Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. It pleases me greatly to see this bill reach the point of becoming legislation. For those who work in resource management the changes introduced here are long overdue. Most are simple, constructive changes that build upon the extensive experience of those working with the Act. Collectively, these changes will result in a significant improvement in the way that the Act works.

Most commentators readily accept that it is not the principles of the Resource Management Act that are flawed; concerns are, instead, about uncertainty and overly restrictive process requirements. The provisions introduced here will help to overcome those problems. They will develop increased certainty, as in the clarifying of when the provisions of proposed plans will take effect.

Changes to the provisions for national environment standards, in particular, signify an important change in the Government’s approach to resource management. For too long local government has struggled on its own to develop simple, effective, and consistent environmental controls. The new provisions make it easier for central government to become involved in this process. Using those tools, we will now be more able to work closely with local government to achieve improved environmental outcomes. In the last weeks we have been working closely with the regional councils to draw up an agreed priority list as to which national environment standards to proceed with. Importantly, the provisions will not override the role of local government, but do allow for central government to offer more help when that is appropriate.

The limited notification provisions are designed to reduce compliance costs and improve the processing of resource consents with minor effects on the environment. On this issue, I note, I have received most mail—hundreds of letters, in fact. I read in this month’s Orchardist magazine a good summary of how the limited notification provisions might apply to fruitgrowers: “If a grower needs consent to put a minor extension on a building, to get approval permission is needed from all those likely to be affected, such as the neighbours.

“Under the present system, if all the neighbours give their permission, the consent is not likely to be publicly notified. But if one neighbour objects to the grower’s proposal the council would have no choice but to fully notify the consent.

“With limited notification, while the grower would still need to get approval for expanding the business, submissions/objections wouldn’t need to be invited from people other than those directly affected, such as the neighbours. This will reduce the costs to applicants, as full notification, including advertising in a newspaper, can be an expensive task.”

This Government recognises that, alongside amendments to the legislation, significant gains can also be made by working with those parties involved to improve practice. The Ministry for the Environment is working with local government, business, and the community to improve resource management decision-making, and with the Department for Courts to improve facilities and support for the Environment Court. The Environment Court has reduced its backlog, and will continue that reduction. As a consequence, the threat of going to the Environment Court will be removed as a weapon of blackmail. The Ministry for the Environment is working with representatives from a wide range of groups, including the New Zealand Contractors Federation, Business New Zealand, and Local Government New Zealand, to ensure better consistency in resource consent processing, council charging, and hearing processes. Amendments to the law are only one way to improve the Act, and we must not neglect support for the Environment Court.

Getting the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) to this point has been no small challenge. I would like to extend my thanks to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and to the chair in particular, for her, and their, significant efforts on the bill in both its forms—particularly when they saw some of their decisions on the first bill overturned as a result of the business compliance cost panel’s recommendations.

Yes, getting this bill to the third reading has involved refinements—for example, the removal of three terms, introduced by the select committee, in the definition of historic heritage. I listened to the concerns raised courteously by my colleague Larry Baldock. I went back to the two ministries concerned and to some of the members of the select committee who had inserted those words in the definition of historic heritage in the Resource Management Amendment Bill. I judged, last Wednesday, that the essence of our ensuring that historic heritage was elevated to a matter of national importance—as asked for in the letter from the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage—was not weakened by the removal of those words, which would have taken the courts some time to define.

Section 6, as introduced in the original Act in 1991, reads as follows: “Matters of national importance—In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons ... shall recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: (a) The preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment … (b) The protection of outstanding natural features … (c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and … indigenous fauna: (d) The maintenance … of access to … marine area, lakes, and rivers: (e) The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga.” These words have been in the Act since its introduction in 1991. I cannot recall anyone ever having asked me to take those particular words out.

This bill, in clause 4, adds to section 6 paragraph (f): “the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and development.” It was the definition of historic heritage that caused problems for Mr Baldock. He wanted the removal of the words “spiritual”, “cultural landscapes”, and “ancestral landscapes” from the definition. I judged that the words that had been added were not necessary to expedite the issue raised by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. For example, a sacred site can be covered by “cultural”, or “historic”, or both together, or even by “sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu …” which is in the current definition of historic heritage. Therefore, the Government supported Mr Baldock’s reasonable amendment.

The Government remains committed to achieving a healthy environment for all New Zealanders, now and in the future. We will continue to work alongside those implementing the Act in the courts and in the councils, in order to achieve improved environmental outcomes. I make this commitment to the House: if members thought this was the end to the amendments to the Resource Management Act, I can report that, probably, two more sets of amendments are to be developed this year. I commend the bill to the House.

Anybody who thinks this bill will reduce the costs, the uncertainties, and the delays of the Resource Management Act can only be in fairyland. That Minister, who has held that portfolio now for 3½ years, and who had all the hard yards around this area of difficult law done by Simon Upton, bears huge responsibility for the delays in the Environment Court, the delays in essential roads, and the delays in essential power stations that are critical to the growth of this nation. This bill has been about poor policy and poor process. I want to take the House particularly through the fiasco over that issue of cultural landscapes, ancestral landscapes, and spiritual values—concepts that were proposed to be put into section 6, the most critical section of the Resource Management Act—and the way in which the Minister and the Prime Minister, in one of the more amusing accounts I have heard, said that that was never a conscious decision.

I ask the Minister whether, when she wrote to the select committee in March 2000, it was a conscious decision to write and say that the heritage provisions should be strengthened. Was it a conscious decision when the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister for the Environment and said that she wanted the heritage definition strengthened? Was it a conscious decision of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to write a report for the committee in 2001 specifically using those terms of ancestral landscapes, cultural landscapes, and spiritual values? If it was not conscious, then what sort of Mickey Mouse process are we operating in terms of the writing of law?

Then, when members of the select committee from this Opposition side of the House said the process was dopey, what did the five Labour members like David Benson-Pope and Ann Hartley do? They voted for it. Is it possible—[Interruption]—that people vote for things unconsciously, as my colleague Shane Ardern says? He was there. They seemed conscious to me, although I have to say that sometimes with Government members it is difficult to determine who is conscious, and who is not.

