Standing Orders—Suspension

This is a case of the Government again cheating on process to try to advance its particular programme. It is a sign of arrogance from this Government that it is prepared to override the Standing Orders of this Parliament to advance these particular law reforms.

What happened was that the Business Committee rejected there being an omnibus bill. Rather than accepting the decision of that committee, the arrogant Mr David Benson-Pope has rolled into this House with a motion that says: “Let’s throw out the rules; let’s suspend the Standing Orders.”, because this Government is not prepared to follow the rules of this House. Standing Order 259, which this Government wants to breach, is very simple. It states that a bill must relate to only one subject area. Now, if what the Minister said was correct, and this is all just a matter of simplifying resource management procedures, then he would be allowed to do it. But because the bill breaches the Standing Orders, he has to bring this motion to say that we are going to break those rules. National is very clear: we should simply follow the rules of the House. [Interruption] That is what we are saying, I tell Mr Mallard, who is not a member known for being particularly interested in doing that.

Let us review this Government’s history in respect of the Resource Management Act—because it is a shonky history. Let us firstly look back to 1999, when National introduced a substantive reform bill—a reform bill that said there were very real problems with the Resource Management Act that needed to be addressed. But this Government said that it was going to throw that bill out because, as Marian Hobbs said, the Resource Management Act was “beautifully crafted and beautifully written”, and not in need of reform. [Interruption] I will remind Mr Benson-Pope of what occurred last year. Not only did the Government introduce a resource management bill but it bypassed having any public submissions on that bill, at all. It fast tracked that bill through the legislative process.

What was particularly arrogant of the Government was that not only did it bypass any submission process in going through the amendments to that particular bill but it rushed it through under urgency. At the end of the process, Marian Hobbs—[Interruption] Well, the Minister does not want to debate the issue, does he. I am not surprised that he does not want to debate the Resource Management Act, because on that bill his Government has a shocking record. Mr David Benson-Pope said that the resource management bill would be introduced in September, but I have checked my calendar and I tell the member that the date is 1 December. I say to him that this Government simply cannot sort out its policy. Why is it that, because the Government cannot sort out its policy, we now have to fast track and break the rules of this House?

Then we have the barraging member from Labour, Mr Trevor Mallard, who, along with the Government, wants to break the Standing Orders of this House in terms of this bill. Last year Marian Hobbs, as Minister for the Environment, said after the passage of the last resource management bill that it was now all OK. Yet within 6 months we have a new Minister rolled into the role and promising another reform bill and another lot of change. It is very interesting.

Yesterday I attended a nationwide forum on the Resource Management Act. The Government’s very good friend, Mr Dick Hubbard, was one of the guest speakers. Mr Hubbard said that Mr Benson-Pope’s package of reforms for the Resource Management Act does not go nearly far enough to allow Auckland to deal with its substantive infrastructure issues. That is what the Government’s friends say about David Benson-Pope’s failed package of reforms that was due in September. We still do not know what they are. Now we are passing a motion in this House to breach the Standing Orders.

We have to ask why the Government wants to change the rules to suit itself. One reason may be that normally all the electricity regulations go to the Commerce Committee, but by packaging these two bills together the Government has been able to avoid that process and just hide these electricity provisions in its resource management bill. It is simply short-changing Parliament of its proper process of debate and scrutiny of the Government’s latest round of changes.

National is not necessarily opposed to the changes—we do not know what they are. The Minister has not even given Opposition members the dignity of seeing the bills that the Minister wants to bring together. He will not even do that. I do not know whether he has provided other parties with them, because there is a mates’ rates game played in this House, but we have not even seen the amendments that the Minister wants to include. So we cannot honestly say whether we support or oppose those amendments. But we do say that we should not be fast tracking the process by which those changes are being made.

The further point I would make, based on the comments that the Minister has made, is this: if there is a problem in respect of the major electricity lines—because we are assured that this legislation is only about those lines that are over 110 kilovolts—and it is only in respect of roads, then this is an issue only between public authorities. Where has the Minister made any case for urgency? [Interruption] Can Mr Trevor Mallard explain to the House why we need some special process, and to bypass the Standing Orders about this issue?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The member should sit down and yield.

