Wednesday, 7 May 2003

Wednesday, 7 May 2003

Wednesday, 7 May 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Membership

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I seek leave for Stephen Franks and the Hon Matt Robson to be members of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Corrections Bill, and for Bernie Ogilvy and Keith Locke to be members of the Government Administration Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the petition to repeal the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982, but, in each case, without the right to vote on any question before the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Speaker’s Statements

Ringing of the Bell

Mr SPEAKER: Following discussions at the Standing Orders Committee last week—and I want to say that these discussions ended up in a unanimous decision—I wish to advise of some change I am making to the procedures for the ringing of the bell. In order that members and others within the parliamentary complex are aware that the House has risen, the bell will be rung for 10 seconds whenever the House adjourns, such as at 10 p.m. on a Tuesday or Wednesday, 6 p.m. on a Thursday, or when a sitting of the House is suspended, such as 6 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday, and at midnight and for the lunch and dinner adjournments during urgency. This change will take effect from today.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to the comment you have just made, I see that the Standing Orders Committee might have reached a unanimous decision, but how does that impose itself upon Parliament? Surely it should be the House that ratifies such a decision.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is a decision that was within the gift of the Speaker. I can do that, but I took upon myself that I got a unanimous decision from the Standing Orders Committee, as all parties are represented on that committee.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened to what you said. I am not sure whether you have given the correct impression to members. You said that the bell was to be rung, for example, at 6 o’clock. In fact, one of the reasons the Standing Orders Committee wants the bell rung is the situation we had last Thursday, when most members had actually left and the House was carrying on in session—which I say was unparliamentary—but members did not know that. In that particular situation the bell will not be rung at 6 p.m., will it? It will be rung at a different time—in that case I think it was 6.15 p.m.—so MPs will know that on a Thursday they do not jump in their taxis to go to the airport, until they have heard the bell.

Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct, and, in fact, it will ring when a sitting of the House is suspended. That means that if we have started a series of divisions at 5.45 p.m., for example, and they go on until 6.15 p.m., the bell will be rung at the end of that series of divisions, when I adjourn the House.

Points of Order

Minister's Comments

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a very serious concern for the House. We have had a senior Minister of this Government give an answer in Parliament that has gone around the world, and then we have had a situation where the Government of another country, which is a parliamentary democracy, has been reported in that country as saying that there is no truth in the statement that the Minister has made. So I am in a quandary, because it seems to me that we cannot—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member tell me what the point of order is? This is a point of order.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, answers have to be truthful. We have had a Minister give an answer about another Government. That Government has said that is totally untrue—

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. The member knows that if there is any matter like that, it then becomes a matter about which the member should be writing to me on a question of privilege. I suggest to the member that that is where we go.

Rodney Hide: Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made my ruling.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know you have made your ruling. I made a decision not to raise it with you as a breach of privilege. If I had done that, I would have had it to you by 2 o’clock. My difficulty is that I do not see how we can bring a foreign Government into an issue on a breach of privilege. To make it clear, it concerns a statement—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and that makes no difference to the issue. Please be seated.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Tranz Rail—Financial Assistance

1. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Minister of Finance : Does the Government have any plans to provide financial assistance to Tranz Rail, such as subsidies, to avoid the possibility of statutory management if that is seen as necessary to maintain the integrity of the national rail network?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister of Finance), on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government has a range of options available to it, but the Minister has already made clear certain broad parameters in relation to this.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister concerned that any subsidies or other cash injections the Government may decide to confer on Tranz Rail will simply end up in the pockets of overseas shareholders rather than contributing to the quality of the rail network here in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Government is concerned about the quality of the rail network and is currently considering a range of options.

Helen Duncan: Are officials continuing to meet with Tranz Rail?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Officials have met with Tranz Rail, which has undertaken to provide further information to them. Once this information has been received and examined, further discussions will be held.

Hon David Carter: Noting the Minister’s concern for Tranz Rail’s current situation, I ask which does the Minister think has been his better taxpayer investment: $81 million for a few kilometres of Auckland railway track, or $875 million for an airline? Which is the better of the two?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Both were important in achieving the Government’s transport strategy and a lot better than the worst privatisation in New Zealand by that previous Government.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with the suggestion made by the Rail Freight Action Group that it would be preferable for the Government to own the rail network and make sure the network is properly maintained, including important but less-profitable lines, rather than subsidise Tranz Rail?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am aware of those comments, and, as I said earlier, the Government is looking at a range of options.

Larry Baldock: In the light of recent increases in the volume of freight transported by our coastal shipping, is Government inaction over Tranz Rail to date an indication that the Minister does not in fact see a long-term future for non-subsidised commercial rail freight in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing that the Minister has raised the issue of privatisation, I ask him why it was that the Labour Party, back in 1993 on the issue of the 20 July sale of New Zealand Rail to a number of his party’s former backers and mates, took the stance back then, which he seeks to defend today, that the sale was fine by Labour, excepting it disagreed with the timing?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not recall that, but what I do say is that that privatisation was one of the worst. There was no Kiwi share, no ability for the Government to be engaged, and it is interesting to see that Ruth Richardson still defends that and thinks that what is happening to Tranz Rail at the moment is still OK.

Electricity—Supply

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Further to her response to oral question No. 3 in the House yesterday, that: “There will be significant change to the model to ensure that stand-by generation can be kept aside, so that if we strike exceptionally dry years like this one, people will not be asked again to make the sacrifices they have been asked to make.”, can she explain what specific changes will be made and will these changes avert the possibility of New Zealanders experiencing blackouts and cold showers this winter?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The specific changes will be announced later this month, and, of course, are long-term in their nature.

Hon Bill English: As we face blackouts and cold showers because of a shortage of generation, why should anyone believe that the Prime Minister will be able to find “stand-by generation” that is not being used, or is she just trying to give the impression that she is doing something?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The stand-by generation that the Prime Minister refers to is not stand-by generation for this year. That generation is already in place. An example is the diesel generator that exists in this complex, which is now running.

David Benson-Pope: What steps can ordinary New Zealanders take to help avoid the risk of power shortages this winter?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If New Zealanders can do their best to achieve the target set by industry of 10 percent savings in the next few weeks, that will significantly reduce the risk of shortages.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that her Government has been warming the Treasury benches for the last 4 years, and given her continuing penchant for blaming the power crisis on the weather, Max Bradford, power users, and the market, when will she admit that her buck-passing Government has done nothing, and that any forthcoming announcements will be another example of too little, far too late?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government has done a good deal to fix up the mess it inherited. It is apparent that it needs to do more.

Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Prime Minister agree that significant aspects of the present Labour Government’s energy model are the Department of Conservation blocking any coal-mining applications and hydro development, the Resource Management Act delaying new generating schemes for years, and Kyoto treaty commitments resulting in carbon taxes that have ruled out the possibility of new coal-fired stations; and is the Government intending to tackle any of those aspects of its model?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government is due to introduce legislation into the House presently to change the Resource Management Act in respect of renewables and energy efficiency. Beyond that, we see the need to do no further. In respect of Kyoto, I might say parenthetically that the Kyoto instrument will be responsible for quadrupling the amount of wind generation in this country, in short order.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Government considered whether spending hundreds of millions of dollars on stand-by coal generation is more or less cost-efficient for the nation than a well-understood demand management plan, including, for example, compensating Comalco for shutting one of its three potlines in a 1 in 20 dry year; if so, what was the answer; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes we have, and the answer will be made available later this month.

Hon Bill English: If stand-by generation is a good idea to deal with power supply shortages in 4 or 5 years’ time, why did the Government not make that move after it reviewed the electricity industry following the 1999 election, had the 2001 power crisis, and spent millions of dollars on consultants’ reports and reviews; why did the Government not take the same action then as it is saying it will take now, which will not make any difference for 5 years anyway?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The best answer to that question is to say that one could suggest that in 2001 record low inflows may not repeat again in 2003. Regrettably, not only have they repeated themselves in short order but they are actually worse at this time of the year than they were even in 2001.

Hon Bill English: Now that the Government does have access to “much-improved scenario modelling”, when is the next dry year due?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member may choose to treat this facetiously. He knows that scenario modelling for future weather is not possible. What is possible is a response to it.

Workplace Learning Opportunities—Gateway Programme

3. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What reports has he received on the Gateway initiative to provide structured workplace learning opportunities for senior school students?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): I am today releasing the Tertiary Education Commission’s evaluation of what is called the Gateway programme, which was introduced by this Government in 2001 as a pathway for senior students into a wide range of industries. In that year over 1,000 students achieved 18,273 credits working through 24 schools and with 200 employers. The evaluation shows that schools, students, employers, and everybody else involved with this programme have found it very positive because of the advantages of work-based learning.

Jill Pettis: Could the Minister please advise what number of young people the programme is intended to assist; and how is the programme of direct assistance to business?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am advised that another 1,000 students have been involved in 63 schools over the past year, and they have all benefited from the programme as well. From the point of view of industry, it has given employers the chance to encourage young people back into areas like construction, where there is clearly an ageing workforce. In schools, for example, as one principal has put it: “One unintended consequence is that we’ve gotten rid of negative employer perceptions about what goes on in our school.” Because the programme is so successful, there will be an announcement next week about its expansion.

Hon Brian Donnelly: If the Gateway programme is so good—and we do not deny that it has successes—why does the Minister not take the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource money, which is essentially for the same purpose but delivered in a different way, and simply add it to the Gateway programme’s budget?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource money is well used as it is. We have reviewed the use of that money, which is much better applied to students who are simply trying to get themselves on to the national qualifications framework. The value of the Gateway programme is that it gives a chance for young people to get into a workplace, explore whether it is the pathway for them, and then begin to enjoy the benefits of getting into Modern Apprenticeships or into other pathways on the national qualifications framework.

Home Detention—Reoffending

4. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Justice: How many of the 1,017 persons who have served all or part of their sentences on home detention since 1 July 2002 have reoffended during the period they were supposed to be on home detention?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): Any individual known to reoffend while on home detention will face breach, or recall to prison action by the Department of Corrections. I am advised by the department that its records show that of the 1,017 who started home detention between 1 July 2002 and 28 February 2003, action was taken against 10 home detainees for reoffending.

Stephen Franks: In view of the length of that question, I ask whether the Minister will guarantee that the answer says that only 10 of the 1,017 persons were known to have reoffended, when the figure of 10 percent was established for New Zealand for detainees of lower risk during the pilot period, the figure for Britain is 24 percent, and the indication in the year 2000 of the anticipated figure for New Zealand was 15 percent?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Those figures the member gave the House would suggest that having run the pilot programme the Department of Corrections learnt how to do it better and got better results. They also suggest that if the figures quoted by the member for the United Kingdom are right we are doing a heck of a lot better, but I suspect that those figures are for people who were on home detention and who subsequently reoffended. The member might like to check out that point.

Darren Hughes: How does the known rate of reoffending for those on home detention compare with the reoffending rates for those on the old system of suspended sentences, which home detention has partly replaced?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The 1 percent reoffending rate suggested by the Department of Corrections figures for those on home detention compares with a reoffending rate of 50 percent for those subject to the old system of suspended sentences, which were abolished by the Sentencing Act. The House may therefore find it curious that Mr Franks is so concerned about home detention, when he was so firmly in favour of the wet - bus ticket approach of suspended sentences where reoffending under that sentence could only be described as rife.

Ron Mark: How does the Minister know that the figures he has quoted are accurate, and that only 10 people on home detention have committed crimes against the occupiers of the home they were being detained in, or against members of the public when out on one of the many approved outings such as trips to the movies, supermarkets, and the local gym; how does he know that crimes are not being committed by those people?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member needs to understand that under home detention the detainee works through four phases. A lot of what the member has just talked about is simply not possible. The detainee is allowed to go to work in the morning and to come home at night within a set time frame. The person is under strict electronic monitoring by security guards, with regular reporting to the probation service. All I can quote to the member is the figures given to me by the Department of Corrections as the figures available to it from monitoring the programme. Of course, I cannot quote figures for unknown reoffending. That cannot be done for any form of sentence.

Hon Tony Ryall: In the light of the fact that the average probation officer has about 4½ hours a month—that is, an hour a week—to monitor someone on home detention, and that under the Goff sentencing law 55 offenders a month are having free time on deferral, pending home detention, can the Minister confirm to the House that his ministry has absolutely no idea of the level of offending by those 55 offenders a month who have had their sentences deferred.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has a growing habit of using inappropriate phrases during his questions. I certainly heard him misdescribe a law in New Zealand and he should be required to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the member talk about the Goff law. Strictly speaking, that is out of order. However, I heard the question through and now I will ask the Minister to reply.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am happy for it to be called that. I am proud of the achievement. The answer—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it that that will now become a ruling—that no one in the House should refer to any law, or any reform, or anything else by the name of a Minister who is responsible for moving that on behalf of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not, and I did not make it one then.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How then can you rule that Mr Ryall is out of order in making the comment he did and suggesting that it was unparliamentary, when we listen day after day to Government Ministers using similar epithets in their answers?

Mr SPEAKER: It is out of order to refer to a member just by his or her surname. Members are usually referred to as honourable members, or by their Christian name and surname. That was the part that was out of order. I regarded that as minor. Therefore I call on the Minister to reply.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two aspects to that question. The first is that this Government, under my colleague Margaret Wilson, has moved to remedy the longstanding shortage of probation officers, which is something that member neglected to do in his entire term as Minister. Secondly, with regard to conditions imposed when a sentence is deferred, there has never been a statutory requirement for judges to do that. I plan to remedy it, and I look forward to the member’s cooperation in passing that as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill this year.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear, as the Hansard will show. I asked the Minister to confirm that his ministry has absolutely no idea of what the 55 offenders a month are doing in terms of their offending, and he did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The fact that people can have their sentence deferred and not be under supervision has been the case for the last 20 years. I intend to remedy it so that people do know exactly what offenders are doing, and that they are under strict control. I look forward to that member’s cooperation in the amendment that I will make to the legislation—something he failed to do as Minister.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister point to any evidence from any country in the world that suggests that the “lock-’em-up” approach, which is driving the primary question and most of the supplementary questions, is at all effective at reducing the offending, compared with a rehabilitative approach?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I guess we will never solve crime if it is only a “lock-’em up” approach. We have to address the causes of crime, and that is ultimately the way in which we will make society a safer place. But I equally have to say there are some people in our system for whom there are no other options, if we are to emphasise the safety of the community, than to have them locked away and for a long time.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister assure the House that the figure of 10 reoffenders that he has continually quoted to the House as being accurate, is a figure he arrived at after checking court records and police records, and after gaining absolute assurances from corrections staff that no home detainees have been prosecuted for offences and/or breaches of their home detention conditions, other than the 10 he consistently speaks of?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The figure of 10 is the figure provided by the Department of Corrections, which has responsibility in this area. Therefore it is the department best placed to provide that information. That is the best information it can give me.

Stephen Franks: In view of the Minister’s repeated warning that he is relying on figures provided by the Department of Corrections, how can we know he is not adopting, knowingly or unknowingly, the befuddled strategy of his Associate Minister of Justice, Mr Rick Barker, on home detention when he repeatedly told Radio New Zealand last week that offenders on home detention had served their sentences and the detention was part of their parole, when, in fact, that is not the case for anyone?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have had a look at the transcript of that radio interview. There are clearly two forms of home detention. There is front-end home detention, which people are eligible for if they have a sentence of 2 years or less, and they meet the requirement as to safety. The second form of home detention is back-end home detention, which people get in the last 12 weeks of their sentence, before they have to be released. Both are valid forms of home detention and both have proven effective.

Attorney-General—Confidence

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Attorney-General; if so, why?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to warn members today about interjecting during question time. Questions are for questioners.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Putting aside the fact that so was the Iraqi Information Minister, or he was a prize fool anyway, why does the Prime Minister continue to say she has confidence in this Minister, when the Minister has claimed she is consulting Māori over the Supreme Court, and, secondly, has claimed that treaty cases are consistently sent back from the Privy Council—both claims being demonstrably and palpably false; and is it not about time the public knew the truth that only one treaty claim has ever been referred back from the Privy Council, and it was to hear evidence to establish facts, which the Privy Council stated should have been carried out by the Court of Appeal in the first instance; if so, how can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who makes those sorts of easy, simple mistakes?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can comment on the query made by the member as to the Minister’s consultation with Māoridom, because it is a matter of public record. It is very straightforward and simple. There was public consultation in the year 2000 through the public discussion document Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure. There were meetings with a cross-section of Māori leaders in 2001. There were regional meetings in 2001 in Wellington, Rotorua, and Auckland. A ministerial advisory group was set up, and if I had the time I could give the House the full Māori membership of that—there were people like Dr Ngatata Love, Maui Solomon, Archie Taiaroa, and Shane Jones. There has been extensive consultation with Māoridom. It is on the record, and the member should have known that.