I ask the Minister for the Environment—when she spoke to the Resource Management Law Association after the business compliance cost panel’s report that she referred to was reported —why she said she fully supported the bill as reported back from the select committee. There were letters from Business New Zealand, Industry New Zealand, and the Employers and Manufacturers Association—multiple letters were written to members of the select committee saying, at that stage 2 years ago, that those provisions would create huge uncertainties. And the Minister pretends that she did not know anything about it—garbage! That assertion does not stand up credibly.

Then we had the Minister pull the dirtiest trick I have seen in the parliamentary process in 30 years. Rather than carrying on with the bill as it was, rather than even having a debate on the 400 submissions received, or rather than allowing an intelligent debate in this House on the report-back committee on those issues, this Minister brings in a new bill. The new bill had a specific device to limit parliamentary debate.

It is little wonder she is unconscious about what she is doing when she is pulling off those sorts of dirty tricks. That process of introducing a new bill that was identical to the old one was done solely for the purpose of minimising debate in this Parliament. I say to that Minister that if she did not pull dirty tricks like that in this Parliament, perhaps she would not have to get up in this House and explain her way out of a hole as to how legislation in her name did not have her approval.

I will quote what the Minister said in her press release. She said: “These words created unnecessary uncertainty.” Well why the heck did she include them in a bill in her name? The bill went to the Cabinet committee and was ticked off. I have a question for the Minister. How many other provisions in this bill did she approve of unconsciously? If this provision was unconsciously approved, and will create unnecessary uncertainty, how many other provisions have sneaked past her? What sort of other incompetence are we introducing on to the statute book of our country with that sort of Mickey Mouse law process?

Even 2 days before the final reading of the Committee stage, when we asked questions about the energy crisis, and about what effect cultural and ancestral landscapes would have on new powers, the Minister vigorously defended them and said that we were scaremongering. If we were scaremongering, how come the provisions have disappeared?

Then United Future put out a press release that said: “We have acted with complete integrity, and it is a pity the other parties have not.” I have a question for Mr Baldock. Why did he vote for those provisions in the select committee? If he acts with integrity, and if he has the guts to put out press releases questioning the integrity of people on this side of the House—and how dare he question our integrity—why has he done a backward flip and voted opposite to what he voted for in the select committee? I say to Mr Baldock that that is not acceptable. That is a con job, and he should have a damned good look in the mirror before he starts questioning the integrity of members on this side of the House, who have done their proper job in questioning legislation.

I say to my colleagues in New Zealand First and ACT that the reason we have this change is that we collectively provided the opportunity for informed parties like the Employers and Manufacturers Association, Business New Zealand, members of the Resource Management Law Association, and a whole range of 34 organisations to repeatedly come before our special committee, because that Minister specifically moved a motion to deny the select committee the opportunity to have a say on these provisions.

That special committee identified that as a very real problem, and it is good that it is gone. I thank United Future for forcing the issue, but tell its members not to question our integrity when we do our job as the Opposition in highlighting provisions that should be changed. I would go so far as to say that if the Opposition had not done its job, United Future would not have found its backbone to be able to make those changes to this bill.

This bill is a disappointment in that respect. In the original Simon Upton bill, and during the Committee changes, members on this side of the House raised a number of sensible proposals for the Resource Management Act. We think there are major projects that should go directly to the Environment Court. I have not yet heard a single argument at any stage in this debate as to why Government parties refuse to support that. We said we thought decisions should be made by commissioners, and we moved amendments in that direction. No one put up any argument; they were simply rejected. We put up proposals to amend the definition of “environment and amenity values”, because, just like the heritage nonsense, that has caused huge uncertainty and problems in the courts. Again, that has simply been dismissed.

We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy—it was in Sandra Lee’s name. I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions.

I also have to draw the House’s attention to some of the other fuzzy provisions that have been endorsed in the Committee stage. The mechanism about biological diversity includes such a broad, loopy definition that it will create exactly the same sorts of problems and uncertainties. Then this bill does something that we should never do—it gives responsibilities for protection of biodiversity to both district and regional councils, meaning that we will see more confusion. The very thing this bill should be trying to address is the removal of confusion, and this bill adds to the confusion in that regard, which is a big disappointment.

This bill matters, because if we are to deal with the traffic congestion problems in Auckland, we cannot wait 8 years for a resource consent for a new road. If we are going to deal with the power crisis without the lights going out, and people having cold showers, we need to be able to deal with consents for power stations in less than 8 years. If we are going to grow our economy, and create great agricultural wealth with new water augmentation schemes, like those that are required in the Hawke’s Bay and the South Island, then we need to make changes to this Act that are not in this bill.

This is a lost opportunity. Here was an opportunity for this House to make a real difference in one of the most important statutes on our book, and we have flunked it, because the Minister for the Environment is more interested in political correctness, confusion, and in providing legal aid for objectors than in providing some help for developers. It is ironic, is it not, that the Government wants to hand the cheque-book out to try to provide incentive for development, while the developers are saying, “Just remove the barriers.”? Today we are increasing those barriers, and that is a big disappointment, and that is why members on this side of the House say that the people of New Zealand deserve a far better improvement in the Resource Management Act than that which is included in this bill.

I will begin by thanking the Minister for her speech earlier, for the way in which she clearly explained the process that this bill has been going through, and for her cooperation throughout that process. After 4 years this Parliament is about to pass some of the amendments to the Resource Management Act recommended by Simon Upton. This bill contains the proposals that were reviewed by the select committee after hearing submissions during 2000, and reporting back to this House in 2001. Clearly, this bill is not a silver bullet to address everyone’s concerns with the operation and interpretation of the Resource Management Act. It does not contain all the amendments that every party in this House would like it to contain, but that is the reality of MMP. Each party advances its programme for change in the ways that it can, by participating in this great democracy we enjoy as a free nation. There are proposals that remain from the original legislation promoted by National, and one would assume ACT would support those, also.

I refer members to the original Simon Upton bill and the definition of historic heritage, which has become such a point of contention. If we read the bill, we will discover that the wording is very, very similar to what is in the bill that is now being passed through this House in its third reading. Also, in 1998 the Department of Conservation historic heritage management review, which was—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: A good document.