I would be pleased if Mr Mallard would take the next call and explain this, because there was absolutely nothing in the speech from the Minister that justified breaching the Standing Orders. If the Government had a competent Minister of Energy and there was a problem for Transpower in getting consents for new lines, and it was only an issue between Transpower and Transit, then, because he is the Minister of Electricity and also the Minister responsible for transport, surely those issues can be resolved without abusing the process of this Parliament.

National’s position is very clear in respect of the Resource Management Act. I heard Labour members ranting on earlier and asking where National’s policy was. We have had three very specific statements of policy about the Resource Management Act. There have been so many flip-flops from the Government in respect of the Resource Management Act that it is remarkable.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: It’s your Act, for God’s sake.

Mr David Benson-Pope’s latest burst of energy, his sudden tweak in the cheek, has led him to say that somehow it is National’s fault because the Resource Management Act was passed by us in 1991. That member forgets that in 1999 his Government rejected the substantive amendments that were introduced by National and that would have resolved many of these issues, which, nearly 6 years after the Labour Government was elected, are still outstanding. Labour does not know how to fix the Resource Management Act. The only way that New Zealand will see addressed the substantive and important issues with electricity, the issues with roading, and the issues with added-values industry within the Resource Management Act is through a change of Government.

For 5 years Labour has failed to make the reforms that are required. Even Dick Hubbard, one of the best friends of the Prime Minister, is saying that the Government is incapable of delivering in this area, and no amount of fast tracking the process or cheating on the Standing Orders will do in terms of that process of reform. Again, I tell the Minister to follow the rules. He does not need to cheat to be able to make substantive changes to the Resource Management Act. It is not Parliament’s problem that he is 4 months late in his programme of reform. Parliament deserves better. This is just another step by an arrogant Government that is treating this Parliament with disrespect.

My contribution will not take terribly long. I will make it quite clear that when I came into Parliament, I made a personal commitment to do my best for the people of this country. I know that that is a commitment my colleagues share. I know we have not always got it right, but we have always tried our best.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve failed.

I have to say to the honourable member who spoke before me, Nick Smith, that that commitment takes priority over the Standing Orders, in our view. I had never heard of the Standing Orders when I came here, in this context. If this bill will do something for the people of this country, or for this country as a whole, then I say that that is the priority.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Has the member seen the bill?

No, I have not seen the bill, but I have seen some notes on the bill and I believe it can take a positive line. I will see the bill in due course. I gather from the Hon Nick Smith—and probably from Ken Shirley—that he has seen nothing. I have a one-page summary that gives us the impression that this legislation might be some improvement in the situation.

The Minister has said that he wants to improve the Resource Management Act—[Interruption] If the member wants to have a look, he should come and join New Zealand First. He is on a sinking ship so he should come and join New Zealand First—actually, I might be in trouble with my leader now for saying that. I hope my colleagues do not report me.

I want to stress to this Government that the Resource Management Act needs to be looked at, issues need to be addressed, and the process needs to be transparent.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course it does.

The member says “Of course it does”, yet he is denying an opportunity at least to look at it in part.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am saying: “Follow the rules!”.

I say to the honourable member: do something for your country. Do something for the people out there who want something done. They do not understand, with all due respect, your standing here and saying that the rules of this House take priority over everything.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.

Not you, Mr Speaker. I was referring to the honourable member.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Not very honourable.

I am not getting into that! I want to remind the Government that the Resource Management Act needs to be looked at objectively and transparently.

I also say to the Government that when it comes to electricity there are three issues it has to address—and it has not thus far. The first is security of supply, and the Government has gone some way to addressing that. The second—and Mr Shirley might like to take note of this, because I know he is a free marketeer—is that New Zealanders on the whole want stable prices at a reasonable and fair level. That is what they want.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: That’s what they deserve.

That is exactly what they deserve, but I have to say to that member that the ACT philosophy will not deliver that. The third, in terms of electricity, is that this country needs more investment and encouragement for more investment.

I have not seen the bill—I confess before the honourable member starts with me—but the notes that I have seen on what this bill may or may not contain, lead me to believe that it is a move, albeit a small move, in the right direction. So New Zealand First will support this motion for the good of the country—and to hell with the Standing Order!

I believe that the Hon Nick Smith has summarised the situation: it is an arrogant disregard of due process in this Parliament. Quite frankly, I cannot think of a precedent in my time in Parliament for the Government having to introduce a bill as a notice of motion. This is an omnibus bill, and irrespective of its content, from what I understand of it, I believe the ACT party would have supported it. I believe from what I have seen—which is very limited, and I will come to that—that the bill is probably very important for the country, and I am sure the whole Parliament would have supported it.