Tim Barnett: What is the argument in favour of having our own final court of appeal, which is a move advocated by the Attorney-General?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very wide question, and there must be a very brief answer.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The first argument is increased access to justice for all New Zealanders, including Māori. The second is that there will be a more speedy resolution of appeals. It will reduce costs, while retaining an independent, two-tiered appellate structure.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Attorney-General when much of the opposition to the Supreme Court is precisely because many people do not trust that the Attorney-General is capable of setting up a politically neutral court, and that she does not see it as a liberal activist court that will redesign our constitution?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Both of the member’s statements are incorrect. As I recall, the first bill to remove the appeal right to the Privy Council was introduced by the National Party when I was in this House. The bill sat on the Order Paper doing nothing for 3 years, but I notice that it was supported by Tony Ryall, Nick Smith, and Maurice Williamson, whom I presume still support it, unless they have done a U-turn.

Rodney Hide: Does the Acting Prime Minister’s confidence extend across all Ministers, including the Minister of Tourism, whose answer in this House last week, that “South Africa’s Governments offered virtual countries—”

Mr SPEAKER: No. This refers to the Attorney-General, and must be related to that particular Minister.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am very reluctant to take a point of order, because that is my ruling.

Rodney Hide: I notice that you were very generous to Labour MP Tim Barnett when he went wide of the question and tucked in the Attorney-General at the end. Why does that not apply to members on this side of the House?

Mr SPEAKER: Because the member was asking a question about a bill that that Minister is responsible for.

Murray Smith: Is the fact that many, many Māori who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee considered the failure of the Attorney-General to consult Māori to be serious—which has led to a situation where proceedings arising from that failure are about to be filed in the Waitangi Tribunal—of any concern to the Prime Minister at all?

Hon PHIL GOFF: That question is based on an incorrect premise, which is that there has been no consultation. I have already indicated to the House in this question session that there has been extensive consultation. I am also happy to advise the House that the Attorney-General and Ngāti Tuwharetoa paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu will be establishing a consultation hui with Māori next month, and that the paramount chief disassociates himself from the comments made on behalf of the Ngāti Tuwharetoa position yesterday.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is this House hearing that there has been extensive consultation, when every Māori submitter from the central North Island who turned up at Rotorua on Monday claimed the complete opposite, saying that they had not been heeded, listened to, or even consulted, and—worse still—said they would join a hīkoi to come down here and make their point known, given that the seven Māori members in the Māori seats refuse to make their views known in this Parliament?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The successive consultation processes involving Māori have shown that there is a mixed view within Māoridom, as there is within the remainder of the population. However, I point out to the House that in a National Business Review poll, 2:1 people in New Zealand were in favour of abolishing the Privy Council.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the Labour Party has been supported since 1932 by the Māori people, does the Minister think it is appropriate that the gateway to Māoridom in, say, Rotorua is not a marae that the Māori people requested to be heard on, but, rather, the Grand Tiara Hotel?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The public opinion polls that I referred to before also show consistently how strongly the Māori people support the Labour Party, including the Labour Party that, in the last election, made a very clear manifesto undertaking election promise to replace the Privy Council with a final court of appeal in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very simple question: does the Labour Party think it is fitting that rather than approach Māori on the marae, which they requested, they went to a hotel designated by the chairperson of that committee? That is my question. Would he answer that one?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Consultation meetings take place in all sorts of venues, including marae.

Teaching—Students of Diverse Backgrounds

6. DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to improve effective classroom teaching for students of diverse backgrounds?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Inter alia, we have allocated $2.65 million over the next 4 years to work on building teaching capability to better meet the needs of diverse students. That will be using the high-quality research done in the previous term of government and will result in the promotion of effective teaching practice, extending some of the successful programmes we started, and improving teacher professional development.

David Benson-Pope: Could the Minister please detail to the House who will be involved in developing this initiative?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Broadly, it will be the compulsory education sector, but the early childhood sector will be involved, as well. Teachers, principals, advisers, researchers, and parents of Māori and Pasifika communities will all be involved. Schools will work in clusters to improve achievement. An expert group will also identify the key dimensions of effective teaching, and propose to share that practice with all teachers, including failed woodwork teachers.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How will the education of students of diverse backgrounds be helped by his decision to double the National Certificate of Educational Achievement fees for students, particularly given that this morning the New Zealand Qualifications Authority accepted that both it and the Minister acted illegally in increasing those fees?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am informed from behind me that that is not what was accepted.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister clarify exactly what he is denying—

Mr SPEAKER: The member can have another supplementary question, but we take turns.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt at all to answer the question, and I do not see why members on this side of the House should have to burn up their supplementary questions because the Minister gives an answer that is not sensible.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did make an attempt to answer the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you read the Hansard, you will be able to see that the Minister said: “I am informed from behind me—”

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Advised.

Gerry Brownlee: Advised, was it? He said he was advised from behind that such and such was not the case, or was not said. Are we to assume that the Minister of Education is so inept and unable to answer questions in his own portfolio area that he has to take advice from the junior whip?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister took issue with the member’s premise, and he is able to do just that.

Metiria Turei: How will this improve the effective classroom teaching of te Tiriti o Waitangi to students of diverse backgrounds, including te reo Māori, the only official language of this country and the only language of the indigenous peoples of this country?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Again, I think there is bit of a miss on one of the premises in that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister can give a fuller answer to that question.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fairness to the Minister, he is being asked a question that, I would have thought, is wrong. If the member is aware of the fact that Māori is the only official language in New Zealand, I think she might be invited under the Standing Orders to authenticate that statement.

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not right.

Hon Richard Prebble: How is the Minister supposed to answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister gave a reply. If he wants to add anything he can, but the Minister gave a reply that addressed the question, as the member rightly pointed out to me.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am prepared to add to it, if the member likes. I am not aware that Māori is the only official language of New Zealand. That is not my understanding.

Bernie Ogilvy: Is it the Government’s intention to cater for students of diverse backgrounds by recruiting more teachers from overseas, who have little understanding of New Zealand’s education system and who may have language limitations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Of course not.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard some gossip from the cross benches—which is very helpful—that the member claims she can authenticate her question. I am not ruling it out. If she can authenticate it she should be able to ask it. I think she should be invited to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot ask for somebody else to do something in the House.

Electricity—Contractors Federation

7. GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: What is his response to the president of the Contractors Federation, who stated this morning: “The Government has had ample warning of another shortage, but has sat on its hands”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): My response is that Mr Thompson’s view appears to be based on a misunderstanding about how much generation capacity has been commissioned in recent years. He claims it is 166 megawatts since 2000. He is wrong. The figure is a little over 500 megawatts. Many of his other assertions are also wrong.

Gerry Brownlee: How can he deny that the Government has been sitting on its hands, when—excluding the commissioning of the Otahuhu B power station, which was built under the previous National Government and commissioned less than 2 weeks after he took office—a mere 166 megawatts of additional generation capacity, measured according to his answer to a parliamentary question, has been commissioned during his term as Minister of Energy, compared with Ministry of Economic Development advice that we need at least 150 megawatts a year just to keep pace with demand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member chooses to play the game of arithmetic whereby one can count only stuff that has been built and commissioned since this Government was elected. It is then equally reasonable for the Government to add to the figure the stuff that has been built during this term but not yet commissioned.

Mark Peck: What communications have the Minister or the Government received from the New Zealand Contractors Federation on electricity matters?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My office has no record of the New Zealand Contractors Federation ever having written to me on electricity issues, nor has it ever made a submission on any of the electricity policy processes on which the Government has consulted the public.

Hon Ken Shirley: In a speech entitled “Energy: the way forward” made by the Minister on 7 October last year and posted on his website, he referred on page 2 to advice he was receiving back then that alarm bells would be ringing this year and in 2004; what specific action, if any, has he taken in response to those ringing alarm bells that he identified last October to ensure supply security?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Soon after the last election the Government received two reports, one of which said, if I recall correctly, that we might be in difficulty if we had a dry year from 2005. The other said, if I recall correctly, which I may not, that it would be from a little later than that. We had those reports checked out. Both of them were based on modelling that was not very good. It turns out that both reports, in the event, were wrong—as would always happen in an extremely dry year.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Eckhoff.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to check something. Mr Rodney Hide was going to ask one of our questions but you ruled it out. Does that mean that we have another question?

Mr SPEAKER: If I ruled a question out, I ruled a question out.

Hon Richard Prebble: Righto, so we have a question, so now we will ask one.

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Mr Eckhoff and he has actually started. He is from the member’s own party.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Can the Minister explain how the investment of $600 million by State-owned Meridian Energy in Australian generation assists with New Zealand’s ongoing energy crisis, which is due in large measure to a lack of generation investment in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sorry the member did not listen to the answer to that question when it was last asked of me. Back then I said that I was sure that our shareholding Ministers would not have allowed a State-owned enterprise to invest offshore if it had been going to in any way interfere with their investments onshore. That company has announced a $1 billion investment, and tomorrow that same company will be announcing another investment in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next supplementary question, can I just say to Mr Hide that I did make an error. The member had asked a full question and I ruled it out. That was one of the member’s questions.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You actually stopped me before I got anywhere near asking my question. That was my point of order at the time.

Mr SPEAKER: I will reflect on that while I hear Mr Copeland.

Gordon Copeland: Can the Minister confirm whether Mighty River Power intends to proceed with the recommissioning of the Marsden B oil-fired power station; if so, against what timetable?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Mighty River Power is pretty much explaining its position publicly, so I will just repeat that it is spending an amount of money—I think a little over $1 million—looking at the prospect of recommissiong Marsden B, and will likely make a decision in the next month or two.

Gerry Brownlee: Referring to the article written by Stephen Thompson, president of the Contractors Federation, I ask whether the Minister concedes that New Zealand is “stuffed for new supplies” of electricity in the next 3 to 4 years unless the Government resorts to draconian fast-track legislation to consent to new generation projects, and can we expect that to be part of the Prime Minister’s announcement later this week?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, but I will be announcing later this week what the 3-year generation programme is. We do not have all the data together yet, but it is likely to exceed 900 megawatts.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to go over a matter raised earlier that I have got advice on. It does not matter whether Mr Hide had finished his supplementary question—I ruled it out of order. He could have sought my assistance and reworded the question, but he did not. So the question must stand.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a newspaper article entitled “Power crisis is minister’s fault”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that newspaper article; is there any objection? There is.

Youth—Government Initiatives

8. NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: What initiatives is the Government undertaking to support youth development?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): The Government has undertaken a huge range of initiatives to support youth development. As Minister I am involved in a range of activities over coming days to mark Youth Week, which runs until Sunday. They celebrate the achievements of our young people.

Nanaia Mahuta: What particular Youth Week events is the Minister involved in?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Tomorrow the Ministry of Youth Affairs will be launching Keepin’ it Real, a youth participation guide. This is just one of a range of community-based events around the country such as dance parties, hip-hop classes, break-offs, a youth car show, and sports events. These events focus on highlighting the wonderful contribution that young New Zealanders make to our society.

Simon Power: How is this Government supporting youth development by passing the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill yesterday on the basis it was to assist reducing youth drinking, when, in fact, it does nothing of the sort, taxing only alcoholic drinks such as port and sherry—two drinks that are most unlikely to appeal to young people?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: We take our role very seriously in the youth sector, and to that extent this underpins a major strategy in regard to harm minimisation amongst the youth sector.

Craig McNair: Does the Minister agree that the best thing he could have done instead of voting for the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill, which raised the taxes of beverages like sherry that most young people do not even drink, would have been to adopt New Zealand First MP Ron Mark’s member’s bill to raise the drinking age back to 20?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: No.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I set down this question to the Minister in a very similar, but slightly different, form. I notice that the Minister is not present. I seek leave of the House for the question to be deferred till tomorrow so that the Minister responsible might answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question—[Interruption] I want the person who made that interjection to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I will withdraw and apologise too.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is very lucky indeed not to be asked to leave.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since you asked for one apology and got two, would you like to clarify what statements we withdrew?

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member knows that that is being facetious, and he is very, very close to being asked to leave. I will not have any more from him today. That is his final warning.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think your short intolerance for the shadow Leader of the House is well known, but I thought you ought to be clear just what it is you are warning him about. As he is the shadow Leader of the House, we would expect, with a number of questions to go, and the Government’s usual level of performance, that there would likely be points of order, and some of those may be expressed in terms that you do not regard as exactly the right way, or may dislike in some way. I do not think the shadow Leader of the House should be in the position where he feels constrained from carrying out his function on behalf of the Opposition, so I would like your clarification on just what it is you are warning him about.

Mr SPEAKER: I am warning him to stay within the Standing Orders. Everyone in this House will know that I am remarkably tolerant of Mr Brownlee, and I think even he himself will concede that point.

Energy—Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has she received on how the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) will help New Zealand address the current energy crisis?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy), on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: The Minister has received no specific advice.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Given that on 11 April 2003, Meridian Energy specifically wrote to the Minister and pointed out concerns about clauses 7, 11, 18, 32, 41, 54, 61, 63, 67, 75, 76, and 80 of the bill, and notably said that those changes will create additional obstacles to the granting of the necessary approvals for the construction or operation of the types of projects referred to above, why has the Minister not listened to New Zealand’s largest generator of electricity—and very significantly a State company?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Minister for the Environment happens to know the views of Meridian Energy very well. Meridian Energy wishes to have planning rules that are easier than they are, or will be, as does anyone who wants to get on with big projects. The problem that Meridian Energy needs to face is that this Government will always go for a balance. The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) reduces costs on the legislation as it is currently in the books.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: In the middle of an energy crisis why has the Government ignored the advice of Meridian Energy, and, instead, chosen to invest $600 million of public money building generating stations in Australia rather than in New Zealand, and why does he not listen to the sensible advice of Meridian Energy about the sorts of resource management laws we need?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Speaking in defence of Meridian Energy, I remind the House that Meridian Energy is about to invest over $1 billion in Project Aqua, subject to consents, and will make a further investment announcement tomorrow.

David Parker: Is the Minister preparing any work to assist with future energy generation proposals?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot possibly rule that that question could be answered by the Minister for the Environment. I accept that it is a question that would ordinarily go to the Minister of Energy, but the Minister is currently speaking as Minister for the Environment, who has no responsibility for energy planning, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wishes to rephrase his question he can do so.

David Parker: Is the Minister preparing any work in connection with proposed changes to the Resource Management Act that would assist with future energy generation proposals?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As the Minister of Energy advised earlier in this question time, amendments to the Resource Management Act will be introduced soon to smooth the path for renewable energy developments.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister for the Environment accept any responsibility whatsoever for resolving the current energy crisis, or does she adhere to the doctrine enunciated clearly by her Cabinet colleague Chris Carter that her sole responsibility is for the environment?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Many aspects of government are working well together to reduce the social and economic risk that may face this country in the future if it does not rain and if we do not sufficiently save.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is resource consent necessary to install solar water heating, insulate buildings, install more efficient lights, size industrial motors correctly, establish a secondary market in saved electricity, use gas directly instead of in power stations, or convert industrial boilers to wood waste; and does the Minister agree that more supply is only part of the answer to the power crisis?

Hon PETE HODGSON: From memory, apart from the possibility of a consent needed to switch from some other fuel to wood waste, the answer to all of those questions is absolutely no.

Larry Baldock: How significant is the Resource Management Act as a cause of the electricity crisis, given that the resource consents have already been approved for at least two separate gas-fired electricity generation plants and that their construction has been delayed by the need to secure new post - Maui Gas supply contracts?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is precisely the point. I thank the member for his question. Since 2000, 1,300 megawatts of new electricity generation have been consented in the last 3 years. That is enough new generation for 8 years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table both the submission of Meridian Energy on the problems with the Resource Management Act for the energy sector, and also of the Petroleum Association of New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is not.