Yes, it was given a covering letter by the Hon Nick Smith, the then Minister of Conservation, who endorsed that review. In its executive summary, that review introduced some terminology that says: “This includes physical historical heritage resources, such as historic buildings and archaeological remains, and also intangible historic heritage values, including Māori heritage values. It includes the ancestral landscapes of iwi, hapū, and whānau, and wāhi tapu, and sites of significance to Māori.” I learnt today from the Minister’s speech that it actually went back all the way to 1991, but I begin to think that Nick Smith could be called the father of wāhi tapu, and that really is in contrast to what he has been doing as he has been going around the country, complaining about these provisions.

Wāhi tapu provisions were introduced by National. All that ranting and raving is nothing more than political point-scoring. We respect the right of Māori to protect their wāhi tapu sites. However, it must be defined in a way that does not lead to confusion and expensive, time-wasting court delays.

The Green Party should support this bill. I thank the co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, for her leadership in the select committee, and for her explanation by way of press release that the definitions in the questions were not specifically put in by the Greens, but that does not mean that a lot of the changes made during the select committee process do not bear the stamp of the Green Party. At the very least, those changes were passed by the select committee with the support of the Greens. I am quietly optimistic that even New Zealand First, despite its vocal opposition to this bill, may be satisfied with some of the provisions in it and will agree with it.

Obviously, the Government gets to implement more of its programmes, its ideas, and its policies than any other party in the House. That is, naturally, because its vision for New Zealand was the one that received the most support at the time of the election almost a year ago. However, as a minority Government, there are times when it must settle for an acceptable compromise between its policies and the policies of at least one other party in the House, in order to pass legislation. When the 47th Parliament convened last year, United Future made it clear to the Government that we considered the reform process of the Resource Management Act to be a priority. When it asked us for our support to pass this legislation, which had been sitting on the Order Paper, we gave our support.

The Government made clear to us the changes it wished to introduce by way of Supplementary Order Paper, which involved the reintroduction of limited notification, the removal of appeals to the Environment Court for council decisions regarding notification, and clarification of the national policy standards. At no stage subsequently—and I want to make that absolutely clear—throughout the process of discussion concerning further developments and our concerns with some aspects such as heritage matters, did we withdraw, or threaten to withdraw, our support for this bill.

The assumption by the Dominion Post article, which stated: “The Government has been forced to drop references to ‘spiritual beliefs’ and ‘cultural and ancestral landscapes’ to win support for resource consent legislation.”, could not be further from the truth, and sadly reveals how deeply engrained the cynicism of our political processes is. The assumption is that there must always be the threat and counter-threat, “If I give to you, what do I get in return?”, kind of attitude. MMP will involve negotiation. There is no doubt about that. We in United Future are here in Parliament to promote the policies we were voted in on, because we believe they are good for all New Zealanders and will help build a better New Zealand for the future, but we have said on a number of occasions that we will not go about that negotiation in the adversarial style of the old two-party system that New Zealand was stuck with for so many years, which still hangs around this Parliament.

Even though MMP has been our electoral system for nearly 7 years, it is obvious that old habits die hard, especially with some members and some political parties. The National spokesperson for the environment, Dr Nick Smith, approached me in the corridor outside the Chamber after the House rose for dinner last Wednesday, and said he was of the opinion that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was in fact a pretty good bill, except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not in order for the member to misquote a member, and if necessary I will make a personal explanation if the member continues to distort the conversation we had.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a debating point.

That is right. Except for the heritage definitions that were referred to in my amendment, he said that it was a pretty good bill, but he almost begged me to dig my toes in and force the Government to support our amendment—which, of course, I did not do. What happened on the following day? Did Nick Smith then begin to speak in favour of the bill after he had found that those amendments had been passed? Did he describe the bill as “pretty good”? Did he indicate that now, with the removal of those controversial words and phrases from the heritage definitions, National would support the bill? No, he did not. We may still be waiting for the answer to that, as the vote on the third reading is yet to be taken.

I wish to make it very clear that, along with my colleagues from United Future, we honour the Queen’s Opposition. It plays an integral part in the upholding of democracy and there is no doubt in my mind that it has a difficult task, but being the Opposition does not mean that it has to call black “white”, and white “black”. It does not have to oppose everything. The voters of New Zealand chose MMP because they want to see more cross-party cooperation in Parliament. One of the most frequent comments that I hear from people about the debating in this Chamber is, why can we not work together for the good of all New Zealanders on more occasions.

In conclusion, I reiterate that I honour the Opposition parties, and respect their role in this House, but my question to them—and, in particular, to Dr Nick Smith—is whether he will dishonour himself and the party that he represents by continuing to oppose this legislation, which has now been amended—not, as they suggest, because of their pressure, because they are really just trying to score points again by claiming that their pretend select committee was worthwhile. In actual fact, we had already begun discussions on our concerns with the definitions with the Minister, long before the rebel committee got off the ground. Again, I ask whether we will see the rebirth of integrity that the leader of the National Party, Bill English, spoke about, as reported in the New Zealand Herald today. Nick Smith has said that this bill is basically good for the country. Will he now urge his party to support its third reading? United Future certainly does.

The United Future member who has just spoken made a point, during the course of his speech, about the Opposition not supporting Government amendments. Of course, United Future did put up an amendment, which was supported by the Opposition.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: All parties.

All parties supported it. The Opposition put up amendments. How many of those did United Future support? How many Opposition amendments did United Future support?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Absolutely none!

Absolutely none, as far as I am aware. What a lot of humbug that speech was. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. We supported United Future. Did it support the Opposition? No! There are words to describe that speech—but I will leave it alone. I have demonstrated that the member does not practise what he preaches—and he preaches a lot here and elsewhere. I feel sorry for his other congregation.

The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced on 20 March 2003. As far as New Zealand First is concerned, and I am concerned, I am discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I am not discussing any other bill. I was not here at the time. I appreciate the work that may have gone into any other bill, but I am discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). When that bill was introduced, the previous speaker said—and I quote from the Hansard advance of 20 March 2003—talking about the bill: “For this reason, today’s first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a real and much-needed breakthrough. We in United Future have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament, and today our efforts have reached fruition.” I remember him saying that, because he makes the same speech all the time—it is just the name of the bill that changes.

In the particular bill he was referring to—the bill about which he said: “We ... have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament,”—there was a reference to those “spiritual” things, and ancestral landscapes, and suchlike. He supported it. He had been working hard to get the bill through.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did he express concern about it then?