The matter did go to the Business Committee—I sit on the Business Committee—and that committee said, properly: “If this is what you want to achieve, let’s see your proposal.” But the Government had no proposal. It just said it wanted to do this, that, and the other, and wanted to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act. We said: “If it’s so important, let us see the bill—it is quite a short bill.” There was no bill. So the Business Committee properly said: “No bill; no approval.” That is the way this place should work. We are not going to write a blank cheque for the Government to slip something in without our knowing what it is.

So the Government went away, having being denied at the Business Committee, and has now brought this motion to the House. I saw it on the Order Paper first thing this morning. I immediately rang Minister Benson-Pope’s office and said: “You’re looking for our support for your notice of motion so that you can introduce the bill, because it’s an omnibus bill. Let’s have a look at the bill. If it’s what you say and looks reasonable, we’ll support it.” Then we probably would not even have needed this debate.

But the Minister’s office said no, the bill was not drafted yet. That was at 9 o’clock this morning, and the bill was not drafted. They are out in the back rooms now, cobbling something together. The bill is not on the Table. Parliament is being asked to address something—effectively to write a blank cheque for the Government—and the Government has not even had the courtesy to show Parliament the bill and to consult with Opposition parties as to its detailed contents.

I had a very helpful discussion with one of the people in Mr Benson-Pope’s office, and I made some notes. I have no doubt that the one-page sheet Mr Brown referred to is actually a result of my telephone call this morning. The Government still had not prepared the bill, but it thought it would give us this one page of notes—which of course is not a bill. I have been in Nelson and have just got back. I missed question time, as members might have noticed, and I picked up this one sheet just when I got back. I am horrified—and, Mr Speaker, you should be horrified too, quite frankly—that a Government should abuse the processes of Parliament in this way.

As I understand the issue, it is about access for power lines of more than 100 megavolt amperes and more than 110 kilovolts—that means all the arterial routes, in essence. We know that the infrastructure of our country’s transmission system is in a very parlous state indeed. Much of our vulnerability in relation to electricity security rests with the inadequacy of our transmission system. For 10 years, investment in this country’s transmission network has been neglected. We have a very serious tight constraint between Whakamaru and Auckland in the northern half of the North Island, and we know about the publicity surrounding the north of Christchurch situation in the South Island. We are very vulnerable.

The Public Works Act provides for works on private land. That Act can be invoked to put major public utilities like power transmission across private land—with compensation, I might add, and so there should be. But what we are talking about here is crossing roadways and railway crossings. There is a procedure to do that with minor power lines—that is, those of less than 100 megavolt amperes and 110 kilovolts. They can cross roads, and there is a process for negotiation with the road utility that involves appeal rights and appropriate compensation.

But there is, in essence, a vacuum of procedure for arterial routes above 100 kilovolts, and the proposal is to provide a process so that we do not have just an impasse. As it stands now, there are time constraints on those negotiations. Time constraints are needed. Parties will come to a joint agreement only if there is a time constraint; otherwise, one party will just wait the other party out. The legislation is to bring about a common process for the major arterial networks, so that there is a process with a time constraint, rights of compensation, and so on.

On face value, the ACT party would be likely to support that, but we cannot support this motion. This is a terrible way of proceeding with legislation, and it is really just a reflection of the arrogance this Labour Party has adopted. I think we have seen a pattern of second-term Governments developing terrible arrogance, and we are seeing more and more of it from this Labour-Progressive alliance, or whatever it is these days. The Government’s second-term gross arrogance is epitomised by its gall in coming to Parliament and saying that it is going to use the tyranny of its majority—obviously with the support of one of its doormats, be it New Zealand First or United Future—to have the numbers to override the Standing Orders over a matter I sense the House would actually have supported if the Government had followed due process. I have no doubt in my mind that if the merit of the Government’s argument is such—

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: That member stopped it.

Where is the bill, Minister? Minister Benson-Pope is chirping away. Where is the bill? Here you are, breaching the Standing Orders and flaunting your breach of the Standing Orders. All you had to do was come to Parliament with a bill—and you have not done that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please don’t bring the Speaker into it.