Home Detention—Reoffending

10. RON MARK (NZ First), on behalf of Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First), to the Minister of Justice: What specific checks and ongoing monitoring occurs with respect to offenders serving all or part of their sentence under home detention, and who specifically carries out this role?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice), on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The checks and monitoring of offenders serving a sentence of home detention are the responsibility of the Probation Service. The checks and monitoring undertaken include continuous electronic monitoring, and face-to-face meetings with the probation officer. The electronic monitoring is conducted by Chubb Security.

Ron Mark: Who audits the systems and the personnel responsible for checking and monitoring home detention detainees, in order to confirm that they are properly monitored and supervised, and to ensure that incidences of reoffending are noted and prosecuted?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: That is the responsibility of the Probation Service.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister confirm that home detention was first piloted under a National Government?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes. Legislation passed in 1993, in the form of an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act, allowed for the setting up of the pilot programme for home detention. The first person commenced home detention in March 1995, and an evaluation was completed in 1997, also under a National Government.

Ron Mark: If the monitoring and auditing systems for checking home detention detainees are so thorough and so complete, how, as I highlighted yesterday, is a person on home detention able to abuse a woman, beat her, run up massive debts in her name, and not be prosecuted?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The probation officer provided a report to the Parole Board. It was the Parole Board that made the decision. The Parole Board is an independent body that is responsible for that decision.

Pharmac—Dispensing

11. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Why is Pharmac proposing to change from 1-month dispensing to 3-month dispensing of prescription medicines when, as a result of that change, it is estimated the wastage of discarded medicines will increase by $35 million a year?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I am advised by Pharmac that should this initiative be implemented, it would mean district health boards would have an extra $35 million to spend on services—for example, for improved hospice care, child health, or aged care. It would also make it easier for patients to get the medicines that doctors have prescribed, which would mean an extra $24 million a year of medicines being dispensed to patients in need.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is she aware that the residential care association estimates this change will cost every resident on medications $264 per year—that is, $7.5 million per year for all New Zealand—and who will pay for this increase: the Government, the rest homes, or older people?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The decision as to whether a medication is dispensed for 3 months, 4 days, or 1 month can be made by the patient’s doctor. This proposal is an extension of an existing policy that allows 3-month dispensing for any patient who lives 30 minutes away from a pharmacy, who has limited mobility, who is travelling abroad, or who is relocating. So a person who is receiving a prescription is very much in the hands of his or her doctor, who will decide whether and when that patient should get it.

Steve Chadwick: What consultation has Pharmac undertaken to date?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Pharmac has held a number of public meetings with pharmacists. It has called for public submissions and has received 191 to date. Overwhelmingly, the public and patients are in favour of the change. It has met with Opposition MPs—for example, Dr Don Brash, who supported the proposal, and Dr Lynda Scott, who opposed the proposal.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not trust doctors to decide whether patients, whose health is their professional responsibility, should be dispensed their medicines every month, every 2 months, or every 3 months?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly trust doctors to make those decisions, and they make them every day. They are able to make those decisions. But because they are required to dispense monthly when they would like to be able to dispense 3-monthly, it means they cannot do that.

Judy Turner: Has she received any indication from Pharmac that it would be willing to review dispensing fees to compensate for this proposal in the light of the savings that will accrue, notwithstanding the potential wastage?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Pharmac is listening to all proposals at this stage. That is why there is consultation, and that is why the consultation has been extended to 30 May.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister aware of estimates of the effect of bulk dispensing on high users of medicines, especially the elderly, who will have to collect huge quantities of drugs at once, and of real-life examples that show some elderly New Zealanders will have to collect over 1,300 tablets, five inhalers, 3 kilograms of laxatives, and so forth at one time, and does she acknowledge that under this sort of bulk dispensing regime it will be practically impossible to monitor patient compliance amongst high users, and that it will inevitably result in an increase in the incorrect use of medicines, in overdoses, and in child poisonings?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Should a patient require such a large amount of pharmaceuticals, a doctor can decide that they are to be dispensed every day, every week, or every month. It is not a requirement that patients have to have them every 3 months. But I have received from many, many patients—and, in fact, from some members in this House—advice of their concern about people who have to pick up their prescriptions every month. I notice that members in this House are nodding.

Dr Lynda Scott: I will ask again who is to pay for the $7.5 million in extra costs that will be incurred: the Government, the rest homes, or older people?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is making it up. There are no such figures.

Dr Lynda Scott: Does she believe that pharmacy viability will be affected by this proposed change; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Some pharmacists have said that they may have to close if this is undertaken, and that certainly must be considered by Pharmac and also by the Ministry of Health. However, it may be necessary—

Dr Lynda Scott: And the Minister.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Can I just tell the member that it is not a decision for the Minister. I will tell the member why that is. When we changed—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt. I want quiet. I want to hear what the Minister says.

Hon ANNETTE KING: This is not a decision for the Minister. The member, I know, is new to the House and she probably does not know that when we changed from 3-monthly dispensing to 1-montly dispensing in 1996, the Minister of Health did not make the decision then, either. It was made by Pharmac. The decision will be made by Pharmac this time, based on the submissions that it receives. The member asked me whether this would affect pharmacies. There are some pharmacies that say they may have to close, and that needs to be looked at by Pharmac and by the Ministry of Health. However, if that were the case, it may be time for this House to re-examine pharmacy ownership and pharmacy service provision. There is an opportunity for that to happen under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill.

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table Residential Care New Zealand’s submission, which shows that a 60-bed facility will pay $18,000 more per annum, and I think it knows more about that than the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Solar Water Heating—Efficiency

12. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy: What was the basis for his statement in the House on 29 April, in relation to solar water heating, that “when one starts to do the arithmetic, one finds they are not hugely useful”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy): The basis is that if we were to reach our target of 10,000 new solar water heating units per year that would meet only 3 percent of our nation’s demand growth in any one year, meaning that the other 97 percent would need to be met elsewhere.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can he confirm that on suitable houses a good solar water heater will save 2,000 to 3,000 kilowatt-hours a year, and that even in the winter months it will average 15 percent to 18 percent of total household power compared with the 10 percent target he has set those households, and is that not about as huge as anything that one household can do?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Can I just be clear that the Government is very supportive of solar water heating. Indeed, it is part of our National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. The point I was making then and now is that in a national sense it makes a modest contribution. The member would say that in a domestic sense it makes a good contribution, and I would agree with her.

Russell Fairbrother: Is the Government taking steps to increase New Zealand’s supplies of renewable energy from sources other than solar power?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is running a solar hot water grants scheme to help the industry achieve its medium-term target of 10,000 new systems a year for New Zealand homes. Funding for this scheme will be increased in the forthcoming Budget.

Gerry Brownlee: To quote the Minister, when one does the arithmetic how does he suggest we make sense of the current energy crisis, when New Zealand has more than 800 years of coal that could be cleanly burnt for electricity generation if he were to move more quickly to make clear the cost of Kyoto compliance?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The cost of Kyoto compliance has been made very clear. We have said that we will put a carbon charge approximating the international price of carbon, but capped at—

Gerry Brownlee: What is it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member now wants to know what the international price of carbon is.

Gerry Brownlee: No—what’s your price?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Oh—but capped at $25 a tonne. If the member wants more certainty than that, we can add to the cap a floor, but I do not think that that is the sort of certainty he is looking for.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When will the Minister announce his proposals to promote solar technology, as required by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act, give incentives for it, as required by the current power crisis, and help to build capacity in the New Zealand solar industry, as required for our future energy security?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That stuff is going to come out bit by bit. I just acknowledge that the next Budget is where the next bit comes from, and the details of that will be announced this afternoon.

Tabling of Document

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I seek leave to table an article dated 5 May 2003 from the South African Business Day, which has the South African Government stating there is no truth in the statement made by Minister Mark Burton in this House last week.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): I seek leave to table the National Business Review, which states that the National Party is facing a showdown over pharmacy law.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

General Debates

General Debates

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Let me set the scene. When I got elected to Parliament in 1993, I broke a generational tradition in Southland whereby all the south was blue. Indeed, at No. 3 The Crescent three National members of Parliament resided. They were, in those days, Norman Jones, Rex Austin, and the Deputy Prime Minister—I was going to say Hugh Templeton but it was not him—Brian Talboys. Mr Talboys was replaced by Mr English, and Mr Austin was replaced by Jeff Grant. What is important about that is that that particular office is owned by the National Party, and there were three rentals going to the National Party office. Well, it has fallen on tough times—very tough times.

What we have now is the Leader of the Opposition going around worrying about the Māori seats. Let me tell him one thing, to start with. The four Māori seats that existed in New Zealand from the late 19th century were a sop to Māori to actually give them the rights they had already been granted under the Treaty of Waitangi. Indeed, at that time Māori should have had 15 seats. The member should do his history.

But, worse than that, the member is seeking divine intervention. This is the once-proud National Party. I am holding a photograph of the National Party office in Invercargill. The problem I have is that my electorate office is run off its feet, doing Mr English’s work. People are now ringing me and saying: “How do we get hold of him?”. Well, let me go through it.

Let us have a look at this photograph. This is a big, substantial building. What do we see? The photograph shows a sign near the doorway, stating “Elim Pentecostal Church”. That church runs services on a Sunday, at 10 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening. That was where the big sign was that said “Bill English, Member for Clutha”. It used to say “Member for Wallace”. It used to say “Jeff Grant, Member for Awarua”. It used to say “Rob Munro, Member for Invercargill”. That sign has gone. The National Party does not exist there any more. It has gone.

Hon Trevor Mallard: They’ve pulled up their stakes.

MARK PECK: It has pulled up its stakes. To make it worse, my staff got a phone call the other day from one of Mr English’s constituents. That person, who wanted a meeting with Mr English, had been told a couple of things. That person had been told that Mr English did come down to Invercargill occasionally, and he had been down at Easter, so the constituent had just missed him, but the constituent should not worry about it: sometimes Mr English meets people at airports, so his constituent could get an appointment at Dunedin Airport, or, if his constituent was really lucky, he or she might get an appointment at Invercargill Airport.

But, hang on, it gets better. It is such a big electorate that Mr English drives around it. If people ring and leave their name and phone number, he might drive to see them. I wonder whether he drives around his electorate in the Crown representative car. But, hang on, how big is that electorate? We have Balclutha, Gore, Clinton, Riverton, Otautau, Tuatapere, Te Anau, Manapouri, Milford, Owaka, and so on. We have huge areas of population. We have Milton, Tokomaru—the whole lot there—and what happens? Where does Mr English have his office? He has one office, in Gore. Guess how long it is open for? It is open from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., and that is it.

But, hold on, let us give the member some credit. People can meet him at Invercargill, at the Invercargill National Party office. But, hang on, let us go back. People cannot meet him there. They would have to put up with the “happy-clappies”. I want to ask Mr English this: has he given away the papal authority of Catholicism, for the Protestant preaching of Pentecostalism? It is very clear for all to see that he has lost it.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): It is a long time since this House has heard such a theatrically performed piece of fiction by a member of Parliament. What is more, it is a very long time since this House has heard from Mark Peck, the obscure member. Therefore, I seek leave for Mr Peck to be granted one more slot of 5 minutes, to extend the general debate today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for that, Mr Brownlee, but if Mr Peck wished to speak any longer he could ask for leave himself. Leave has been sought.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Just to make it clear, this would cause the last 5-minute speaker to be dropped from the speaking list.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): We will move on.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): Is it not interesting that that member was one of the few Labour members whose majority went down at the last election?

Dr Lynda Scott: Who was the other one?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other one was Jill Pettis. There is a much more serious issue to be discussed today, and that is the competence and judgment of Helen Clark, who is out travelling the world on behalf of New Zealanders. She is not doing it on behalf of herself, we must point out to her. She is not a foreign affairs commentator. She is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. When she has come back to New Zealand to explain what she said, she has been pathetic. Let me remind the House about this. [Interruption]

That member should keep quiet because he has to sack the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority today. The organisation in charge of all our children’s qualifications has been running amok and breaking the law, under his supervision. The chief executive has been doubling National Certificate of Educational Achievement fees, breaking the law, and lying to a select committee. That member better get back in his box and sack the chief executive today.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There isn’t a chief executive. What a fool. How can you sack someone who doesn’t have a job? What a fool. The member is a fool.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: An acting chief executive. What a fool. This is what Helen Clark said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese”. We asked her: who “everyone” is. This is the Prime Minister who weighs every word. This is the Prime Minister who is open, upfront, and accessible. This is the Prime Minister who—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Mr Mallard to desist from a running commentary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is the Prime Minister who means what she says—

David Benson-Pope: And says what she means.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And she says what she means—that is right. We asked her who “everyone” is and she could not name anyone. So I asked her whether everyone who is looking at this Franco-German-Russian link-up includes New Zealand. Does it include her? Is she, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, looking at the Franco-German-Russian link-up that makes the Anglo-American club look small? Is she the one who is looking at it? Well, here is the upfront, accessible, “means what she says” Prime Minister’s answer to the question of whether “everyone” includes New Zealand: “It is quite clear that the original comment is in itself a question, and it is a question based on whether—and I draw the member’s attention to that word—there is going to be this or that,”—members should not miss that; it is based on whether there is “going to be this or that”—“and ‘that’ represents the opinions of the key players at that time.” That is our spokesperson on New Zealand’s relationship to the world.

I say to the media and this House that Helen Clark’s accumulated burden of dishonesty is starting to weigh down on her. I say to the media in particular that they can take almost nothing this woman says at face value—almost nothing. That is what the Guardian in England thinks. Members should look at this letter to the editor, in our Dominion Post, from journalists with one of Britain’s top newspapers. They say this, in respect of the “law of the jungle” comments: “It is hard to imagine what else she could have meant when she asked, ‘Who wants to go back to the jungle?’.” Of course, her comments were precisely that the actions and decisions of Tony Blair were taking us back to the jungle.

I can remember a former Prime Minister making a comment about the jungle. I think it was Rob Muldoon, who got in enormous trouble for making that reference. That was in New Zealand; here is our Prime Minister in Britain telling one of our closest friends and allies that his actions and decisions are taking the world back to the law of the jungle. OK, that is an opinion, and I happen to disagree with it. But then she tried to say that she had never said it, and the journalist who interviewed her said that she did.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): The usual thing is to say, in order to compliment former speakers, that they are hard acts to follow, but I am afraid it is difficult to follow such acting. It was just acting.

In the 5 minutes allotted to me I would like to talk about the important relationship between education and training, on the one hand, and the achievement of a high-quality, job-rich society where employment growth is maximised and no one is left behind, on the other. Education is a top priority for social investment because it not only gives more employment opportunities but also is a profitable public investment that delivers ample public benefits in the form of a more efficient and productive economy, and a much more contented and healthy society.

Some Opposition parties—and we have just seen one—like to run down and bad-mouth New Zealand. In spite of the fact that New Zealand’s 4.4 percent annual gross domestic product growth rate of late puts us at the top of the ladder for performance among the OECD group of rich nations, and despite the OECD forecasting that New Zealand’s average growth rate over the next 3 years will continue to outperform the OECD’s average, some in Opposition just cannot bring themselves to be happy for New Zealand. Instead, they for ever exaggerate the burden to business arising from the Resource Management Act—an Act introduced by a National Party Government in the 1990s.

It is, of course, absolutely true that Governments must always be open and willing to remove unnecessary obstacles to economic development and job creation. My party is totally open to rational, practical, and progressive steps to remove unnecessary red tape that has passed its use-by date. We are also advocating taking rational steps to make the income tax structure more progressive by lowering effective taxes paid by low and middle-income working families.

But the key thing is to be as rational and honest about these things as possible. The truth is that the costs to business of our regulatory environment are low by OECD standards. While progress can be made, there is no magic wand to wave that would deliver a sudden surge in our economic development or performance. Fostering economic development requires a framework and culture that value and promote the upgrading of our intellectual capital, our skills base, our educational standards, and our ability to compete in the high-quality sectors of the increasingly borderless global economy. Fostering conditions that will enhance economic development requires patience and planning. It requires hard work and maturity by the Government, business, unions, voluntary groups, and iwi. It means drawing together to put in place a framework that facilitates high-quality job creation.