I looked through his speech for concern being expressed on those issues, and he said: “I am also pleased with the provisions requiring councils to take into account iwi planning documents. The smart thing for councils to do in response to this provision will be to put the details from hapū and iwi planning documents that are reasonable into their district plans.”, and so on and so forth. That comes into this category.

This bill was then sent to a select committee. As far as I am concerned, that is the bill I am talking about. It was, of course, just a subterfuge, because the whole purpose of the method in which this bill was introduced—supported strongly by United Future—was to reduce its parts, which numbered about 13, to two. That is a gross constitutional distortion of the way in which Parliament should operate. United Future supported it, hook, line, and sinker. That is the party that tries to preach to us about how things should be done, and there it was, curtailing and terminating the right of members to speak on that particular debate on a part-by-part—13 parts in total—basis. It cooperated in cutting those parts down to two. This is the type of United Future we have in this House today. So, anyway, it went to the select committee and then, of course, it came back from the select committee.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did United Future vote for those provisions at the select committee?

United Future must have voted for those provisions in the select committee. I have the bill as introduced, and in the bill as reported back from the select committee there were no changes. References to “spiritual” and the various landscape provisions were still there. So United Future supported those provisions being introduced. In the bill on which they worked so very, very hard, they supported the spiritual requirement, they supported the cultural landscape requirement, and they supported the ancestral landscape requirement. This was after considerable consideration of the bill.

I noted from the comment of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, on one of the Newstalk ZB programmes, that the inclusion of cultural landscapes, ancestral landscapes, and spiritual resources in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), were changes inserted by the select committee, and that “people didn’t really recall having made conscious decisions to put it in.” In actual fact, these provisions were already in the bill before it went to the select committee. They were not put in by the select committee on the No. 2 bill. They were there already.

I really think the Prime Minister has had a very unconscious moment—a total lack of consciousness—because her advisers have not even told her that these provisions were in the No. 2 bill when it went to the select committee, and that when it came back from the select committee, they were still in the bill. That was a real error on the part of the Prime Minister. She went out of this House today with her tail between her legs and she is still wrong, because she still has not been told that, as far as the No. 2 bill is concerned, these provisions were in the bill before it went to the select committee, and were still there when it came back.

My major interest—and New Zealand First’s major interest—in the bill has been to try to get it before the public so that there could be submissions on it subsequent to New Zealand First—and United Future—members coming into the House. We have cooperated with the National Party and the ACT party to try to have public discussion on the bill. We in New Zealand First are indebted to Jim Peters for the time and effort he put into this legislation. He regrets that for personal reasons he is not here today, but he has made a tremendous effort and given a tremendous amount of time to this legislation.

A number of submissions were made on this bill during that process. It indicates that there was still a request by the public to have a say on this No. 2 bill. But that say was denied by United Future. It was denied, of course, by the minority Labour Party, with whom United Future is well and truly in bed. The right for the public to have their say on this bill has been choked off completely by the attitude of United Future and the Labour Party to the legislation. We would have liked—and we want, and we still require—more consultation on this measure.

As a practising lawyer who has done a little bit of resource management work, I find that this seems to be an area that, every 10 or 15 years or so, Parliament must have another go at. We started off in the old days with the 1955 Town and Country Planning Act. I was on a parliamentary committee in about 1978 when we redid the Town and Country Planning Act. Then the Labour Party came in, Simon Upton came along, and they had another go at it. Really, it is the type of thing that more tinkering with does not make any better. One wonders whether New Zealand would ever have got under way if even the first Town and Country Planning Act legislation had been passed at the time. On the whole I find that the main problem with resource management legislation is often the people who administer it, who are lower-level public servants who do not have the ability or—and I do not mean this in a harsh way—the courage, either, to make a decision, because they are frightened that if they make the wrong decision they will lose their job or there will be all sorts of repercussions.

💬 Stephen Franks: That makes bad law.

And that, at the end of the day, makes bad law. I have had experience with subdivisions. Someone gets consent for a subdivision and there are 25 provisions on it, one of which states “subject to any future engineering reports”. A neighbour complains and bang! The developer has to spend another $25,000 to $50,000 on another engineering report, and profit goes out of the window.

One of the major areas of complaint I have with this bill, which I am sure will lead to its downfall as a whole, is the removal of security for costs. As a lawyer, I would think that surely this would still have been a matter to be left to the discretion of the judge involved. The main criticism we make of judges in this House—I know the rules about it—is that they tend to be too soft. That tends to be the attitude judges take, because as lawyers we are trained to give the individual all the protection we possibly can, under our system. I have never known anyone to complain that security for costs has ever been too high. But we remove security for costs, whether it is $500, $1,000, or $1,500, we put nothing in its place, and now the same old people who delayed things prior to 1996 are really going to have a field day. They are there already. They work under the system already. If anything will delay, say, the diversion at Bell Block in New Plymouth, or extensions to South Island roads—whether they be in Nelson or wherever—or the Auckland motorway, the Orewa motorway, or other extensions, it will be this failure to have security for costs. New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.

I rise to support this No. 2 bill passing into law at its third reading. I was privileged to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee when it reconsidered this legislation, and I think there is general agreement amongst United Future, the Green Party, and the Labour Party that this bill brings about some significant improvements to the Resource Management Act without undermining its underlying purpose, which is to balance the interests of those who wish to utilise resources against the interests of those who wish to have a say on whether proposals should proceed.

The main area of disagreement between United Future and Labour, on the one hand, and the Greens, on the other hand, is in the area of limited notification. I understand the concerns that were expressed by the Greens’ co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons, but disagree with her outcome. I support the introduction of limited notification. I also support the other provisions that will enable the smooth operation of the Act. One of the notable failures under the original Act was that it had very complicated procedures for the introduction of national environmental standards. They were so complex that they were never implemented. Through this bill, the Minister has introduced proposals that will make those mechanisms more practical, so we will see national environmental standards promulgated for the first time.

I would like to spend a little time on the extreme statements made by the Hon Nick Smith in respect of the Act, and his allegations that it is behind the problems leading to our current power shortage. In his speech some 10 minutes ago he said that the Act was responsible for delays of up to 8 years in resource management projects. That is just nonsense. The National Business Review had a similar article last week, stating that Business New Zealand had said that the Act was the reason for delays in the commencement of Project Aqua. Again, that is absolute nonsense. In the case of Project Aqua, the consent applications have not even been filed. If we have a $1.2 billion development such as Project Aqua and we cannot put it through proper scrutiny via the Act, when would we ever have public scrutiny of and input into a project that has environmental effects?