All Mr Benson-Pope had to do was come to Parliament with his bill, but he has not done that. It is a constitutional outrage, and I fear that if we let the Government get away with it in this instance, it will become a routine pattern of behaviour. I have no doubt about that. It is unnecessary—it is procedurally unnecessary. There are better and more appropriate ways within the Standing Orders by which the Government could have brought this legislation to the House.

I reiterate that I suspect we would not have opposed it. We probably would have supported it once we saw the detail—because with all legislation the devil is in the detail.

There are some real issues with transmission lines, because most of our power lines were put in during the days of publicly owned utilities and locally owned power boards. Often they were put in over private land on a grace and favour basis, because a valley of farmers, for example, wanted the electricity on. Now that those companies are privatised, we have some serious property rights issues. I want to see the detail of how property rights are protected by the bill—the bill we do not have.

That is the point. Parliament is debating something, and we do not know what it is. Therefore, the ACT party will certainly oppose this motion, although in essence we may well have supported the substance of the Government’s intention.

I say in conclusion that we do not want to see this behaviour repeated. It is an outrage that the motion is on the Order Paper today. I know that Minister Benson-Pope is new to Parliament. He has been elevated through the ranks perhaps too quickly, has not learnt parliamentary procedures, and is struggling in his jobs. We do not like this arrogance, and we will be voting against it.

Parliament this afternoon is being asked to suspend the Standing Orders in order to smooth the path of New Zealand’s next “think big” project, and it will not surprise anybody that the Greens will not vote for that. This may look like a rather small amendment to the Electricity Act to allow big power lines to cross roads, but it is part of a much bigger suite of measures—some of which, we understand, will be revealed tomorrow when the Resource Management Act amendment is tabled in the House—to facilitate a totally unnecessary, totally unsustainable, and totally unjust 400 kilovolt ampere transmission line imposed on the whole length of the country and on the people who live underneath it.

It is totally unnecessary, because there are many other ways of making sure that the lights stay on in Auckland—and I will go into those later. It is totally unjust, because it will interfere with the quality of life, the health, and the property values of many people on the route. It is totally unsustainable because, if this line is built, it will undermine everything this Government has been trying to do in sustainable energy, in terms of energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewables, and a sustainable future.

So let us look first of all at what it is. This 400 kilovolt ampere line will be far bigger than any transmission line we currently have in the country. The towers are planned to be 70 metres high; that is three times higher than the largest we have anywhere, and is more than 20 storeys high. The initial stage of it is just the 200 kilometres from Whakamaru to Auckland, but the long-term plan is for it to traverse the whole of the country. That 200 kilometres affects 1,400 people who live underneath that line. The lines will go directly over people’s houses. The towers will stand in their gardens and on their farms. The electromagnetic field caused by that very much more powerful line will create a much greater health risk. Science is still divided about the health risks from electromagnetic fields, but quite a number of countries require there to be a 100 metre - wide strip underneath high-tension power lines where there are no houses, because there is quite a lot of evidence accumulating about increased risk of cancer, and particularly things like leukaemia, for people who live near them. We ought to take a precautionary approach until more of that science is known.

This little amendment will actually prevent the councils that control those roads from protecting the health of their communities by asking for additional protections to what currently exists and what they can do for the 110 kilovolt ampere lines. Well, people are getting organised, and the Government and Transpower will find that it will not be an easy line to drive through the Waikato and south Auckland. It goes through some rather well-heeled and well-organised sections of the community, who are already getting organised.

OK, but do we have to do this just to keep the lights on in Auckland? Auckland is short of power, we all know, so do we have to sacrifice 1,400 people in order to make sure that Auckland gets its electricity? Well, the news I have today is that this power line does not produce a single kilowatt of electricity. It is just a pipe along which we send things. So that line will not do anything for Auckland until somebody builds large generating stations away to the south, and then loses a lot of that power in transferring it along lines on the way to Auckland.

This is yesterday’s technology. This will keep us in the 1950s. The new technology, where energy systems are moving worldwide, is towards small power stations built close to demand, distributed generation, energy efficiency, load shifting, and load management. Those are the ways of the future. That is Government policy, under its sustainable energy policy, and it is turning its back on it with this crazy project. So it will take half a billion dollars just for that 200 kilometres, which will have no effect until somebody builds massive new coal-fired power stations on the South Island lignite fields and then sends that electricity along the wires.