A critical ingredient in this mix of policy is ensuring that every young person is in work, training, or education, and we have the goal of having that for every person who leaves school. That means lowering barriers not only to job creation, such as lowering unnecessary tax and red tape barriers, but also to accessing education and training. Removing obstacles to education and training, we believe, is critical to unleashing the full potential of our people. The goal of the Progressive party is to move progressively towards universally accessible early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

In relation to tertiary education, my party last year campaigned to stop the student debt burden from getting worse, reduce the scale of the debt by a range of incentives for payment and debt write-off, freeze fees, reduce or eliminate fees for the first year of study, introduce living allowances so that students do not have to borrow money to live, and work towards the progressive elimination of all fees. We see substantial value in establishing a bonding-type programme whereby student loans could be remitted in return for people working in particular regions or sectors of New Zealand for a specified period of time.

As the smaller partner in a minority coalition Government, it is obvious that the Progressives will not get everything we want. We believe we are achieving a great deal towards most of our Progressive objectives across a wide range of portfolio areas, but we know we will not always win the internal debates that must take place within a coalition Government. When we do not win an internal coalition policy debate, we will differentiate our policy from that of the coalition Government of which we are a part, and whenever we do not win a policy debate we will, of course, reserve the right to live in order to fight the cause another day. It is extremely important that the goal we have set of moving towards an education system where the barriers of fees are gradually removed, in order to reach the goal we want to achieve of eventually having a free and open education system, is eventually put into place. That is a goal that the Progressive party has set itself, and we believe it can eventually be won.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise in this general debate to voice the anger and frustrations of ordinary people of New Zealand at the inability of this Government to face up to, and tackle, some of the real problems that face us today, and at the continuing insistence of this Government to pander to criminals and to the alcoholic self-destruction of our young people.

I have often heard, about the country and in this Chamber, that New Zealand has become a nanny State. That is said because of this Government’s propensity to continue to pander to the politically correct sensitivities of the minority, as opposed to making sane, sensible, common-sense decisions. Indeed, one could go further and say that we are no longer a nanny State; we have become a “nancy State”. Indeed, in this Chamber last night I reiterated the words of some people down south who said that this country is now run by a bunch of Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists who are more concerned about the political correctness of things than dealing in real terms with the real problems that face us.

I refer to two issues that have gone through this House this week. One is home detention and the other is the liquor laws.

Home detention has become the most sought after punishment available from our courts. Why is that? Because it is not punishment at all. Why do I say that? Well, because now we have a situation under this Government where people sentenced to prison—not given diversion but sentenced to prison—are actually let out for a couple of months while they seek home detention. We have the absolute absurdity of a robber, who is now a prime suspect for further robberies, who has been let out on a deferred sentence—he is on leave, at loose—and now the police cannot find him because the system has lost him. How patently absurd! We now have a home detention system that allows people, convicts, some of whom are rapists, some of whom have bashed children, and some of whom have bashed women, to go to the gym, to go on entertaining outings, and to go shopping. We now know that there is no real monitoring of their activities. Basically, they are free to do as they will. They can vote, gamble, and drink. They are at home with their partners of a day, and if they choose they can have sex. It is a wonderful lifestyle.

Then we come to the other issue—the drinking. Last night we witnessed the passage of a bill that supposedly will deal with the drinking problems of our youth. I am here to tell members that only New Zealand First has stood firm on all aspects of such legislation and voted consistently against the lowering of the drinking age. It was that issue that gave us the problems we face today, and no amount of politically correct pandering will deter me, nor anybody else out on the street, from that view.

It is absolutely pathetic that this Government does not have the strength or the ability to face this issue and deal with it head on. What does it do instead? It jacks up the prices. It jacks up the taxes on nana’s sherry that goes into the Christmas trifle, and it has the nerve to tell us all that that will solve the drinking problems of our youth. Well, our youth are laughing at this House.

One thing I can tell this House about youth is that they look for parameters, for boundaries. They respect discipline, and they respect people who can see a problem for what it is and make the hard call. Young people respect that. They do not respect the sort of nonsense that we have seen going through the House. It has been an expensive mistake. We have seen the lowering of the drinking age, we have seen an explosion of drink-related offending by large numbers of our young people, and we have had Māori consistently calling upon the Labour Government, which got the mandate, to deal with it.

I have to ask the Māori MPs where they were last night. Where was the warrior status, the ability to stand up, make the hard call, and say no to a pathetically useless bill that will not in any way address the drinking problems of our youth? Where was it? Where were the Māori MPs? Why were they not standing up and saying that home detention is failing, that home is not the place for people who rape women? [Interruption] Tariana Turia can say what she likes, but can she tell me that home detention is appropriate for a man who raped a child between the age of 12 and 16? Hello? Well, I say it is not. This Government, with all its politically correct misfits, its Chardonnay-sipping, spa-bath socialists, seems to think it is, and nobody out there in Belfast, in Christchurch, agrees with that.

MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I want to start the debate, and to continue the scene set by my colleague, by asking the question: “What does a National Party do when it is out of power, out of the loop, outmanoeuvred, and outperformed in the leadership stakes and in every other aspect of the political dynamic?”. What does it do? Irrespective of a lack of consultation with its Māori stakeholders, it engages in seeking a headline—the best cheap-shot line-up, especially a Māori one.

That is a classic case of hypocrisy and, may I say, political schizophrenia. We are aware that the National Party vigorously courted the Māori vote in the last election, and failed miserably. What happened? The National Party hit the delete button, and its one and lonely Māori MP was demoted from eighth to thirteenth lackey. How embarrassing is that to Māoridom? That is sheer hypocrisy and schizophrenia. I want to put it in a colloquial term: she is “sweet as”, one year. To be poetic: “Out, out brief candle.” To put it in Māori: “Haere ra, haere ra, haere ra.” To wax poetic again: “The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things.” Bill English—

Ron Mark: What have you been smoking?

MAHARA OKEROA: I have been drinking. In May 2003, Bill English said that the Māori seats have fulfilled a purpose, but their time is now over. What absolute and total cultural and social arrogance! It underlines a demonstrative ignorance of Māori dynamics in the 21st century. The intention to hold a referendum on Māori seats in the year 2008 is totally unimaginative and lacking in vision. To me it is the hammer and anvil approach. It is an ideology that wraps itself around the tyranny of the majority.

Hon Ken Shirley: The hammer and sickle.

MAHARA OKEROA: No, that is that member. Why should the pinnacle participation and aspiration of tangata whenua be determined by a process that oozes assimilation? [Interruption] We saw it over there last night. He iwi kotahi tātou. That is a kind of Jurassic understanding of race relations in New Zealand. “He iwi kotahi tātou.” means “We are one people.” If that referendum gains traction—[Interruption]—I will talk to that member from Ngāti Raukawa later—if that policy gains traction, we will have a herding together of the people, irrespective of their diversity and their heritage. In other words, we will go from assimilation to integration. Those two words are the bane of our people, and have been for the last 160 years.

When I say that it is a gross misinterpretation of Māori dynamics in the 21st century, I note that even Māori party faithful of the National Party are expressing some grave doubts about that announcement. Let me quote Mr Wira Gardiner, former Chief Executive of Te Puni Kōkiri: “I feel a significant amount of unease about the failure to consult with the party. It was an absolutely wrong process. They should have at least consulted with Māori within the party itself. Nobody consulted me.” The leader of that party is trying to lead a debate on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): This Labour Government is looking very vulnerable and very inadequate on many fronts. Perhaps two of those fronts where it is looking most vulnerable and where it has stumbled badly in recent months are, firstly, the foreign policy and defence issue, where it has left this country in a very unfortunate situation—and, increasingly, the public of New Zealand is appreciating the fact of that vulnerability—and, secondly, the energy crisis that clearly is looming, and is a growing concern to us all.

That crisis did not come out of the blue. At question time today the Minister of Energy conceded that his own advice—to himself actually—last October was that alarm bells would be ringing this year. But he did nothing. Why? Because he is caught up in a Cabinet that has a philosophical mindset. Pete Hodgson actually believes in the market. He has got his head round the energy sector, and he is a proponent of “more market”. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the balance of Cabinet want “more regulation”. They think the solution is more Government and more regulation. That is certainly not the solution.

The Government has been prone to blame all the problems in the energy area on Max Bradford’s reforms. Well, Max nearly got it right. On balance, he did a great job. The one serious error he made was when he forced the split between the lines and energy companies, and destroyed foreign investment confidence. That drove companies like TransAlta out of the country. Think about it: they have all gone. They have all just quietly left, at a time when we need investment in infrastructure, investment in our grids, investment in our generation capacity. All those foreigners have gone, and they have said: “Who would come to New Zealand?”.

It is partly because of the Resource Management Act and administrative problems, but the big problem is Government. If Governments keep changing the rules, and confiscate property rights, take property rights, without warning, then who would invest in that sort of climate? International investment dollars are like water: they flow to the level where they will get the best return. If Governments create barriers to investment, then they should not be surprised when foreign investors just quietly walk away.

Of course, the other aspect is that the sale of ECNZ was not done in an optimal way. Why? It was driven by the administrators—the old ECNZ engineers—and they wanted to retain their empires. Is it a coincidence that they smashed down the smokestacks at the Marsden B power station? That station was just coming to completion. They did not want any new entries, any new generators. They engaged in economic vandalism and destroyed the smokestacks. Now, when we want to bring that station back on in a hurry because it is needed, we cannot. The pipeline is rusted because it has not been maintained; and the smokestacks were deliberately destroyed by the outgoing ECNZ. Those people are the same characters who now are running the regional monopolies of the Government’s State-owned enterprises.

If we look at the Meremere power station situation, we see that Olivine wanted to step in there, incinerate wastes, and generate electricity—a very, very good proposal. But those administrators had destroyed the smokestacks, so the Meremere power station could not be restarted. What has Olivine done? It has gone off to Perth, Australia. It got consent there in 7 months, when it had taken it 7 years in New Zealand to get nowhere. That company is now building a world-leading high-temperature incineration facility. What are we doing? We are dumping all our wastes at Hampton Downs and other landfills, because that is what the Government deems as the solution. Clearly, it is not.

We have also had no investment in Transpower for 10 years. A number of major upgrades to Transpower—the national grid—could improve the efficiency of the system and reduce our vulnerabilities. What are they? We could do the DC upgrade. There has been a suggestion that the 24kb go up to 320kb, which would reduce some of the existing constraints. None of that investment is occurring, because there is no incentive to make the investment. It is not a case of too much market; it is a case of too much Government. We are talking about 100-percent Government-owned State-owned enterprises. Indeed, 70 percent of the generators are in the Government’s hands—Genesis, Mighty River Power, Meridian Energy. Under the statements of corporate intent, the Government can give clear directions to get the outcomes we need. But none of that is occurring. It is a case of too much Government and not enough market.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I would like to contribute to the debate on the Corrections Bill, which is due for deliberation further down the track, and, in particular, one aspect of it, which is the private prison versus public prison debate. I would like to help this Government out by clearing up a few things. The Government has made a statement alluding to the fact that corrections is a core State activity. The meting out of justice is a core State activity. The handing out of punishment in a sentence, on behalf of the people of New Zealand and on behalf of the victims, is a core State function. But the geographic location where, and by whom, the punishment is carried out are not, I suggest, core State functions.

The taxpayers of this country will be picking up the bill, either way. If the prisons are run by the State, the taxpayers will fund them.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure if you heard the introduction to the member’s speech. I do apologise for interrupting; I hope it will not come off his time. Is it appropriate to be discussing a bill that is currently before a select committee? Whilst the direction and thrust of the member’s speech may be understood, I ask whether you could possibly give him guidance as to what the Standing Orders are in that respect. Maybe, if he wishes to talk about the general principle, there might be some parameters that you could assist him with, so that he does not transgress the Standing Orders by entering into debate on aspects of a bill that is currently before the Law and Order Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): He can as long as he does not discuss anything that is private to the select committee. As to the fact of the bill being there, he is entitled to discuss anything that is open to the public at the select committee.

MARC ALEXANDER: I thank the member for suggesting that I confine myself to the larger picture. The point I was trying to make was not so much the content of the bill but the general thrust of the ideological principle behind a certain aspect of it. This issue has been in the public domain for quite some time; it has been in the news. There is no reason that it cannot be debated.

My point is that the taxpayers of this country are going to pay for the corrections system, either way. They will pay either through taxation that is administered by the Government, or through taxation that is allotted by the Government to a private firm that is running a prison. Either way, the taxpayers will be left with the bill.

The real question, though, is that one of the core State functions must be to look after the interests of the public and the taxpaying public. If we can save $27,000 per prisoner per year with no diminishing of standards, that must surely be a core function of the State. I have just done a few little calculations and I have figured out that with the number of prisoners we have, if this efficiency was adopted across the board we would save in the region of $260 million. That is $260 million that could be used by the police to upgrade their equipment, to get encrypted radio systems, and to put more front-line police out there to combat crime and help protect New Zealanders, whose taxes are funding this. In other words, if we adopted the private approach across the board—and I am not advocating that we do that—then $260 million could be better spent on protecting the New Zealand public, without one extra cent being spent on present day expenditures. That has to be a plus.

Ideology is always a maiden of doubtful virtue, and a refuge for those who choose not to think. Quite frankly, if one hides behind ideology, there is not much intelligence in that—if it were vegetables, there would not be enough to fill a stockpot.

Let us have a look at what private prisons can actually deliver here. Australasian Correctional Management has a system in place that allows for savings to the taxpayer, and for better provision of rehabilitative programmes. It conducts programmes that no other remand prison in this country has ever given its inmates. It is the only prison in this country that has been accredited with a quality management system that is of a nationally and internationally recognised standard. Why is that? Why is a private prison in this country, in terms of standards, getting international acknowledgement over and above that of the State-run prisons? Members should consider that the State-run prisons have had plenty of time to reach that standard, whereas the Australasian Correctional Management team has been here for only 3 years, and has already attained it. What is it about private enterprise that allows it to conduct and execute the wishes of the State in terms of the correctional system—to make it more efficient, saving the taxpayers money and benefiting the inmates at the same time?

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): On Sunday the residents of west Auckland finally found out the ingredients of a spray that they have been aerially bombarded with for more than 17 months. One would have thought that the public had an absolute right to know what they were being blanket-sprayed with, especially given that 260 schools and early childcare establishments are located in the spray zone, and given that the exposure levels to the spray now being experienced by west Aucklanders are without precedent anywhere else in the world. Next Tuesday residents will be exposed to their 20th spray, but some residents who have the misfortune to live in so-called hot spots have been sprayed double that amount. However, this Government refuses point-blank to disclose that information, bowing instead to the wishes of a multinational corporation to protect the secrecy of its formula, ahead of the public’s right to know and the health needs of the people of Auckland.

So it has fallen to the painted apple moth campaigners, Dr Muriel Watts and Hanna Blackmore, to turn themselves into detectives and piece together the ingredients of the spray from papers supplied to them under the Official Information Act. I would like to table the contents of the inert ingredients of the spray in the House today, and also to call on the Minister to release the list of ingredients that have been used in the spray since February of this year, when officials say that the formula changed in some respect.

Looking at the list of ingredients that make up this toxic product, we see that we now have proof of what west Aucklanders have been saying for months. The spray contains chemicals that are injurious to health, and that have never been tested for their interaction or for their long-term health effects; nor has the effect of inhaling, rather than ingesting, these chemicals ever been taken into account. Indeed, from looking at the ingredients, it is no wonder that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Government have been so obsessive in keeping the spray formula secret, for although the Minister of Agriculture has repeatedly reassured the public that the inert ingredients in the spray are commonplace in food and cosmetics, he has failed to mention that they are also commonplace in solvents, shoe polishes, and brake fluids. One ingredient, propylene glycol, is commonly found in brake and hydraulic fluids, anti-freeze formulations, and solvents. Its health effects include irritation to the skin, damage to the intestines, and depression of the central nervous system, especially in children. Another ingredient, benzoic acid, which is a highly controversial food preservative, can trigger asthma, irritation to the skin and eyes, and stomach problems. Another ingredient, hydrochloric acid, is used in hair bleaches and as a solvent. Inhaling its fumes can cause choking and inflammation of the respiratory tract.