The suggestion to the contrary from the likes of Nick Smith is woolly thinking that disregards our not-so-distant history in respect of the Clyde Dam. By a governmental decision, the then National Government whipped through, under the National Development Act, a high dam at Clyde. The eventual cost of that project was 14c per unit of electricity that was produced. In comparison, if Project Aqua proceeds—and I am not saying it should, but if it does—the likely cost of the electricity some 20 years later will be 4c to 6c per unit. That is about one-half to one-third of the cost of that produced by the Clyde Dam. What was seen as clever footwork on the part of the then Government to disregard the rights of individuals had the effect of escalating the cost, delaying the commissioning of the project by many, many years, and, in the process, cutting across the private rights of many individuals who live along the Clutha.

The predecessor dam, the Roxburgh Dam, which is lower down on the Clutha, was put in about 20 years earlier. In fact, it was around the time of my birth in 1960, I think. I can say that because I was born at about the same time in the Roxburgh hospital, which was there as a consequence of the dam. From 1960 until 2002, the people who were adversely affected by the Roxburgh Dam had no avenue through which to express their concerns. It was only as a consequence of the date coming up for the renewal of Contact Energy’s rights on the Clutha River that the people who were affected by flooding as a consequence of the Roxburgh Dam have had their interests taken into account.

Finally, I would like to mention the heritage protection processes. The heritage protection provisions of the bill were an area of some controversy. The Hon Nick Smith and Jim Peters made some valuable comments in the select committee. The chair, Jeanette Fitzsimons, took up their suggestions. She suggested that some of the parties work together to see whether some of the definition issues could be resolved. In the final event, as a consequence of that process an amendment was promulgated that properly limited the definition of heritage protection. Now we are criticised for doing that. One cannot have it both ways.

I support the legislation.

I wish I could welcome the third reading of this bill and say that it is the last stage of a project I worked on intensively for a whole year, from 2000 to 2001, and again intensively—on the No. 2 bill—in the last 2 months. But it is hard to get up a lot of enthusiasm about welcoming a curate’s egg—and that is what this legislation is: a curate’s egg. There are some simple, constructive changes, as the Minister said. I worked very hard to get them tied down and put into the No. 1 bill, and I support them. But there are some other things that are not very constructive.

One of the things that was not discussed at all during the Committee stage was what this bill does to both amend and enact the case law on the permitted baseline. The Smith Chilcott case states that only those effects that are on top of what is in the existing environment and are on top of all the permitted effects can be considered in notification decisions and consents. That, as it stands, is a very worrying piece of case law. The way that it is being applied is a recipe for cumulative damage. The Local Government and Environment Committee, when considering the No. 1 bill, put that concept in at the suggestion of the officials. The committee, when looking at the No. 2 bill, recognised that councils need to maintain some discretion and that there are times when simply allowing cumulative damage on the basis of something that is already out there is not appropriate. I am very pleased that our committee has given councils that discretion, and I hope that they will use it wisely.

It is good that we now have a process that will be used for national policy statements. Up until now the process was complicated, and it has not been used. It is good that we have a process to develop environmental standards that cannot be overridden and lowered by councils setting a different standard. Those are both positive measures. I support the raising of the status of heritage to a matter of national importance under section 6 of the Act. That has not changed between the No. 1 bill and the No. 2 bill.

Last week we finally learnt in the House what the deal was that encouraged the United Future members to support this bill. Up until then that had been a mystery, because they did not seem to have gained anything in return. All the gains that they claimed initially for supporting the bill turned out to have been announced by the Minister before the United Future members came to Parliament. So we have been wondering what the price was. We found out last week that it was the removal of certain words to do with the definition of historic heritage. The removal of those words in the Committee of the whole House came as a big surprise. The normal way to remove unwanted words is by negotiation in the select committee—through discussion. The United Future members did not raise that matter in the select committee at all, nor did they raise it in their previous speeches. It was suddenly landed on us in the House.

I want to know who told the United Future members that the Green Party had introduced those words, because that is what they said in their statement, and is what they went around the gallery claiming last week. Every journalist who rang me about that matter said United Future had said the Greens had put those words in the bill. In fact, those words had nothing whatever to do with the Green Party. Even the Government’s statements saying that they were introduced by the select committee is a little devious, given that they were brought to the select committee when it was considering the No. 1 bill by officials of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. So the advisers to the committee had recommended those words. The committee decided to take their advice, as committees often do. I did not disagree with them; I did not feel I had enough background in culture and heritage to disagree with the perception of the officials. But given that United Future was not represented on that select committee—there was only one United Future person in Parliament at that stage—the United Future members could not possibly have had any knowledge of what happened on the select committee. Who told the United Future members that it was all the fault of the Greens?

Whatever may be the case on that matter, it is clear that the Government would have had a lot less trouble on that issue had it simply been prepared to say at the beginning that it was responsible for those words. It should have said that after listening to some submissions as to what the public was saying, and after talking with the United Future members and others, it had decided that the words were not actually necessary and were a bit confusing, so it had agreed to take them out. If the Government had said that, the whole matter would have died right there. But that is not, of course, what happened. In fact, the removal of those words will not make a lot of difference, as Larry Baldock agrees and has said in the House. The matters they cover are already covered, as they should be, under the definition of historic heritage. If anybody thinks that by just removing a few words we can make Māori cultural aspirations go away, then he or she needs to think again. Those things are part of the New Zealand community. They are part of New Zealand society, and we need to take them into account.

The overall question we have to ask in respect of this bill is how it will affect the fundamental problem of the Act: the imbalance between the developer applicants on the one hand, who generally have very deep pockets, paid staff, and professional lawyers, and who can afford to hire all the experts on a topic to give evidence for them, and community groups with no previous experience of being in court on the other hand that are trying to protect their local way of life, their fishing spots, their landscapes and views, their quiet urban streets, and their undeveloped coastline. Many Resource Management Act hearings are truly David and Goliath scenes. I have been involved in them myself. Only 1 percent of applications are turned down now, and less than 5 percent are notified. And let us look at what gets built. No one could seriously argue that the Act is currently protecting us against unsustainable development or the inappropriate subdivision and use of the coastal environment, that it is protecting areas of significant indigenous vegetation, that it is avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on the environment, or that it is protecting the needs of future generations. Yet those things are part of the Act’s purpose and principles.