What alternatives are there? The first thing to note is that the power lines we have now are inadequate only at peak hour—that is, between 4 and 7 on a winter afternoon. So all we have to do is find some alternatives that deal with power between 4 and 7 on a winter afternoon in Auckland, and the existing lines will do for quite a lot longer. They can also be upgraded themselves to carry a higher capacity than they have, without having to build that new monstrosity.

So what could we do to deal with the peak? There are a number of smaller generation options that could be built close to Auckland. There are some good wind sites there, and to cope with the variability of wind, there could be diesel sets in Auckland that come on only during the top of the peak when the wind is not blowing. So there could be a complementarity there, with just occasional back-up from a diesel set and a wind farm for the rest of the time. There are a number of other options for generation that we could build around Auckland.

Let us look at the supply side of things. What is it that people are doing between 4 and 7 on winter afternoons? They are cooking their dinner and turning on their heating. We can do both of those things perfectly well with gas. Gas is used far more efficiently directly than it is through power stations, so if we shifted some of the load of households, for cooking and space heating, on to gas in Auckland, we could lop that electricity load in the winter afternoons. There are a lot of things that we can do to shift industrial load off-peak, by giving people tariff incentives to have their peak demand at a time when the lines do have capacity rather than at a time when they do not. Then there is the whole demand side of energy efficiency. A complete lighting retrofit, up to cost-effective levels of efficiency, right through Auckland would make those lines unnecessary for a long time. Anything that we can do to improve the efficiency of our lighting and heating in Auckland and Northland will create more capacity on the lines.

So here we are. The Government has an energy efficiency and conservation strategy that requires us to improve our efficiency by 2 percent each year. That target, it seems, is not being met. The Government has a target for new renewables, which tend to come in small packages spread around the country. It has a target to meet our Kyoto objective and, therefore, to use all our energy more efficiently. But what is it planning to do? It is planning to panic about the electricity situation in Auckland. It wants to go back to the old technology of the 1950s to impose those gigantic monstrosities on the landscape, the environment, the health, the homes, and the properties of 1,400 people between Whakamaru and Auckland, and, in doing so, to completely undermine its whole strategy of taking us into a new era of energy where it is used more efficiently, where it comes from renewables, and where we have enough. The Green Party will not support this.

Having listened to the last three speeches, which were somewhat long, I struggled to find the connection between a lot of what was said and the motion before the House, which is simply that Standing Order 259 be suspended to permit the introduction of the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill, to amend the Resource Management Act and the Electricity Act.

I want to speak briefly to the motion, rather than about all the rather extraneous matters that members have just heard previous speakers mention. The first thing I want to say is we are looking to amend the Electricity Act, in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Electricity Act currently provides that road-controlling authorities have to be involved in granting permits, conditions, and so forth when electricity-generating lines cross over roads or level crossings, or go under roads or level crossings. If Jeanette Fitzsimons, for example, did object to overhead lines, another possibility is to put them underground. But either way, the central point is that the Electricity Act imposes a duplicate, unnecessary level of compliance cost when we seek to upgrade our transmission grid.

I certainly agree with previous speakers that we need to do that, and we need to do that quickly, we need to do that efficiently, and we need to do that with a lowering of compliance costs. If those are one’s goals—and they are United Future’s goals—then obviously one would vote in favour of this motion, which is exactly what we intend to do.

I put it to the House that in a single-House Parliament, like we have here, the Government must treat Parliament with some respect. We do not have a Senate here to keep this Government accountable—a Government that wants to run roughshod over convention. We do not have a second layer in Parliament to keep this Government accountable as it runs roughshod over the country. Therefore, the Government must treat this Parliament with respect. Has it done that? No, it has not. It has treated this Parliament with contempt, and it has been a comedy of errors. I understand from the member Ken Shirley that, first of all, the Government treated the Business Committee with contempt: it went there, cap in hand, to see this legislation presented to the House and would not even present it in written form so that the committee could have a look at it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It was suspicious.

It made the Hon Ken Shirley suspicious and it made our colleagues in the National Party suspicious, and to this day we have not seen one written word formalised in legislative form to tell us what this Government is up to. We find that appalling.