It is interesting that the hazard profiles and known side effects of those ingredients correspond almost exactly with the symptoms residents have been reporting—stomach and respiratory problems, asthma, breathing difficulties, headaches, neurological problems, and even more severe symptoms. I will read one email I received yesterday from a resident, Naomi Bland, explaining her health effects: “It starts with a smell, and there is a metallic taste on the back of your tongue. Your throat becomes sore, then the headaches begin. Your ears begin to ache, and so does your body. You haven’t got any energy, and all you want to do is go to sleep. This is not only myself; this is a common experience. My grandson has been rushed to hospital twice now with temperatures of up to 104. He gets ill exactly 2 days after each spraying.”

Doctors and authorities have attempted to dismiss and trivialise those sorts of health effects, and have said they have nothing to do with the spray, so they are not included in the health statistics. But several credible studies, such as the recent Auckland University one, confirm widespread and indisputable health effects.

Under the public health legislation, this Government has an explicit duty to promote the public health of all of its citizens, and to protect them from exposure to hazards. So if the Government is going to expose thousands of Aucklanders to a hazard by blanket-spraying them with a toxic spray, it must, at the very least, accept responsibility for fully researching, monitoring, and treating the health effects. It must also accept responsibility for the outrage that its bureaucrats have perpetrated on the people of west Auckland, and institute a genuinely independent inquiry into the health effects of the spray, rather than relying on the Ministry of Health inquiry, whose major objective seems to be to placate and calm the people of west Auckland.

I seek leave to table the paper that lists the ingredients in Foray 48B.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Mr English reserves a separate vocabulary to discuss issues concerning tangata whenua. He talks of special privilege, racial apartheid, political correctness, discrimination, and second-class citizens. His treaty policy talks about it being time to move on; I say to Mr English that before he moves on, he needs firstly to get to terms with what the treaty says, as it is the basis for constitutional government in New Zealand.

The Waitangi Tribunal report into the Māori electoral option stated that, under the terms of the treaty, the Crown formally recognised the existing rights of Māori, and undertook to protect them. It is in that sense that Māori people have a special constitutional status. That special constitutional status is one by which we acknowledge that the treaty does create unique rights in terms of the right for Māori interests to be actively protected, the right to development, and the right to equality. Māori have reminded the Crown of their special constitutional status, when considering the history of Māori representation. It sounds so easy, yet, as we are all so painfully aware, the history of this country is one where successive Governments have failed to recognise, and give effect to, the treaty as the basis of constitutional government.

Let me remind members of what some of those so-called special privileges have really meant for tangata whenua in the history of this land. I see some of the National Party members sniggering. How many tauiwi have experienced the privilege of Crown-sponsored theft of their land and resources? We must not forget the shameful history of the native land acquisition and settlement legislation. That statute gave the Governor the power to take any native land for settlement, whether or not the owners wanted to sell. That sounds like a really special privilege! That was entrenched further with the Native Land Act 1909, by which the Governor-General was able to take land for roads or railways, with the explicit instruction that no compensation shall be paid—another privilege. How many members have had their people imprisoned without trial because they peacefully resisted injustice? That is another privilege. The Māori prisoners legislation allowed just that, stating that it is not deemed necessary to try the said natives in order to inflict punishment. By that legislation, hundreds of Taranaki Māori were given the special privilege of being imprisoned without investigation or trial.

For those members who are dismissing those Acts as historical grievances that we should move on from, I remind them that, in our generation, there are other events requiring that same scrutiny. Members will no doubt recall, in the immediate aftermath of Anzac Day, that when Māori soldiers coming home from the war returned to the Raglan district, they found that their marae had been taken for defence purposes. It eventually became a golf course. Who can forget the tragic picture of only 20 years ago of a convoy of army vehicles transporting hundreds of police to remove Māori protestors from Takaparawha, led by our former colleague Joe Hawke?

The history of colonial contact and indigenous resistance is not so very old, and it took until 1993 for issues relative to the taking of Māori customary land to be stopped with the introduction of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. We should not forget that at the signing of the treaty Māori owned 66 million acres of land. The special privilege of being native meant that by 1975 Māori land had been reduced to only 3 million acres.

So what does Mr English’s advocating removal of so-called special privileges mean for tangata whenua? Is it about legislation that deprives one of fundamental human rights, including the suppression of one’s medical and spiritual experts; the removal of one’s right to breastfeed; the removal of one’s right to a whāngai system of caring for children; a history where one is treated as the deviant other, the noble savage, who must be acculturated and assimilated into subservience; and a denial of, or an exclusion from, basic health, education, and a whole range of other social services? If we choose to look at the really poor statistics for the so-called privileged Māori, we see that they surely are an indication of extremely poor political representation, and an inability of the systems and structures to meet the constitutional rights and privileges guaranteed in the treaty.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): That was, to say the least, an interesting speech—

David Benson-Pope: Gerry Brownlee was listening to that, too.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Is my time starting again, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: The member has 4 minutes 48 seconds.

GERRY BROWNLEE: That is very unfair. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No one else has had his or her speech interrupted at the beginning like that. In fact, it has normally been the case that, particularly when there has been interruption from the Government senior whip, the time might be given again.

Mr SPEAKER: I have just come back to the Chair, as the member knows. I will take his word. I will start his time from now.

GERRY BROWNLEE: That was a most interesting speech delivered by the Hon Tariana Turia. She raised some points that are worthy of thinking about. I understand she would want to question some of the positions taken by the National Party. On the one hand, I am inclined to respond to them in this forum, but on the other hand, I would simply like to acknowledge that those things have been listened to, and at a more appropriate time that debate should perhaps continue.

I want to say to our friend from the Green Party, Sue Kedgley, that it is extraordinary that the Green Party should stand up here today and have a real lash at the Government over the mass inoculation of the west Auckland population while still hold out with its support for the Government on matters of confidence and supply. I would have thought that if something is of such importance and the party genuinely believes that life and limb are at risk, then perhaps it should be far more conditional than it appears to be in offering its support to prop up Helen Clark’s Government. There are words we could use to describe that sort of behaviour, but they are unparliamentary, and I will not go into them.

I want to talk today about the term that appears to have come from the public, as we are picking it—from the talkback discussions that are going on at the present time. It was not so long ago that it was depressing for someone like me to listen to talkback radio, because all one got was people ringing in and saying how wonderful Helen Clark was, what a great Government the Labour Government was, and how wonderful were all the things it was doing for New Zealand. Well, let me tell members that the researchers from the Labour Party, who do nothing other than sit around listening to the radio most days, will now be feeling very deeply depressed, because the worm has turned and people are seriously questioning what this Government is all about. They are seriously questioning what Helen Clark is all about and where she is leading us.

They are, I think, somewhat perplexed to learn that New Zealand is shifting its foreign policy emphasis to this new Franco-German-Chinese arrangement that the Prime Minister says everybody wants to talk about and be part of. They are, I think, also perplexed that the Government seems simply to put together little packages of explanation every time it gets into trouble on domestic policy. The Government is in deep trouble over the power crisis that this country currently faces. I want to point to an article in this morning’s paper by Murray Jackson, Chief Executive of Genesis, in which he says that Genesis is no longer a reserve or standby-type operation, that it is generating most of the time at full capacity. That, I think, underlines for this House how deep this crisis is, because if a company like Genesis, the biggest thermal generator in the country, is running at capacity most of the time, and the lakes in the southern hydro system are running very, very low, then there is no reserve capacity and the only option for New Zealanders is to switch off and go cold, or have the lights blacked out for long periods.

The Government is still crossing its fingers and hoping that something might happen to get it out of this sort of trouble. We are getting the semi-announcements coming, bit after bit. For example, we are told that 2,000 megawatts of new generation has been consented to. Well, it has been consented to for 4 years and it has not been built. Why? The reason is that no one building that capacity can guarantee fuel source to fire up the generators. We are told that some 560-odd new megawatts of plant has been put on in the last couple of years, but when we analyse those statistics we find out that it is only 166 megawatts. What it all leads to is that the current crisis is about a deficit in generating capacity.

I want to make it clear to the House today that no amount of re-amalgamation, turning back the clock, or fancy words will fix the fact that New Zealanders will go cold in their homes this winter as a result of Pete Hodgson not having his eye on the ball for far too long.

DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour): I welcome changes to the country’s health and safety law. We have an appalling health and safety record in this country. Every year workers suffer from illnesses and injury caused by their work, or, worse, they do not return home at the end of their working-day, at all. The costs in both social and economic terms are far too high. Since July 2002, in my region, the greater part of south Auckland, six fatal workplace accidents have been reported to the Occupational Safety and Health Service under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. However, that number represents just one part of the total number of workplace deaths.

The amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act will help create a zero-tolerance culture for behaviours that cause accidents and ill health in the workplace. The “she’ll be right, mate” attitude to health and safety has, unfortunately, been all too common. People cut corners to save costs or because they feel immortal, or, because to some extent, being a reasonably young society, we take risks. Whilst that can be positive on occasions, it can also have disastrous consequences. For the first time, the law makes it clear that health and safety is the responsibility of everyone in the workplace. Workers are expected to take an active part in health and safety matters, and employers must provide them with reasonable opportunities to do so.

I would like to move on to another issue, and on this I rise in support of my Māori colleagues. I am referring to the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill English, to abolish the Māori seats. I consider that to be a nonsense. For me, it highlights the lack of foresight that continues to fuel the longstanding questions about Mr English’s leadership. His continued failed leadership, failed policy, lack of vision, and lack of direction orchestrate a continued litany that fumbles from one disaster to another. But let us be fair to the Opposition leader. His entire caucus wholeheartedly supports abolishing the Māori seats. It is not just him—his entire caucus supports that position.

I hold the view that the attempt to abolish the Māori seats is just a red herring. The real agenda—and Gerry Brownlee knows it—is to return to a restricted form of Māori representation in this House. I would not be surprised if National’s long-term strategy was more about restricting the rights of Māori to vote. I find it absolutely fascinating that the Māori membership within the National Party was not consulted over that position. That is absolutely fascinating, and it shows that there is an underlying agenda to take away the rights of Māori to vote. That lack of consultation—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took deep offence at the member’s statement implying that the policy of another party in this democratic Parliament is to take away the votes of Māori. That is deeply offensive.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate, and it can be resisted very stoutly if members wish it to be.

DAVE HEREORA: As I said earlier, there is resounding support from the National caucus for the abolition of Māori seats. But can we say the same thing about its leadership? Can we say that its caucus resoundingly supports Bill English as its leader? I do not think so. I think that the numbers are divided, so that on the one hand they are supportive of bashing Māori, but, on the other hand, when it comes to their leadership they are divided.

I ask National members why that is. Why are they divided over their leadership issues? I will tell the House why. It is because they are not supportive of their current leader. They are so divided that I believe it is only a matter of time before Bill English goes. I say to Gerry Brownlee that I take heed of the comments he made in his address. I think that his presentation had some mastery to it. It shows that he will get there. He should keep on going, and with a bit more experience he will get there.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): I agree with the honourable member Dave Hereora in so far as the view he expressed about the Hon Bill English. Clearly, nail by nail, he continues to nail the coffin on what was once a great political machine and a great political party called the National Party. Since 1996, under MMP, no one has been able to form a Government unless they have had the Māori vote. That is a fact. Here is another fact. As the Minister of Statistics and from my involvement in the youth area, I can tell the House that we have 700,000 Kiwis, which is nearly 1:5 Kiwis, in the youth sector aged between 12 and 25 years, and only 16 percent of them are of European ethnicity.

The Hon Bill English noted that in his speech of February 2000. He indicated to the National Party: “We’re going to have to engage with other ethnics. We’re going to have to engage with other stakeholders.” He has now taken the National Party back to a minority party. In this House and this country we all know—and Bill English has acknowledged it, as has his caucus—that National is now a minority party. It has acknowledged that the Labour Party can be the only major party of stable government in this nation. It has acknowledged that it can only ever be on the periphery of this country’s political system today, on the basis of that very stupid policy and on the basis of the clear demographics that are going to happen. More so—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was more like a suicide speech, really.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: That is what it was. It was another nail in the National Party’s coffin, and members opposite gleefully took to it. They will be scrapping over a list in the very near future, and I regret that. National was once a great party in our democracy, but it is no longer. National members will now scrap with New Zealand First, United Future, and the Greens for a dying, minimalistic vote.

I am proud to be part of this Government. When one looks at this side of the House one sees a Kiwi nation in evolution, on the way through. One actually sees Māori members, Pacific Island members, Asian members, and Pākehā people. One can see New Zealand going forward. Bill English’s statement was the most backward we have ever seen from any leader of any Opposition party in this country.

I now want to move on to a matter in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate. There is a scam working whereby financiers offer low-income homeowners the opportunity to use the equity in their home. These financiers charade themselves as much the same as a reputable bank. The difference is that the offer of financial capability is of an equity in the house that in the normal course of events people could never free because they cannot service the debt. By reporting this matter to the Serious Fraud Office—and it has agreed to investigate—I intend to bring a number of people to justice in that regard. There will always be fraudsters and scamsters in this country, we cannot regulate against that, but when institutions of integrity and credibility, the major safeguards of the vulnerable in this country, start to fall over—and I am talking here about a few in the legal profession, not all—and when our banks put out their banking accommodations to mortgage brokers who are not accredited, we then have other problems.

I am saying clearly that if lawyers continue to act for two parties, if they are instructed by one party that is a scamster by way of a financial arrangement, then they have a standard of duty and a standard of ethics that they have to live up to. My people on the street cannot afford the type of civil proceedings required to resume their rights in the houses that have been stolen from them. We are going to have to work hard on that.

I tell members in this House one thing: I was sent here to do a job, and if those people fall down on their standards and ethics, if they fall down on their integrity and credibility in performing properly on behalf of their clients by working two sides of the street, they will have to be named. They will be named in this House one by one, as they should be, because that is what the greatest court in this country is all about. Those people are on notice. I look forward to the Law Society, the Banking Ombudsman, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants putting across the message that enough is enough. They are there to safeguard the vulnerable and to uphold certain standards. They must do that.

Members opposite laugh, as usual. They are probably funded by scamsters—I would not know. But the reality is that we have to do something about this matter. The number of vulnerable people in the Auckland region and outside it who are losing houses through those scams is absolutely unacceptable.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

Instruction to Committee

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon John Tamihere: What about innovation strategy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judith Collins: Why is that?

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

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

Jill Pettis: Point of order—

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let us be plain about just what the Minister has done.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Even when she is cheating on the rules? Well, I have to say that I withdraw.

Hon Marian Hobbs: And?

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Ken Shirley: No, 2002.

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

Hon Ken Shirley: United Future sold out for nothing.

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

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First had an influx of new members after the last election, and we moved up from 5 to 13 members.

Hon John Tamihere: Worse for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 68

Noes 47

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There are five amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 1. They are amendments to the title in subclause (1). They are all out of order as they are not serious amendments.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 47

Abstentions 8

Clause 1 agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Green Party 8.

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

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

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

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have seen bills introduced—

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

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

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

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

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

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

Dr LYNDA SCOTT: I am seeking clarification, Madam Chair.

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

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If they’re fair.

Hon MARK BURTON: The member cannot keep saying that.

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

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): The acting Leader of the House has raised a point that I wish to elaborate on, as I think it is very important from a procedural point of view.

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

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

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

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—

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

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

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

LINDSAY TISCH: No, I accept what you have done.

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

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

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

Clause 2 Commencement

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

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

Dr Lynda Scott: And he’s seen a few.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jill Pettis: Relevance?

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

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

Opposition Members: Well, we know that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pansy Wong: Devious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lindsay Tisch: Give and take.

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

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

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

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

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

Lindsay Tisch: I am trying to help the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has the vote begun yet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ayes 68

Noes 47

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question will be put, but Mr Ken Shirley raised a point about the amendments. There are a number of amendments, and he sought the leave of the Committee, but it is 6 o’clock now, anyway, so the voting on the amendments will take place after 7.30 pm.

Hon Mark Burton: Madam Chair, is this consistent with the Standing Orders?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Shirley had asked for leave—

Hon Ken Shirley: If I could clarify that, I seek leave for the Committee to rise for the dinner break. It is 6 o’clock now so I probably do not need leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will put the amendments. The first amendment is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But you haven’t ruled on the leave yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave was refused. We have to carry on with the voting. The voting has begun.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That is the very first point of order that I took, and you nodded to me that, yes, they were two discrete votes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, they are two discrete votes.