Neither this Government nor the last one, nor the National Governments before that, have tried to address those problems. The only problems to get airspace are those perceived to be problems by the developers, who want to build more, and faster, with less community input. As we have just heard, some think that the public should not have a say even on the diversion of two-thirds of the water in one of our last remaining braided rivers. This bill has reduced the time frames for those developers and provides streamlined processes to help them. I supported those changes, because we should try to make the Act work smoothly. But what is in it for those who give up their free time for nothing and try to use the Act to protect the common good—in fact, to protect the values set out in Part 2 of the Act itself? The participation of those people has been further reduced with limited notification, and that has not been balanced by a process to review wrong notification decisions, as proposed by Simon Upton.

That is why we changed our vote on the bill from “abstain” to “oppose”. If the Government had needed or wanted our support for this bill it would have accepted some of the many ways we offered of obtaining the benefits of limited notification, while safeguarding the matters that concerned us. But it did not do that.

The select committee was concerned that some councils interpret the persons affected as being simply the adjoining property owners. Sometimes those people are the only persons affected and non-notification is entirely appropriate. However, as I outlined previously to the House, there are many cases where organisations formed to protect some aspect of the public interest, whether it be historic heritage, environmental values, amenity values, community values, or Māori cultural values are affected. The committee took the trouble to express a strong view in its commentary on the bill that sometimes it is appropriate to consider those groups as persons who are affected, when it stated: “We are concerned that regardless of differing views on limited notification there are some cases where neighbouring landowners should not be considered to be the only affected party. For example, if biodiversity or amenity values or built heritage will be reduced—for example, by removing trees from a road reserve or draining wetlands or redeveloping urban precincts—then groups representing relevant aspects of the public interest should be considered to be interested parties even where the application is not being generally notified. Some councils already have a practice of requiring consultation of such groups and we commend this practice as a guideline for consents requiring limited notification.”

I hope that that statement by the committee will be taken into account by councils and by the courts.

I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. It is a good bill, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

This will be the last time that this House considers this bill. This bill has been stalled in Parliament literally for years, and it was stalled for some very sound reasons. It started with Simon Upton’s review of just what was going wrong with the Act. In the bill as introduced, there were a number of tinkering changes to remove opportunities for people essentially to rob their neighbours, to extract gains from property they had never owned, and to ensure that changes could not happen. It did not go very far—National did not push the legislation through when it could have, and there was a change of Government. We saw the chairman of the select committee from the Green Party take charge and assert the dominant influence. The consequences were a number of changes that the Labour Government plainly did not wish to see enacted. Because it had 3 years to push the bill through, it did not do it. It did not want to have an outright confrontation with its then undying Green supporters.

We get to this year and we find that Labour has some new poodles. Labour has a new party that it can rely on to push through unpalatable and damaging legislation. That brings us to this afternoon—the United Future afternoon in this House. We began with the Families Commission, the new body that will cost $28 million and employ a whole lot of spiky-haired, very predictable opponents and enemies of the family—$28 million to subsidise them to attack any family that consists of mum, dad, and the kids.

We then moved on to the next part of United Future’s grand afternoon in Parliament—the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). Before we get to United Future’s responsibility, I will go through just what is wrong with the bill. Firstly, it does not acknowledge that the Resource Management Act is simply bad law. Every apologist in this House, and elsewhere, keeps saying that it is not bad law; it is just that people do not apply it right. Implicitly, they are criticising every council and council officer in this country. Most of the citizens of this country would take advantage, or disadvantage, of this law. It would not be bad law if only they were not human. When we get a law like this one that constantly sets people at each other’s throats, constantly wastes money, and constantly holds things up, it is not that people are not good enough for the law, it is that the law is not good enough for people. It does not reflect human realities. That is what is wrong with the Resource Management Act.

A very simple and straightforward reform, which United Future might have been expected to support, or even to think of, had it truly wanted to do what it said—and what is best for New Zealand—would have been to provide that when people use this Act to shift value from their neighbours’ land to themselves, those neighbours should be compensated. When land is taken by regulation and people are no longer able to use it because it has been designated a significant natural area, a heritage area, or has an area of “indigenous biological diversity”—in effect, turning their land into a reserve for the benefit of their neighbours—those neighbours should share the cost. It is a simple change, but nowhere do we see anything like that in this amendment.

What do we see? We see the creation of new stand-over rights. Historic heritage areas are now “matters of national importance”. That means that local authorities cannot decide whether an area is of sufficient importance to them to override property rights or development prospects; instead, it is now an area of “national importance”. What does that mean? It means that “inappropriate subdivision use and development” cannot occur. What is a word like “inappropriate” doing in the law of New Zealand? That is not law; it is simply giving unbridled discretion to a lot of petty local tyrants.

What else does this bill do? Simon Upton’s proposal that commissioners sit on hearings instead of interested local politicians, who will obviously pander to votes, is not there. That was a very straightforward solution, and it did not take the power away from local communities. Through their politicians they could set the scheme, design, and terms of resource management plans. Instead, that proposal was dropped. As I said, it brings in the notion that if there is an area of “indigenous biological diversity” on people’s property—I think there is a simple translation of that: it means native plants and animals—they might not be able to subdivide it. A very noble objective, of course! We can see why United Future thought it was a good idea. If its approach to the way humans act is right, there might be more “indigenous biological diversity”.

What actually happens? Humans are sensible. If there is an area of “indigenous biological diversity” on their land, they will squash it, crush it, or make it have accidental fires. They will make sure that if they come across something that has heritage value, it will not be there by the time someone is around to pimp on them. In other words, what New Zealand loses from this kind of law, which is hostile to the way humans actually act, is “indigenous biological diversity”—unless people are unlucky enough to have it in such a prominent form that their local authority already knows about it.