Normally, we would be quite nervous about supporting the Greens in opposing the Government running this legislation through the House. I have to say, though, that the speech from the Greens gave me some hope. The Hon Ken Shirley will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I heard the Green Party member Jeanette Fitzsimons say that she believes that at between 4 in the afternoon and 7 at night Aucklanders should be burning gas and that, in order to get efficiency in this country, those who own wind farms should burn diesel during the times those wind farms are not in operation, which is roughly 66 percent, or two-thirds, of the time. So in the House today, the Greens are advocating, for some reason, the burning of fossil fuels—gas in Auckland and diesel along with wind generation. They are also joining the National Party in opposing this Government running roughshod over this House.

David Benson-Pope has arrogantly put to this House that we should set aside Standing Order 259, which has been in existence for some time now—for many, many years before I entered this Parliament. It states: “(1) Except as otherwise permitted by Standing Orders, a bill must relate to one subject area only; (2) A bill may make consequential amendments to a number of Acts affected by its provisions.” There is a good reason for that Standing Order. There is a good reason why we have due process in this House—not least of all that it is a single-House Parliament. It is a mystery to us why the Minister wants to run roughshod over this Parliament, and, what is more, why it has all came to this. It is not as if the whole country does not know, and has not known for many years, that our transmission lines needed upgrading. In fact, when it comes to energy in New Zealand, particularly electricity, there are some top issues in relation to that. The Resource Management Act needs serious amendment so that generation and transmission can be done efficiently in this country.

Our approach in respect of the Kyoto Protocol needs addressing seriously so that generation and transmission of electricity in this country are more efficient and more beneficial to New Zealanders. Not least of all, we need upgrades to the transmission lines. We in this House all know that, as do the punters on the street, and all those who spend no time at all studying electricity have a sense that that is required. Certainly Aucklanders know. Those 1 million people living in the Greater Auckland area know that we need an upgrade. So why is it that in the last 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, or decade, has it not sunk into the Hon David Benson-Pope’s small brain that he would require this legislative change in order to see an upgrade to the transmission system? We understand that there are changes in this legislation, and I say again that members of the House are supposed to pass this request to suspend the Standing Order without having seen the bill. Instead, we are supposed to do it with a nod from David Benson-Pope, with a wink from David Benson-Pope, and with a slap on the backside from David Benson-Pope.

We are under the understanding that the legislation will make processes around access to road corridors for high-capacity lines possible. The National Party knows that is necessary, that we need to upgrade those lines, and that we need high-capacity electricity lines that cross over or go under roads, or level crossings when it comes to railways. We support the need for that, and if a bill came into the House we would undoubtedly support it. In fact, there would be support right across this House—except from the Green Party members, who oppose everything. So why does the Minister not just do that? We would support it, as I am sure ACT would. ACT likes to see the fine print, just as the National Party does. We would generally support that. But this arrogant Government is abusing the rules of Parliament to limit debate and the scrutiny of these law changes.

This Parliament may not have been around for many hundreds of years, but it has been around for many, many decades. The processes in Parliament are there for a very good reason, and they should not be set aside just because it has not occurred to David Benson-Pope that we would need legislative changes to see upgrades to electricity generation in this country. As I have said, the Government used its majority to overrule the Business Committee when a deal should have been done there. This Government is running roughshod over this process. It is not the first time the Government has done that. We saw it do it when it rammed the 2003 amendment to the Resource Management Act through Parliament, with no public submissions—and we wonder why it got it wrong and we are back in the House today with the Minister, cap in hand, asking us to let him ram through these further changes.

Just because this Minister’s Resource Management Act process is running late, just because he has not grasped the fact that the electricity transmission industry needs serious attention, and just because he does not understand Standing Order 259, or many other Standing Orders, we are being asked to agree to Parliament being held in contempt, and we oppose that. The National Party supports upgrades in this country for transmission lines, but we do not support this Parliament being treated with contempt.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now that the majority of Parliament has passed the motion, can we ask the Minister, who is in the House, where the bill is? Is he prepared to table it? If not, when will it be available? We have reluctantly signed a blank cheque, against the wishes of those parties that opposed it, but as I understand it there is still no bill available.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that that is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a procedural matter. I am, through you, seeking an indication from the Minister, who is in the House, as to when the bill might be tabled. We have suspended the Standing Orders, which is a matter of concern to the House and can be the subject of a point of order, to grant leave to the Government to introduce legislation, yet we have no indication as to when it might do that. Presumably it will be passed under urgency before Christmas, but when will we see the legislation?

Now that the Standing Order has been suspended for the purpose of the introduction of the bill, the bill can be printed. Because it is now able to be introduced, it will be tabled at the earliest opportunity.