Hon Ken Shirley: Therefore you have not commenced the voting, and therefore we can break for our dinner break now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The voting has started. Leave was not granted for the member’s suggestion, and therefore I have to continue with the voting.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Ken Shirley is right, it was certainly our understanding that there were two processes going through here. First was the closure motion. That is one vote. That does not mean that the vote has to be put because that is a separate part of the process. We voted on the closure motion, it is now after 6 o’clock, and it was certainly our understanding that we would come back after the dinner break to then take the vote on the amendments and on clause 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have no choice but to continue with the vote. The member will be seated.

Hon Ken Shirley: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I have ruled on the point of order. Leave was not granted, and I have ruled on the point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am going to continue with the vote. I have ruled—

Hon Ken Shirley: No, Madam Chairperson, it is a new point of order. You have put me in an impossible situation. I raised a point of order and I did not seek leave at that point. I said that it was because of the proximity to 6 o’clock. I sought clarification and you nodded to me. You said: “Yes, that is right, there are two processes.” We cannot be misled by the Chair, acquiesce on that basis, then you change the rules on us after we have acquiesced. That is intolerable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have ruled on it. We will continue with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have no option but to recall the Speaker. I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

Motion agreed to, and House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Speaker, the House has recalled you because there is a dispute over the continuation of the vote. The closure had been taken before 6 o’clock. That was disputed in several points of order, and then, when I commenced the voting, that was contested.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): There is a step missing in that sequence as it has been reported to you, Mr Speaker. There was a point of order on a procedural matter that I took prior to the putting of the closure motion. We had about a minute to go until 6 o’clock, many of us had been in the House until 5 a.m. this morning, and tempers were perhaps a bit frayed. Some of us were in a fractious mood and looking forward to our dinner break. I sought clarification on the fact that there were two discrete votes. In other words, the House could take the closure vote only, which would mean that we would not have to vote right through the dinner break. The Chair indicated to me that that was the case, and that there would not be a problem. At that point we acquiesced, with the expectation that we would then suspend the House, have our dinner break, and come back at 7.30 to take the vote. At that point, the Chair said, no, the rules had changed, what she had indicated to me was wrong, and we therefore had to continue to vote through the dinner break. I thought that was a rather extraordinary situation to be placed in. I attempted to remonstrate and, at that point, sought leave to recall the Speaker.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Standing Order 140, “Effect of carrying of closure”, states: “(1) When the question for the closure is agreed to, the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” The question under debate at that point was clause 2 and the amendments to that. It was put immediately, and, in following that Standing Order, it has been the practice of this House that the subsequent motions are all put and continue through till the House rises, or if the number of amendments is sufficient to get past 7.30, the Committee simply continues on to the next item of business in the Committee stage.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I wanted to raise a further concern on behalf of Opposition parties. It is a parallel to the events that caused a great deal of disorder last Thursday when the House rose at 6 o’clock, which relates to the reluctance from the Chair to take points of order as we approach a dinner time in order to try to rush through a vote, as though the Chair has some interest in the vote being progressed at a particular pace. It seemed as if the way in which the Chair conducted the matters that were raised by my colleague Mr Ken Shirley would have been quite different had he raised the same point of order at 5.30 or at 5.45, solely because there was a rush to have a particular motion put before the House by a particular time. That, and the neutrality of the Chair, is of serious concern to the Opposition parties.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I would just like to respond to the reference by the Leader of the House to Standing Order 140(1). I believe he is quite right when he says: “When the question for the closure is agreed to, the question under debate is put without further amendment or debate.” I was not moving an amendment or debating that issue. I was seeking a point of order to clarify the procedural matter of whether the two steps were discrete, which would allow us to then have the dinner break and come back to vote at 7.30. The Chair indicated to me that that was the situation, but subsequently changed her mind.

Mr SPEAKER: I am bound by the Standing Orders. I refer members to a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling: Standing Order 51, “Interruption deferred when vote in progress”, and Speaker’s ruling 54/5, made by Mr Speaker Gray in 1991, which covers the situation. That states: “[Standing Order 140] on the closure requires that a closure motion, once accepted, be put forthwith without amendment or debate. If the motion is carried the main question and any properly proposed amendments tabled before the closure are also put forthwith and decided without further amendment or debate. The Standing Order does not allow the closure to be moved only on an amendment, followed by further debate or amendment to the main question. To do so would defeat the purpose of the closure.” I rule that the closure had been properly put, and that we must now therefore proceed to the voting on this particular clause.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 2 Commencement (continued)

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 2(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Noes 45

Amendment agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The amendments in the name of Dr Nick Smith have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 45

Abstentions 8

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5.

Green Party 8.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note on a column by the Labour members that there is a quite inappropriate sign in the Chamber. I think you should ask that it be removed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If there is an inappropriate sign in the corridor, I ask that it be removed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is a large sign.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It shall be removed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We come to Part 1, which includes a total of 93 clauses. You will be aware that they are in 14 subparts. There is a very difficult dilemma, and we have a very unusual process. Originally, the bill had 18 parts. Members such as myself who have a strong interest in the bill would normally have had, if it were not for this very unusual process, 18 opportunities to debate each of those parts. They concern very substantive and different issues, and I want some clarification. This is the largest part of the bill. Can I, for instance, indicate that there are major issues in respect of historic heritage, notification, and the definitions of environment and amenity value. There are about eight different issues on which I wish to speak. The normal Standing Orders of the House are that members have only three speeches. I would appreciate some indication—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There are four speeches—three on the title.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is correct. I want some indication from you at the beginning about how the debate will be managed, with this very unusual large part, so that a member such as myself, who wants to make a substantial contribution on issues that are of very great public interest, is able to participate properly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I inform the honourable member that a point of order was raised on 26 March with Mr Speaker in connection with this bill, and the decision was that, given the nature of the bill, the Chairperson should take that situation into account in Committee. Mr Speaker said: “I would expect that a considerably longer debate would be permitted on a part with numerous subparts than would otherwise be the case.” The member has indicated that he will speak eight times. If the member were to exhaust his number of four calls, he could seek leave to have more calls.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is quite unsatisfactory because with the number of issues in this bill—and I note there are 14 subparts to Part 1—I need some indication at the beginning of the process. For instance, if I give a 5-minute contribution on a particular issue knowing that I will get only three or four calls, I will have a very different view about whether they will be effective. There are actually 14 substantive issues, but there are certainly eight on which I wish to make a contribution. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask you as Chair to be more specific about your interpretation of the instruction that has been given by the Speaker of the House, noting the very unusual process in the bill and the fact that it has not gone through the normal select committee process.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a Standing Order that limits the member to four calls. I would suggest that the member test the Committee now and seek leave to have more calls.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Then I thereby do just that. I seek leave for the Chair of the Committee to have the discretion to grant more calls to members than the normal restriction of four, providing members are making new points and are relevant to the part.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That sounds sensible. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I speak in support of Dr Smith who has made a contribution in this bill, understands the issues, and is our spokesman on this issue. If you were to give the call to one other member in the Opposition, I would seek that that person could concede to Dr Smith so Dr Smith could speak in that member’s place. I do not know whether it is possible to do that, but maybe the Clerk can assist us in this matter. I think it would be only fair in the normal course of events that, if a call was given to myself, I could concede. Would I have to seek leave; is that what you are telling me?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes.

LINDSAY TISCH: I have to seek leave. If leave were denied, would that mean that I took the call?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Because the Standing Orders are as they are, it means that the maximum number of calls any one member can have on this part is four. I am in the hands of the Committee when that decision is made, so it is really up to members to seek the will of the Committee. I cannot overrule the desire of the Committee, or its will.

LINDSAY TISCH: Then I seek leave that, if a call is given to a member of the National team who wishes to concede that call to Dr Smith, this Committee approve that action. I seek leave along those lines.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): At the Business Committee yesterday this matter was canvassed. At the suggestion of John Carter, the senior Opposition whip, there was a suggestion that there be a structured managed debate around the central themes of the contents of the two parts of the remaining discussion. That was something the Government was prepared to agree to, but it was not agreed to by the ACT party. You can obviously check the minutes of the discussion should you wish, Mr Chairman, and take advice. Given that reluctance by ACT to agree to that course of action, the Government’s position is that we proceed in the normal way under the Standing Orders on the ongoing debate of these matters.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my intention to be extremely generous with calls, but it is still a matter for the Committee of the whole House to decide how many calls there will be, and it is up to the member to seek leave.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): What is going on in this Parliament this evening is a damn outrage. That David Benson-Pope and Jill Pettis have denied leave on such a critical bill to this Parliament just shows the lack of respect they have for good quality law, and no amount of excuses that Mr Benson-Pope makes can hide that fact. He has a moustache like Hitler, and we may as well call him that. This bill, and the way it is being progressed, is quite wrong.

I firstly want to object to the heritage provisions of this bill, which will create a huge amount of uncertainty for New Zealand. There are four particular points on which I wish to focus. This bill, and this part, provides for and requires, as a matter of national importance, the protection of this notion of ancestral landscapes. The Local Government and Environment Committee asked officials to define what ancestral landscapes were. They said they did not know. We have asked resource management experts what protection of an ancestral landscape requires. I will give the Committee the advice of one expert: “Put your finger on a map of any block of land anywhere in New Zealand and it could be deemed to be an ancestral landscape.” My first question to the Minister is this: when has the public had an opportunity to debate putting that into law? How is it acceptable for this Parliament to make such a significant decision without any input from the public, for the select committee to go through a rushed process, and for there to be no public debate at all? What sort of draconian Government do we have that we are prepared to pass laws of that sort?

Back in 1998 I chaired the Historic Heritage Management Review. It is a matter of some disgrace that the key recommendations in that review have not been followed through, because there was a very strong consensus amongst the members of that review that the Historic Places Trust, at the moment, plays the role of both judge and jury. It is able to be an advocate for heritage, and at the same time have regulatory powers. So the original Resource Management Amendment Bill stated that we should integrate heritage decisions into this legislation, but also that we should repeal the regulatory powers of the Historic Places Trust. The Prime Minister wrote to the select committee and said that those powers were to be removed, supposedly with the approval of the Minister for the Environment. This Government said: “We want to do half what the heritage review said, but not the other half.”

Therefore we have a double-banger. We have a situation where the Historic Places Trust gets to participate in decisions under the Resource Management Act, and also, at the end, gets to put in place a regulatory control such as a heritage protection order. I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, to give some justification for that. We have not heard from a single person within Government how that double regulatory model in some way will serve the purposes of New Zealand.

We then have the new spiritual provisions. We are to put into law a legal requirement for all decisions under the Resource Management Act, as a matter of national importance, to protect spirits. I want the Minister in the chair to explain how that is to be done. How do we protect a taniwha? Is this Minister effectively condoning the fiasco that occurred over the Ngawha Prison site when over $1 million in consent process was wasted on trying to find out where the taniwha lived? Can the Minister in the chair explain to me why the Prime Minister says that we shall not have prayers at State luncheons because we are a secular State, yet in the next moment she proposes a bill that will require every decision maker under the Resource Management Act to take into account the protection of spirits? The Prime Minister and the Government cannot have it both ways. Either we are a secular State and are consistent in that, or we include the recognition of all sorts of persons’ spiritual beliefs.

We on this side of the House are very clear. We respect people’s spiritual beliefs, but we think it is a gross error of judgment to have courts of the land and Parliament putting them into law. We make a mockery of the whole resource management process. New Zealanders are angry about this stuff. Why has the Minister not given an opportunity for members of the public to make comments on these provisions and to participate in the decision making? It is a tragedy that the public has not been given that opportunity, and it is a disgrace for this Parliament.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I would like to carry on from my esteemed colleague Nick Smith. He presented the case very clearly with regard to the poor process of this bill. It is an absolute shocker. It has completely denied the people the opportunity to make submissions on a very significant part of the bill—that is, the heritage provisions. Those provisions are really far-reaching, given that they now include ancestral landscapes, cultural landscapes, and—that ever-faithful from Labour—the spiritual definition, as well.

Could the Minister please define the area around cultural landscape? What does the Minister mean by “cultural landscape” and “ancestral landscape”? It also includes all of those areas surrounding cultural and ancestral landscapes. What piece of land in the country is actually exempt from being able to be held up through a resource consent process by this one definition that was not in the previous bill? That particular definition of heritage now affects every single piece of land in the country. I would go further and say that it also covers the marine environment. Is the marine environment included as part of those cultural and ancestral landscapes, and can it be made to be included in that definition? As it is pretty broad, we can have it mean whatever we want it to mean. Any objector to a resource consent can now hold up that consent on that basis for any length of time. The chief executive officer of the Ministry for the Environment said that extortion was just pub talk. We can give members plenty of examples—and some have already been given here tonight—where that is not the case. It is not just pub talk. The examples are out there in reality, and they are very numerous. This particular definition will have significant effects.

People have not had a chance to make submissions to this bill, because the Government has denied them that opportunity. We have plenty of submissions from people, and I have read one out tonight. Here is another one from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society thanking the committee of Nick Smith, Ken Shirley, and Jim Peters for recognising the importance of public participation in relation to this important area of law. The society has recognised that there needs to be an opportunity to make submissions to this bill because of the very significant changes from the previous bill, but having gone through a considerable process at the 11th hour, it has been all for nought and a complete waste of time. That is one submission saying thank you very much for recognising the society’s concerns about the denial of its right to make submissions to this bill—particularly to the heritage provisions and definitions, which have been changed and are not the same as the previous bill. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation.

I also have another submission here from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. It states: “If the Government passes the amendment to the Resource Management Act, it will derogate from the public’s right to participate in decision-making. The Resource Management Act is New Zealand’s most significant environmental legislation, and you have denied them the right to participate.” The Minister has called this bill a child of democracy, but we have all these submissions stating that people have been denied the right to make submissions. The heritage provisions in the first part of this bill are a significant change, and you have denied people the right to make submissions to them.

That particular provision will be the result of the backlog of consents for every single project going, and for the important roading infrastructure we need in this country, which is absolutely vital. We will spend more money on consultation, process, and delays as a result of that particular definition, and because the Minister could not get her act together to allow people the right to make submissions and have that full democratic process accorded them.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next person, can I just say to the previous speaker—who is a new member, and I did not want to interrupt her speech—that she used the word “you” on several occasions. That is not in order.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I just want to take a brief call. I have done this because there seems to be a huge hang-up on the word “cultural”. That hang-up could be based on a lack of understanding and empathy towards things that are not necessarily contained within the world in which some people move. The word “cultural” is a very wide and flexible term. Members who are interested in historic buildings might want to read the fine Historic Places Trust magazine that comes out on a regular basis—New Zealand Heritage. In its spring edition, there is a significant story called “New York Rebuilds its Cultural History”. I draw the attention of members to that, because I know they have access to that, as well. That story has no prejudice to it; there is no bigotry. The word Māori is not mentioned in it, at all, so I suspect that people look at it more openly and inclusively.

As New York seeks to rebuild its cultural history from the terrible tragedy that occurred there, it is talking about significant cultural sites, such as the Woolworth building, an art deco skyscraper commissioned for the New York Telephone Company in 1927, the Greek Orthodox community building, and other similar icons that are important to the people of that city. I suspect that while we in New Zealand might be far removed from New York—some of us might have never been there—we would applaud the rebuilding of a city’s cultural history. But, tragically, in our country there are people who live and move in a very narrow world where everybody they associate with looks just like them—their skin is white, they are middle class, and are no different from themselves.