What else have United Future and Labour done? They have left “amenity values”. No one can ever define what “amenity values” are. They have reinstated the restriction on courts requiring security for costs to make sure that people who are exploiting their rights under this bill can be required to pay if they lose—in other words, that if people are wrong and have held their neighbours up, held up development, or held up the community, they have to take into account that they might at least be paying for the proceedings, even if that does not pay for the real cost of their disruption.

Why did I say that this was the United Future bill? United Future members have claimed credit for removing two features of the heritage provision—that is, the dropping of protection for something called “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes”. They have claimed enormous credit for that. I was a little undermined this afternoon when the Minister said that did not really matter because the issue was already covered by “wāhi tapu” and “areas of significance to Māori”. It was quite plain that it had just been a smokescreen. In other words, we had been through 2 years of charade using terms that no one could define—that is, “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes”. They were simply lying words for sucking up to any self-appointed spokespeople for Māori groups.

Does it do Māori any good? It is Māori who suffer from the Resource Management Act as much as anyone. Does it do their relations with their neighbours any good when their genuine spiritual or cultural concerns are seen to be simply a licence to extort money? Does it do the environment any good when it is seen that those deep values can be converted to money as simply and effectively as getting a letter signed to withdraw an objection? Does it do respect for the law any good? Does it do any New Zealander any good?

Yet Mr Baldock had the gall to stand here in this Parliament and accuse National, ACT, and New Zealand First—who ran the process that resulted in the removal of those terms and should have resulted in the removal of wāhi tapu, as well; that resulted in the redefining of the term so that it related to anyone’s cemetery, and anyone’s area of serious cultural and spiritual concern—of not acting in the interests of New Zealanders, because they pointed out that that very late withdrawal occurred after National, New Zealand First, and ACT had held their own select committee hearings and it had become plain that the issue was going to be a political liability.

In other words, the United Future party—which says that we should get used to the reality of MMP, which says it votes for what is good for the country—suddenly decided what was good for the country only after it had become very plain that there was a serious political disadvantage to United Future. Why did they not go for the rest of the bill?

I support this bill.

Today is a very sad day for this Parliament. We are dealing with legislation that—as the last speaker, Stephen Franks, said—has been sitting around in this Parliament now for something like 12 years since it was first decided that amendments needed to take place. Its genesis was two Labour Governments ago—back in the late 1980s. It was introduced at Simon Upton’s direction in 1991, and within a very short time of the Act being passed, it was realised that change needed to take place and that amendments were needed. A very lengthy process headed up by Owen McShane ended with a bill being proposed in late 1999 that would have fixed a lot of what was wrong with the original Act. At the time, it was a great piece of academic thinking. It was described at that stage as a world-class piece of environmental law, but it was tried out in the electorate at large and found to be substantially wanting. It came through that process and by 1999 was ready for amendment. What happened? The Government changed. We got a socialist Government, propped up by the Greens, that decided that the only way to run the country was through some kind of bureaucratic, red-tape, regulatory environment that will never work. It never has, and it never will.

What have we finished up with here now? We have ended up with a Minister putting a red pen through all the recommendations that were brought forward—the whole 16 of them—and a lengthy select committee process with 400 submissions and 80 hours of select committee work. People listening to Parliament would have no understanding of the amount of cost, effort, reading, and submission work that goes into 400 submissions and 80 hours of select committee sittings and—at the taxpayer’s expense—visits to seven cities. The Minister then turned round and said that she was going to totally reject all that was put forward by those submitters. So in the forty-seventh Parliament, we finish up in a situation where the Minister for the Environment has looked at all of that and decided that none of it is going into this piece of legislation.

The bill had 18 parts, and it has been brought down to two parts. That is an absolute abuse of the parliamentary system and the way that legislation should take place. This bill is being rushed through Parliament without proper, or sensible, scrutiny and debate. That is the reason that in the last few days we have seen the Government do an absolute U-turn and capitulate over the proposal that it brought forward with regard to “ancestral landscapes” and “cultural landscapes”, and other significantly important places, in the view of those who have that ”touch-feely” politically correct approach.

What should be in this legislation? What would National members do if we could change this bill? Let me make it absolutely clear that on becoming the Government at the next election, those amendments will take place—it will be a No. 1 priority. National will put in place direct referral to the Environment Court where that is the sensible thing to do. We will reintroduce standing, which the Government has taken out. We will clarify the rules between district and regional councils. At the moment, regional councils and district councils in the same area have different rules. There is total duplication in terms of what they are supposed to do. When people in the Taranaki – King Country want to build a cowshed, a woolshed, a woodshed, or a chook-house—anything at all—they have to go to the regional council first, then to the district council—

💬 John Carter: For a chook-house?

Yes, to be legal, they do. They have to have a building consent and an environmental consent for things like a chook-house, for goodness’ sake! The inconsistency they get from the seven local councils and three regional councils in my electorate is unbelievable. The cost that applies to the process is unbelievable also. It delays the construction of whatever it is that one wants to go ahead with. It holds back development, and drives major investors out of the area—offshore—at a time when the energy industry in the Taranaki electorate is desperate for further exploration. People are held up in environmental consent processes for years, trying to find out whether they can move forward, or whether they should even bother doing so.

Under National, there will be greater use of commissioners. That is a new initiative, which was not in the original legislation, and it has a certain consistency about it, in that it will certainly speed up the process. There will be consultation with landowners. There will be a proper dialogue with the people who are likely to be affected. At the moment, we have the bizarre situation where everybody else can have a say on what is likely to happen with regard to a development, but the landowners themselves might not necessarily know that that process is going on. Do Government members opposite understand that that is actually going on? I doubt if they do. I doubt whether those who were on the select committee had any idea about that.

We will put measures in place to tighten up applicants’ rights to refuse further information requests. At the moment, there is a bizarre set of rules around who is entitled to know what is going on, and that needs to be absolutely tightened up. National will repeal the treaty clause and spiritual references. As has been stated, there has been a bit of toing and froing, and changing, and deals done between United Future and the Government on that.

It is interesting to note that the United Future party, which campaigned up and down the country before the last election on what it was going to do to cut red tape out of business development, and to strengthen family-type values, has today given its vote—or will have, when this bill is voted on—to two pieces of legislation that have the exact opposite effect to what it campaigned on. That is a very interesting development, and I wonder whether those out there who supported the United Future party are aware of that. Believe me, by the next election they will be. The effects of some of these changes will then have become clear, and those people will know what they actually voted for—it was not what they expected to get, by a long shot.

