this legislation would be passed within the near future. Here we are in May 2003, in the forty-seventh Parliament, still debating Part 2 of what was an 18-part bill.

It is interesting to note that United Future has gone through a major learning curve in how MMP works. I took great interest in Larry Baldock’s speech yesterday, when he said that his party had learnt a lot through the process. They certainly learnt a lot through the process—that much we can see from over here. In fact, Larry Baldock quoted the Good Book, saying: “He who gives, shall receive.” Well, United Future certainly gave—there is no question about that. It learnt what happens when the Christians are put into the centre of the ring with the lions—they get consumed. It gave, and the hand that fed it was chewed off. Never before, unless one goes back to Roman times, has there been an example in a Parliament or governance where that has been more evident than it has in this debate today.

The clause being amended is a Clayton’s clause. It does not represent the original suggestion in any shape or form. In fact, it is probably contrary to the original suggestion, but United Future feels that it has achieved something through that process. I suggest that it sits down with the Green Party and learns how to do some real horse-trading. In the forty-sixth Parliament, under a Labour Government, the Green Party really did achieve some of the things it set out to achieve. Most of them were negative—not many people in society were pleased about it—but at least the party achieved what it set out to achieve.

I notice that the Minister who was in charge of the Government’s own regulatory committee, the Hon Paul Swain, is here today. That is very good, because his committee made a recommendation to the Government that stated that the Resource Management Act was the single biggest piece of legislation now adding to the cost of doing business in this country. This bill in no way addresses the concerns that that committee, chaired by the Hon Paul Swain, brought back to this Government. In fact, the article I have here states that a collective of the mayors of Auckland are saying that dollars are not holding up the major developments necessary to address traffic congestion in Auckland; the problem is with the Resource Management Act. That is the single biggest problem in terms of solving traffic congestion in Auckland.

Mayor Bob Harvey, the former Labour Party president, was part of a team that told the Government that it was not dollars, as we have been led believe, that were stopping the development of major roading in Auckland, but the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) does absolutely nothing to address those concerns. What we have here is a former Labour Party president—a person who saw fit to give $10,000 of ratepayers’ money to stop the Ministry of Agriculture eradicating the painted apple moth in Auckland—coming out in a collective with other mayors such as John Banks, Sir Barry Curtis, and the like, and saying that the single biggest barrier to solving Auckland’s roading problems is the Resource Management Act.

What is the response of the Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, to that? Absolutely nothing! Even in the Minister’s own city of Wellington, where major roading extensions are necessary and there are roading problems to be overcome, the Resource Management Act is cited time and time again as the biggest barrier to achieving those outcomes.

I move, That the question be now put.

I thank my colleague for his Winston Churchill story, because when I look across at the senior Government whip I know that this legislation is ugly, I really do. This legislation is ugly for a couple of reasons. If one condenses an 18-part bill into two, then it is ugly. It is a disgraceful abuse of the parliamentary process.

I have said before that fixing the Resource Management Act would do more to underpin New Zealand’s prosperity than anything else I can think of. I want to use the example of water as it pertains to the good people of Canterbury. They understand that if they could bring all their irrigation initiatives on board, they would generate something like 20,000 new jobs and make a contribution of about $2.2 billion to the local economy. That is how we grow our economy.

I say to the Minister that that is why we should have fixed the Resource Management Act, and that is what she has done wrong. She is wrong because it takes people an inordinate amount of time to get consents to use water in a sustainable way, they are cross about it, and they will bring the Government down as a consequence. As I have said before, when Bill English is the Prime Minister he will put people in the ministry chairs who can actually get things done, and I look forward to that opportunity. If the Resource Management Act were fixed—

💬 David Benson-Pope: Sell, sell, sell!

Is that the Government whip yelling out again? I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, to bring on the dog legislation so that we can get him muzzled. Will she do that for me? If she could use a bit of influence in her caucus I would certainly appreciate that.

The point I was going to make was that if we generated income and grew our economy, “dinosaur Jim” would not have to sneak through legislation in the middle of the night and target old people’s bottles of port or sherry, and Michael Cullen would not be party to the act of getting a sneaky tax grab because he would not need to do it. If the Government did not have to do things under urgency and in desperation it might even get things right for a change. Doing something right would be novel for the senior Government whip.

Winston Churchill also had another famous story that included Lady Astor. She wandered up to him one night and said: “Sir, your fly is undone.” He replied, “Madam, dead birds don’t fall out of trees.” This is dead bird legislation. It will not do anything. I am reminded again of the senior Government whip when I think of that story, because dead birds do not do anything, and this legislation will not do anything to drive business into the local economy. In fact, it will drive businesses out of the local economy.

This legislation, as it is now framed, will do an economy good—someone else’s, because businesses will leave this country in droves. They will close their doors and people will be out of jobs. They will track back and find out why that happened, and they will put it very squarely at the Minister’s feet. They will say that she had an opportunity to do things, but she ignored it. The Minister would have this Committee believe that businesses have been consulted and that they are in agreement.

I have another press release. This one, from the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association, states: “The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) currently before Parliament does nothing of consequence to address business concerns with the Resource Management Act 1991. We urge Government to seek a parliamentary majority for further changes to the Resource Management Act to ensure sustainable management and development is not stifled.” That is from Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association. The Minister should take a call and tell me whether Federated Farmers and the Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association are not organisations with significant influence, and whether they do not represent a significant proportion of the business people of this country. The Minister should look me in the eye and say that those people have been consulted and are in agreement. The Minister should hang her head, because what she is doing is an absolute disgrace.

The press release states further: “Our concerns for the present bill are twofold: it will erode business confidence by adding costs—

I move, That the question be now put.