We will narrow the definition of environmental and amenity values, because at the moment nobody can really say what that means.

💬 Hon Member: What about compensation?

Compensation, which is often trumpeted by the ACT party as being the way to move forward, has merit in some places. As a bland statement, one would be very hard pushed to say that there should be compensation for everything that happens under the Resource Management Act. Certainly, it is an idea worth consideration, and certainly it is something that National would consider.

We will reduce consents category types, which are another major barrier to moving forward under this legislation. Without doubt, the Resource Management Act in its present form is the biggest barrier to growth in this country, and the biggest cost in terms of compliance, red tape, and regulation. It is the biggest cost barrier to development in all sorts of things, including roading in Auckland at the moment. A syndicate of Auckland mayors spoke to the Government, and Bob Harvey was included in that group. None other than Bob Harvey, the former Labour Party president, told this Government that the Resource Management Act—not money, as the Government would have us believe—is the single greatest barrier to the development of roading infrastructure in the major metropolitan area of Auckland.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: He did not say that. Absolute nonsense!

The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, on the other side of the House, says that is not so.

I want to start my contribution to this debate by offering my congratulations to my colleague Nick Smith, for three reasons. The first reason is that an Opposition member knows when he or she is being an effective Opposition spokesperson, and Nick Smith certainly is—not just on education but also on the environment. The test is that every time a Government member gets up and bags an Opposition member—and certainly every Government member who rose today bagged Nick Smith—it means he or she is being an effective member of the Opposition. We have the score card here. One speaker, another tick there; bang, another tick against Nick Smith—he is doing a good job; I congratulate him.

I turn to the second reason I want to congratulate Nick Smith. The Government put this legislation through, but did it bother to consult the public at all? No. So who decided, along with support from New Zealand First and ACT, to run a select committee? It was Nick Smith. Who chaired the select committee, along with the support of New Zealand First and ACT? It was Nick Smith. Who got submissions from the public; who was interested enough to ask the public to make comments on this legislation? It was Nick Smith, and I congratulate him. Congratulations also to New Zealand First and to ACT, and to the members who bothered to consult the public.

One of the things that happened, which is so important with this sort of legislation, was that it gave the public the opportunity to have an input. Boy, did we not learn a lot of things about this bill! Did we not learn, most of all, that most submitters on the bill said that this is going to be a backward step for us in this country. Indeed, it will prove to be so. I congratulate Nick Smith on point two.

Point three—what about Thursday? What happened in this House in the Committee stage on the bill on Thursday? We were going through the votes. All of a sudden, there was a change. A Supplementary Order Paper was put in, which said to take out cultural landscapes, ancestral landscapes, and spiritual issues. I thought: “Oh well, we’ll vote for that.”, and we did. But, bless my soul, so did Labour. I could not believe it. I thought: “Hang on—no, I am conscious; this is not a dream. I am not unconscious. This is real.” I was conscious at the time. In fact, I was so conscious I got up and went over to the official and said: “Excuse me, can you confirm for me what I think I voted on, which the Labour Party voted on as well?”. The official said: “Yes, that means they’re gone.”

I got on the phone, because Nick Smith was at home celebrating his son’s birthday, which happened to be the same day as my birthday. I say congratulations to Nick Smith for having his son born on a very good day.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I should have called him John.

The member should have called him John. I called him and said: “Congratulations Nick, you and your team, those who were interested enough to consult the public who were told so much about this, have actually won the day. You’ve got to the stage where the Government has backed off and taken out those nasty words ‘cultural landscapes, ancestral landscapes, and spiritual landscapes’. I have to say congratulations.”

But what is important about it is that we were conscious enough to know that it happened. That is the important point. In that sense, we need to go through just a little bit of history, as to how we got those sorts of things into the legislation. We need to go back to about 23 March 2000, when Marian Hobbs wrote to the Local Government and Environment Committee outlining some expectations as to changes. Of course, we now know that she was unconscious when she wrote the letter, but that is OK. She wrote to the committee on 23 March, and said: “Here are a few changes that we recommend.” Then, goodness gracious me, on 5 April there was a letter from Helen Clark to Marian Hobbs, asking that she write to the select committee recommending that the heritage provisions be strengthened from Simon Upton’s original amendment bill.

💬 Dail Jones: Helen Clark? That Helen Clark?

The Prime Minister, Helen Clark—not the hockey goalkeeper, no. I am sure the hockey goalkeeper would not have wanted it. The Prime Minister Helen Clark wrote to the Minister, Marian Hobbs, and said: “Here are some suggestions. Make some recommended changes.” Well, of course, we have now learnt that she wrote that letter when she was unconscious. She would not have done it if she had been conscious.

Here is the next thing. Mid-2000, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage made a submission. Who is the Minister in charge of these people?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Helen Clark.

Oh, Helen Clark—the Prime Minister Helen Clark. The ministry submitted: “The Minister fully supports the inclusion of these clauses in the bill that are considered to strengthen the existing provisions in the Resource Management Act.” Bless my soul. Goodness gracious. I had better hurry or I am going to run out of time. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage submitted a further report requesting the inclusion of specific words—the inclusion of wāhi tapu and ancestral landscapes. But of course they were conscious when they did this—members have to understand. Then, in September 2000, the Ministry for the Environment submitted a report stating: “You also have to include reference to ancestral landscapes, cultural landscapes, and spiritual qualities.”—all of the time while it was conscious. Can members believe that?

Here is the next thing. On 2 May the select committee decided to amend the bill. Those members were all conscious. The five members of the select committee were Labour, including the Government senior whip. He was conscious when he did it. He has put up his hand; he admits it. That amendment was made. Then, of course, during the Committee stage Labour amended the definition. We then have the issue on 12 May, where the Prime Minister said that there had been no conscious decision. So we can only assume that all these things happened in a state of unconsciousness. Bless my soul! How silly is that? No one believes it. [Interruption] Is that not the worry? I wonder whether the issue relating to Al Gore was when she was unconscious, maybe? We do not know. The point is that we know that this was a decision made by the Government, and one that Nick Smith and the people who are with him, from New Zealand First and ACT, can take a lot of credit for. The bill will be the better for it, but nevertheless the bill is probably still a backward step.