I draw the attention of members opposite to the fact that cultural history is a very flexible thing. I applaud what they are doing in New York. They are not governed by prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, or lack of trying to repair the damage of the past, and move forward into the future in an inclusive and holistic way. I suggest that we in New Zealand could emulate some of the attitudes prevailing in New York, given the terrible disaster and awful events that its people have had to recover from. If we in this House could open our hearts and minds and think inclusively about what the term “cultural” might mean in a New Zealand sense, learn from what other countries are doing, and try to replicate that in our own indigenous way here in New Zealand, I suspect that we could end up being slightly better than we are today. Let not prejudice be the governor of what we are trying to do here tonight with a bill that is farsighted, far-reaching, and positive in the outcomes it can have for New Zealand today and into the future.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I would like to indicate that I will need a number of calls, given the complexity of this bill. Speaking to Part 1, I would firstly like to rebut some of the comments just made by Jill Pettis. She clearly does not understand what this bill is all about. Her plea for an “inclusive” and “holistic” way forward sounds wonderful, but it is bumper stickers. We are talking about the Resource Management Act here. It is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, and therein lies one of the fundamental flaws in this legislation. It has been captured by interest groups over the last 10 years, and its scope has been broadened to such an extent that it means whatever you want it to mean. It is something out of Alice in Wonderland. Things like kaitiakitanga are undefined, and the question we should be asking ourselves is whether this amendment bill before us tonight will improve the situation or compound the problem? I put it to you that it will compound the problem.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not bring me into the debate. He should put it to the members.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I put it to “you” in the collective sense. That is not addressing you in the second person, Mr Chairman. OK, I put it to you once more—all of you; I put it to you all.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can you say that you will put it to members? That would be more appropriate.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I put it to all of you members—not “you” in the second person. I put it to you that—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Members. “I put it to you members”, if you must, Mr Shirley. If you just use the word “you”, it is referring to me.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders make quite clear that you cannot use the second person. The word “you” can be used in the third person. It is not confined to the second person.

What we have in this bill is the introduction—under the definition of historic heritage—of terms like “spiritual and cultural”. How do they fit with basic legislation that is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources? Spiritual, by definition, is metaphysical. How on earth does that belong here? That will just compound the problems we already have with the Resource Management Act. Then we clip on further definitions in clause 3(7), such as “cultural landscapes”. What on earth is that? We do not have it in the definitions, so that does not help. Then we have “ancestral landscapes”. What on earth is an ancestral landscape? I have forebears who were here before the treaty, but does that help me? Not a lot. It is nonsense; it is gobbledygook.

The member for Whanganui had a lot to say about how we should be “inclusive” and “holistic” as we move forward. When we are producing legislation, that is just gobbledygook.

Jill Pettis: I am at least trying to be forward-looking.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: What does it actually mean, though? When we are acting as legislators, as we are in this House, we have to be very careful how we use words. How will our legal frameworks interpret that? We know that we have had 10 years of agony with the Resource Management Act—given the lack of case history and case law, and the litigation associated with that—and here we are tonight throwing in a whole lot more ill-defined, nebulous concepts. Fine, they have their own merits, but they do not belong in this legislation; they belong somewhere else. I would actually be critical of the last Government. I believe that it was a mistake in public policy to clip “heritage” on to the Resource Management Act. That was not a smart thing to do, and that is really what triggered us down this path.

We then come to “biological diversity”—another bumper sticker. What on earth does it mean? I was part of a United Nations process, culminating in the Rio process, which signed up to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It started out as a country report, and it was meant to protect macro-fauna like the Bengal tiger and the white rhino, but now we are applying it to property rights. That is a nonsense.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I would like to make a contribution to this debate, particularly on the issues that have just been discussed. As a Māori, obviously I have a little bit of a direct interest in some of this stuff, but the reason I am taking a call is that I want to state that the way this Government goes about this whole process is designed to bring Māori people into disrepute. I want the Minister to think about that.

Jill Pettis was endeavouring to make some ground here, and I certainly appreciate some of the points she made, but the issue is that, in the end, we are the legislators. It is very easy to sit here at 8 o’clock on a Wednesday night, discussing these notions, but in the end we are not the ones who are out there, wanting to see development proceed and wanting to see a level of sustainable development proceed. We are not the ones who have to interpret or cope with the ideas in the bill. That is the problem, in my mind.

So what happens? Because the concepts are ill-defined, or not defined, and they are not well understood by a great many people—mostly non-Māori—who gets the criticism? Māori people do. That is wrong, because it is the job of the legislator, the job of us here in Parliament, to make the law as clear as we can. Now, in the process, local bodies out there, the Environment Court as well, and so on, will be tackling this stuff. So we will have this whole thing just being compounded, where Māori people will always get the blame for a lot of this stuff.

That is so wrong because in fact we have a Government that is not prepared to give proper clarity and proper definition to some of these concepts. It is very ready to include these concepts in legislation, partly for the fact, I suppose, that somehow it has to hang on to the Māori vote in the face of a New Zealand First party that probably will increase its share of the vote. So, all in all, unfortunately we give room for politicians in a sense to look like they are taking it out on Māori people. That is very unfair. I am a Māori person, and I have to sit here a lot of the time and listen to that, and it is not always easy to do so.

The problem here is that, without any public input, this Government has extended the historic heritage provisions to include the notion of spirituality. I personally have no problem with that. I also know that it will be the case in the future that it will not be only Māori spirituality that we come up against in this provision, because Māori are not the only ones who might want issues of spiritual interest protected. But the way all of this is always framed and the push and the way this Government approaches Māori issues is to bring the focus on Māori people alone, and, as I said at the beginning, that is unfair.

I refer now to cultural landscapes and ancestral landscapes. There is nothing in there that suggests that that is only Māori, either. I know Pākehā people where I live who hold that concept very dearly. I know a Pākehā family on a farm between Taupo and Rotorua, out in the Reporoa area. They have a long association with the farm. There is a part of that farm that they would hold as dearly to them as I would a wāhi tapu where ancestors of mine are buried. I would say that that probably qualifies as a cultural landscape, or an ancestral landscape, for them. So, again, the approach of this Government, I think, is first of all to bar anybody from having some input into this. That is not the way legislators should be behaving. We should be behaving in a far more responsible manner.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to speak to the issues in clause 3, and the matters surrounding the definition of “historic heritage”. I wish to draw members’ attention to the amendment I have put on the Table to deal with some of the things that have been discussed. We have heard a great deal of concern regarding these definitions, and they also refer to clause 4, where the matters of historic heritage are given national importance. This also relates to the debate. We have received a number of comments from people, and letters, about the possible ramifications of this.

I want to begin by making something very clear. Simon Upton’s original bill contained the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance. The wording was slightly different, and it was amended by the select committee, but the concept was the same. I agree with Simon Upton. I believe that matters of historic heritage have to be of national significance and national importance to us as a nation. If we agree that these sites of historic heritage are of national importance, then it does lead to the next question as to the issue of private property rights, who pays for compensation, and the cost of protecting those sites, and that will be a matter for further discussion and perhaps another amendment bill. But let us be clear: there has been no substantive change to the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance.

The second issue that has caused concern is the definition of historic heritage. The words “spiritual”, “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” have really stirred up the concerns of many. These words were added by the select committee in the last Parliament. That select committee was entirely entitled to do that, and it happened after the select committee had listened to the submitters and made amendments. This happens all the time in the parliamentary process. Select committees are entitled to make changes to the bill, after having listened to submitters. It does mean, though, that the public did not have a chance to say what they thought about those definitions. I do not even know whether any of the original submitters requested those definitions, but the select committee put them in.

To be entirely clear here, though, I point out that by the rewriting of the bill, from the No 1 version to the No 2 version, and sending it back to the select committee without public submissions, no rights were being denied to the public of New Zealand. It would have been exactly the same if the No 1 bill had been presented to the committee in its 18 parts. The only opportunity for the public to comment would be via their elected MP, as he or she spoke on their behalf during the Committee stage, which is what we are doing right now.

But people’s concerns are always important, and that is why I have moved this amendment. There does need to be a distinction, however, between genuine concerns and frivolous, nonsensical ones like the ones that Dr Smith raises when he pretends that he cannot distinguish between protecting sites of spiritual significance and protecting spirits. The definition in clause 3(7)(a) makes it very clear that this means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and an appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures. It is dealing with natural and physical resources, and to begin to suggest that the bill would be protecting taniwha is frivolous. In fact, it goes as far as scaremongering, which was what the reporter from the New Zealand Herald said they were about when they had their rebel select committee in Auckland. I would hate to have that member as my neighbour if I was applying for resource consent, because he would raise all kinds of frivolous objections to anything I proposed to do, and he would be part of the problem of the resource management process, not part of the answer.

The truth is that there are places that have spiritual significance, like sites in the Middle East: Jerusalem, Mount Zion, and Mecca. Here in New Zealand there will be similar places. The idea that this bill was going to be used to protect taniwha is ridiculous and should be discarded. My purpose, however, in moving this amendment is not to ignore the relevance of spiritual places, cultural landscapes, and ancestral landscapes.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: A war memorial would be one.

LARRY BALDOCK: That is right. War memorials would fall into that category. My purpose in moving this amendment is to remove any confusion over the use of these terms, and to recognise the fact that these categories are adequately covered by other definitions already included. For example, I have had difficulty in thinking of a spiritual site that is not also an historic site, and, of course, that would be the case in the international examples.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): It is incredible having the opportunity to follow that contribution from the United First member of Parliament, Mr Larry Baldock.

Larry Baldock: United Future!

Hon DAVID CARTER: United Future—God help us if that is our future! Mark my words: as United Future supports the passage of this legislation through the House today—and members should remember that it will be passed only because United Future supports it—we are creating legislation that, before too long, will be back in this House for tidying up. This bill will haunt the “Labour and United Future Government” until the next election. Mark my words.

I want to comment, firstly, on the abuse of process. If we look at the way in which the bill has been drafted, we can see that a substantial piece of legislation has now been designed so that it has two parts to it, as a means of limiting debate. I think that that is an absolute abuse of parliamentary process, and I am disgusted that United Future could be party to that.

The second thing I want to comment on is the abuse of process, whereby Mr Larry Baldick talked throughout his contribution about the submissions that have been made on this legislation. He is not correctly portraying the situation. The Local Government and Environment Committee was not allowed to hear submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), and consequently submissions were heard by a rebel committee, which Mr Baldick decided he would not be part of. But if he had been part of it, he would have heard a very valuable contribution from Federated Farmers, which expressed a very genuine concern about the heritage provisions.

Larry Baldock: I have heard their submissions.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Baldick now says he has heard their submissions.

Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I do not normally take offence at people making a slight mistake with my name, but it is going on pretty frequently, and I would like Hansard to record my name correctly. “Baldock” is my name.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. Can I just say to the member on his feet—

Hon DAVID CARTER: I apologise to the member. I thought I was pronouncing his name correctly. I certainly meant no offence. [Interruption] I assure members that I meant no offence to Mr Baldock. I was saying that Federated Farmers appeared before us to say that the heritage provisions, which Mr Baldock supports, will cause catastrophe amongst the farming community. They made the point that they have just had significant problems with the previous legislation—passed by the National Government, I admit—that created the opportunity for district councils to create significant natural areas. I come from Bank’s Peninsula, and I can say that there would be no other council that has created so much controversy around the declaration of significant natural areas—a declaration that occurred without consultation with private landowners, but greatly restricted what private landowners could then do legitimately with their land.

The point I want to make is to repeat what Federated Farmers said to us. They said: “If you thought you had problems with significant natural areas, you now have huge problems with this historic heritage provision.” There is simply no definition to it. Mr Baldock read out that “historic heritage provision” means natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and culture. I ask Mr Baldock what that means. It seems to me that it means that anybody can make a claim on any piece of landscape of New Zealand, and say that it has historic significance to them. John Carter, who spent time on that rebel select committee with me, pointed out that he had a great uncle who had ploughed a piece of land in the Hokianga, and he may, therefore, think that that land has historic significance for him—and it may, in the meantime, have reverted to indigenous bush. I ask Mr Baldock who is going to win that argument.

Lindsay Tisch: The lawyers.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Tisch is absolutely right. This bill will mean that the lawyers will have a field day sorting it out. But in the meantime, who pays? It is the farmers of New Zealand—the 34,000 of them who pay in excess of 20 percent of all the rates levied by local government now—who will pay.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): This is the part of the bill that is just so offensive to those of us from rural New Zealand who, as I am sure has been pointed out in this Chamber earlier on, have a huge historical and cultural attachment to the land. As one who has sold land, I say that I still have a huge attachment to the first farm I bought in Balfour in 1972. When I drive past the gate I still have this feeling of attachment to the land, even though I was paid a substantial sum for it and I moved on. But it does not mean that I can then go back to that property and demand of the new owner that he should not transfer his property from a sheep farm, as it was, to a dairy farm, as it now is. What gives me the right to do so?

Hon David Carter: This bill.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: This bill will give that right, and that is what is so offensive. I have a property in Roxburgh. I make no apology to the Committee, or to anybody else, for using personal examples. Part of the reason I am here, in this House, is the Resource Management Act and the impact it is having on the farming community. I have a site, and I am sure the Green Party will be pleased to know this, of some cultural significance to Ngāi Tahu. It is an old quarry site that I have ensured I did not put the cattle in there and I did not put the bulldozers through it. I have looked after it. But here is the rub. I said to Edward Ellison of Ngāi Tahu that I understand that this 5 or 10 acres next to the main road is of such importance to him and that I would sell it to him and to Ngāi Tahu for $1 so that he can reaffirm his spirituality with this land. Do members know what the reply was? The reply was: “No thank you. You are to continue with the responsibility of this asset, and we will accrue the benefits.”

Hon Ken Shirley: You pay the rates.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: My colleague is absolutely right. “You pay the rates, you have the responsibility, you make sure the fences are absolutely correct, and you make sure that nothing is disturbed. You have all the responsibility; we get the benefits.” That is what the farming community, rural landowners, landowners throughout this country, feel so grossly offended about. We are perfectly happy to ensure in many cases that the cultural and historic significance of much of our properties is maintained. But the offensiveness of this bill, which comes in and takes away the asset without any compensation, is just outrageous.

What will happen is that we will create an attitude in rural New Zealand that does not exist today, that this is no longer mine, who cares. Who gives a stuff? I am not going to make an effort to protect this. So I have also to protect the natural area of my property where the goats constantly eat some of these herbs and high values. I go down there and chase them away or shoot them to make sure they do not destroy these values, and I do it for nothing.

As soon as Chris Carter’s Department of Conservation takes away that area from my control, I will not give a damn. It is the Government’s responsibility. This is what this bill is doing to every farmer, every landowner, in this country who has had the good sense—and it is good sense—to ensure the high values that so much of society today values, remain with that property, with that farmer, and with that natural attachment. I say again that that is why this bill is so offensive. It ensures that the farming community picks up the liabilities, but the asset is taken away for nothing.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I have some clarifications that I would like to offer particularly on this area of historic heritage. Dr Nick Smith asked me in his first speech after dinner why the Government did not devolve the decision making to local government, as the review said in 1998. The review said, firstly: “Put historic heritage into matters of national importance in this Act.” The committee agreed with that at that time. Secondly, it said: “Would you devolve the notion of what is historic heritage to local level decision-making?”.

The Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage in the new Government—in 1999-2000—signified to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I understand this from reading the notes of the report back, that the Government did not think that local government had the expertise at all 77 council levels to make that decision, so it wanted that power to remain at the national level. I was asked about the two parts of the double. That is why the two parts were not given over. The committee did put “historic heritage” into matters of national importance in the Act, but it left it to the Historic Places Trust to handle definition at the national level.

I think there is still work to go on that particular issue, and I understand from my colleague Judith Tizard that there is continuing and expanded work in this area. However, the select committee agreed with the 1998 review, and I want to read from the report of the committee on the No. 1 bill, because some people are intimating that this issue has just come up in the No. 2 bill. It stated: “Government and Green members recommend that the definition of historic heritage be modified to refer to natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures. We also recommend including the phrases spiritual qualities, cultural landscapes, wāhi tapu, and ancestral landscapes. However, we recommend that the phrase historic gardens and reference to the contents of historic places be omitted from the definition.” That was not something that came out of the blue; that was as a result of submissions and argument, and it was reflected in the report back on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 1).

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When did the public comment on it?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: It came out of—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s 2 years old—

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Excuse me! Have I the floor or not? It came out of the discussions that were had, and submissions to the bill that the committee reported back. That is no different. Had we continued with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 1), it would not have been sent back to a committee because the committee arrived at this decision and reported it back to the House. We amalgamated it by taking that decision into the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2).

The third point I want to pick up on, and I really agree with my colleague Georgina when she made the comment about the notion—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister must use the person’s full name, title, or portfolio.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I am sorry. I really agree with my colleague Georgina te Heuheu. I want to make a comment about the definition of the word “spiritual”. I have to admit that I too have difficulties with the definition of this word. “Spiritual” is different to different people. The interesting thing about it is that when I have discussions with people from the Historic Places Trust they say that “spiritual” is a church. Looking at a good friend and colleague of mine in the gallery I would have to say that “spiritual” is a community that may use a building as a church. It is not necessarily the actual building itself. But there are definitions in the bill—namely, about cultural and historic—that may well include the preservation of a church, so I am kind of interested in the discussion occurring in the Chamber tonight on this issue. I wanted to clarify some of those issues with members, and make a response to them.

RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom): I would like to cover a number of issues as a result of what, I hope, will be Mr Chairman’s generosity in allowing me multiple calls. But first, I commend the Minister for being present in the Chamber during the Committee stage of the bill. Certainly, National has high aspirations in respect of this Minister. We hope that she will be able to remain for the entire Committee stage, and that she will be able to contribute at various parts of the debating process with regard to the issues that arise in the multiple subparts of Part 1.

If I may for a moment, I would like to traverse the history of the town planning and resource management legislation that we have had in this country, because it is relevant to the issue that speakers have spoken about to date in connection with Part 1. The history of town planning legislation in New Zealand has been chequered; there is no doubt about that. We had the first Act in 1926, and it had a very curious feature. When land was down-zoned the citizen whose land had been blighted was entitled to make a claim for compensation. When, as a result of up-zoning, a property had an increase in its inherent value, then the landowner came under an obligation to pay compensation. Those provisions were not continued through in the legislation, but they are relevant as we look at this bill and reflect that in the argument that is taking place on historic heritage we are seeing the potential for there to be significant blight on a number of private properties.

I know that the Resource Management Act is all about striking balances in pursuit of the purposes of the legislation. But one thing that this Government will not grasp is the critical importance of striking that balance in a way that protects private property rights to the greatest extent possible. Georgina te Heuheu has made a very valuable contribution to this debate, and I hope that Government members will not overlook what she has said about the definition of historic heritage. I am alarmed by the Minister expressing doubt about the wisdom of including reference to the word “spiritual” in the definition of historic heritage. In entering that reservation she identifies what will be a fundamental problem for those who are tasked with interpreting this legislation. Whether that will be a burden on lawyers, on the Government, on the Minister in the discharge of her responsibilities, or on the Environment Court, which is similarly tasked with interpreting this legislation, we will see. But it is an appalling start, as we commence the debate on Part 1, to have such a significant reservation entered by the Minister. I can only echo her concern as to what the word “spiritual” means.

Georgina te Heuheu has wisely identified that the provisions that touch the definition of historic heritage will give a real opportunity for those who take the view in this community that Māori are privileged. When Parliament is involved in defining terms in legislation of this type, it is really important for it to erect signposts and to give indicators about what words like “spiritual” mean.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I notice that the Minister’s head has been down for most of the evening, and I say that she should hang her head in shame. I think this is some of the worst legislation that has been perpetrated in this Parliament since I have been here. The dribble that came from Jill Pettis was no better. It was the cringing type of lounge-bar liberal muck that we get from members on the Government side of the Chamber, who sit around while they sup their Chardonnay and try to frame this type of legislation, which has caused the divisiveness that she is now taking exception to.

While I am on that tack, I say, Larry Baldock, that you are a political vigilante. You know this legislation is wrong—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot bring the Chairman into the debate. The member used the word “you”.

BRIAN CONNELL: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept your direction, but I ask you, please, to apply it even-handedly. I heard the Minister, when she was on her feet, refer to “you”, and you took no action.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You are right. That escaped me at the time, but you are absolutely right and I agree with you. But, at the same time, two wrongs do not make a right.

BRIAN CONNELL: I am a relatively new member in Parliament, and I look for direction from those people who have been around for a long time. I assumed, because you let that go through, that it was acceptable.

I am desperately concerned about, in particular, the heritage provisions, the cultural provisions, and the cultural landscape provisions. I respect people’s right to be concerned about the environment. However, this amendment bill just does not do that. In the way that the present legislation is framed, at least it has genuine aims. What is being suggested now will put us into reverse. It will not just be a handbrake on growth; it will put us into reverse.

One of the great lies that comes from this Government—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not use the word “liar” in this House. It is totally unacceptable, and that is a longstanding convention. The member will withdraw.

BRIAN CONNELL: One of the great mistruths that has come from this present Government is that compliance costs—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I asked the member to withdraw when he used that word.

BRIAN CONNELL: I withdraw. I am sorry; I did not hear you, Mr Chairperson. One of the great mistruths that has come from this Government is that compliance costs will come down, and that that must be true because the Government has told us that. This is the same Government that told us that we live in a benign strategic environment. The current instability in the Solomon Islands, East Timor, and the Middle East suggests that Helen Clark has probably been spending too much time with Nandor Tanczos.

The linkage between sustainable use of our resources and our standard of living is there for everybody to see. Companies are closing their doors and sacking workers, because the Resource Management Act means that projects that once took months to get approval for are now taking years. I have spent considerable time working in and visiting Singapore, for example, and that country has a highly regulated society. However, it turns around all its environmental consents in 7 days. We can now take years to do that. We cannot afford to say goodbye to the wealth creators who sustain our standard of living, and to drive away those sorts of people and those sorts of jobs. The wealth creators are the people who support our hospital system and underpin our education system. They are the people who will help to drive down our crime rate, because they will keep people employed.

I accept that National introduced the Resource Management Act. I accept also—[Interruption] Did it? I apologise.

John Carter: We passed it.

BRIAN CONNELL: I accept that we have that Act and that its intentions were well founded. I accept that it needs to be amended now. However, the amendments that National has put forward have been completely ignored. Instead, we have been forced to bow to an unholy alliance of bureaucrats, Greens, and lounge-bar liberals, who say that nature comes first and people come second. That lot on the Government benches think that people should live in urban ghettoes surrounded by wilderness. If one suspected all along that the Act, as it has been suggested now, would result—

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I shall take a very brief call to acknowledge the debate as being predictable tonight. The grizzling about the length of time that this bill has taken to come before the House is a bit rich given that the members currently in Opposition, when they were in the various forms of Government during the 1990s, had quite some time to deal with amendments to the Act during their time in office, but did not. So that has been addressed.

I really want to acknowledge the work of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of the last Parliament, not all of whom are still members of this House. Most of us—and I was a part of that select committee—were the people who heard the submissions that have been talked about. I acknowledge the input of a member who is no longer in the House, Mr Joe Hawke. He was very keen as far as the Māori issues in this bill were concerned—and this is in response, a little bit, to Georgina te Heuheu’s comments before. It was quite an achievement, small though it may seem, that we increased the status of iwi planning documents. Instead of local authorities being required to “have regard to” those documents in their planning documents, the wording has been changed to “must take account of”. That may sound small and insignificant to some people, but it is quite significant in many respects to the credibility of iwi planning documents and things like that. I acknowledge Joe Hawke, and I say many of the other members of the select committee did not object to that.

On the issue of wāhi tapu, ancestral historical sites, and things like that, I remember citing an example of a situation that occurred when I was Mayor of Carterton District and had to do a hearing application for a coastal area. Often some applicants would find it advantageous, or otherwise, when Māori would use the last straw. Sometimes Māori were seen as the saviours, because of being iwi who could stop something going ahead by being prohibitive, or who could slow things down. On that particular occasion, a Māori person who was objecting to the application concerning a matter in the Carterton District, sort of spread his arms wide and said it was all wāhi tapu.

Hon David Carter: That’s a worry.

GEORGINA BEYER: It was, so I think trying to make some definitions and to bring some clarity to what many Opposition members are arguing for and against is helpful, despite one’s opinions about the Opposition.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): National and ACT members have been asleep for the last 2 years. The terms they are objecting to in this bill have been in front of this House for 2 years. All the words to do with cultural and historic heritage were in the Resource Management Amendment Bill reported back 2 years ago this month. They have been sitting in front of Parliament for 2 years. There was ample opportunity for anybody who thought those terms were a mistake to do some negotiating and to have some discussions with the Government about putting forward some alternatives, but none of that happened. Opposition members have now gone around the country persuading people that these are new ideas, that those words have just come in through the No. 2 bill, and they have not been consulted on them. They are relying on the fact that most people have not actually read the bill.

The consultation that happened on the No. 1 bill happened so long ago that most people have forgotten they were consulted. Some of the angriest letters that we have had about the lack of consultation on the No. 2 bill were from people who presented at length to the Local Government and Environment Committee on the No. 1 bill on the same issues. As has already been remarked, when a committee makes some changes to a bill before it, it does not send the revised version of that bill out for consultation again. If it did, no bill would ever get back to this House, because there would always be somebody objecting to the changes that had been made. But the changes in this bill were made by the committee, and I do not remember a huge rumpus on the committee over those issues in the No. 1 bill at the time. Those issues certainly did not hold us up for a long time, and I do not remember alternatives being put forward.

The reasons for upgrading the cultural and historic heritage provisions stem partly from a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a few years ago, pointing out that we are failing dismally to protect Māori cultural and historic heritage. We are doing OK on buildings put up by the early settlers, but we have serious shortcomings when it comes to Māori heritage, because it takes a different form. There are not very many old buildings where Māori heritage significance lies, but there is intense significance attached to places. Those places may be a rock, a coastal promontory, a stand of trees, or a hill, and they are highly significant because of the things that happened there, sometimes over hundreds of years, and because of the people who are associated with those events and the significance of those places. The significance of those places will have to be argued to the satisfaction of a court, which will not just buy any line that is being peddled. The fact is that Māori will have to make their case, and now they can do so.

I am glad that Georgina Beyer has raised the issue of iwi management plans, because although the attacks on those plans have not yet surfaced tonight they will—as they did in the committee. The upgrading of the status of iwi management plans from the words “have regard to” “take into account” was put in the No.1 bill by Simon Upton. Simon Upton was not a Māori-basher; he was actually quite focused on solutions. He could see that if planning is done without any great reference to Māori there will be a pile of objections, delays, and hold-ups when matters reach the Environment Court. So he said we should let Māori lay out in a decent planning document what is important to them, let them discuss that with the local council, and let that have some influence on the council’s plan. He argued that then Māori could hardly turn round and raise a whole lot of issues at the Environment Court stage that they had not raised when they put forward their iwi planning document.

The committee was presented with some very good examples of iwi planning documents. Ngāi Tahu has done a really good iwi management plan on water for the South Island. It makes it really clear what is significant to Māori. The committee strongly supported maintaining Simon Upton’s proposal that we should raise the value of those iwi planning documents, so that we have the debate upfront. If we get the debate and the consultation into the documents when they are first written, we will reduce the amount of controversy and flack that happens further down the track. That is what we have tried to do in the Local Government Act and in many other bits of legislation.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): The member who has just resumed her seat has misled the Committee, because what she neglected to tell the Committee was this. Simon Upton certainly did introduce the Resource Management Amendment Bill—there is no question about that. But then there was a change of Government. The Minister who was then in charge of the legislation—I understand it was Helen Clark, but I can be corrected on that—introduced new parts into the bill after the public submissions had closed that introduced things such as ancestral landscapes, cultural landscapes, and spiritual values.

The point is this: the problem with that member’s contribution was that she tended to suggest that the public has had the opportunity to have an input on those issues. That is not so, and the member knows that. The member should have said to the Committee that while there certainly were public submissions, nobody from the public had an opportunity to make his or her point on those sorts of issues. When the member said no concern was expressed that is true, because the public did not have an opportunity to express concern. Was there concern expressed? Yes. Opposition members of the committee certainly expressed concern. But what happened then? The bill lay around on the Table of the House for about 2 years.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was 100 weeks.

JOHN CARTER: It lay about for 100 weeks, until such time as the Government decided that the best thing it could do was to discard that bill, jam its provisions down into this two-part bill, call it the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill (No 2), and ram it through without submissions. There would have been no public submissions had my colleague Nick Smith not taken the initiative to say that if the proper select committee would not hold a hearing, National, ACT, and New Zealand First would hear submissions from the public. He said that because we thought the public should be able to make a contribution—and they did.

I will draw one submission to members’ attention: that from Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy is a State-owned enterprise—and does the word “energy” ring a bell with anybody? Let me tell the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, one or two things that Meridian Energy said. The Minister is nodding. There may be one or two people at home, listening to this debate on their crystal sets, who would like to know what Meridian Energy said, as well. Meridian Energy said, for example, that it was worried that national environmental standards would unintentionally frustrate the Local Government and Environment Committee’s emphasis on providing increased certainty to resource users. That sure as hell does not sound very helpful to people in Northland, let alone to those in the rest of New Zealand. Meridian Energy did not know what clause 18 meant, and was uncertain as to its effect. It went on to say that consent-holders would be undermined by the lack of certainty.

Who said that? Meridian Energy said it. What is Meridian Energy? It is a State-owned enterprise. What does it provide? It provides power for hot water for showers, and for us to have the lights on, with no blackouts. Meridian Energy went on to comment that the requirement to review consent conditions would cause problems and increase uncertainty. It had other technical concerns with the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy provisions, and had several concerns about technical uncertainties. Why did it keep using that word? Did the Minister consult Meridian Energy? Let us go on. Regarding clause 54, Meridian said, “We do not agree with this proposal.” That comment is from the State-owned electricity generator, which provides lights, power, and hot water.

Brian Connell: Who is the Minister?

JOHN CARTER: I think it is someone called “Pistol Pete” Hodgson. Meridian Energy said it did not agree with clauses 7, 61, and 63. It said that clause 67 does not provide a remedy, and it did not agree with clause 11.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During my colleague John Carter’s contribution, he asked the Minister whether she had read the submission, and I understood that she indicated that she had seen that submission, and that she had had discussions with Meridian. Have I misinterpreted the Minister?

Hon Marian Hobbs: Go on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is not a point of order, but I am happy to listen.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It certainly is a point of order, if I correctly understood what the Minister said. I wanted to seek clarification as to whether the Minister had clearly given my colleague the impression that she had discussed the submission with Meridian.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the honourable member, but—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had zero response from the Minister. This is a serious matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Any response is entirely up to the Minister, and that is as far as we will go on that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I want to join with my colleague John Carter and say what a mess we are making of the energy crisis. While the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, tries to avoid questions in the House, she is partially responsible for the energy crisis we have right now in New Zealand. What happened with the change of Government in 1999, and her rejection of 14 of the 16—

Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that members are not allowed to make references to whether a member has or has not been in the House. This is the second time in this debate that I have heard Dr Smith say I avoided question time. I make the point that I am quite sick, and that is why I was away during question time.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In response to the Minister’s point of order, I said she was avoiding questions. She has repeatedly refused to answer questions in this debate. If she wants to put me wrong, I would like to put some questions to her right now. She was not present in the House during question time, and the question I would like to ask is this.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): There will be no reference to a member not being present in the House, but it is fine to make references to a member not answering questions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The question I would like the Minister to answer is why is she ignoring the submissions and concerns about 24 clauses in this part from Meridian Energy, which is a State-owned enterprise and New Zealand’s biggest producer of electricity? Why ignore that? This is not some joke; this is the single biggest crisis facing our nation. Here we have Meridian Energy saying that there are 24 clauses in this bill that will increase the obstructions for the generation of electricity in this country, and the Minister just smirks. She does not think that is worth worrying about.

We then hear from an organisation like the Petroleum Exploration Association of New Zealand. It said that the provisions in this part would make it well nigh impossible to expand the gas and petroleum resources of this country. Again, the Minister is not prepared to answer questions as to why she has ignored that advice. We will hold her accountable when the lights go out—when 500 people in my electorate are put out of work because of a lack of electricity. The Minister carries some responsibility for that.

I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the provisions in this part that remove any capacity for the court to order security for costs. Let us be clear about what that means. It means that any group of citizens can, with absolutely no risk, form an incorporated society that can cause huge disruption and costs for those who are trying to create wealth or development in this country, and the court will have absolutely no capacity to hold them accountable for it.

Hon Tony Ryall: It’s appalling.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is an appalling provision. This is the Minister who has introduced legal aid for those objectors. I want to know from the Minister, from the members opposite, and from that fellow Larry Baldock, who supports this stuff, how that is common sense. It is not. How will that meet the bill’s purposes of reducing costs and uncertainty? That is what the Government said this bill would do. How does removing security for costs increase the certainty around this legislation? It does exactly the opposite. The Minister might as well write to every loopy in the country and say there is a free-for-all to object, to cause havoc, to shut down and turn this into some sort of—

Hon Tony Ryall: Every time she sends out an electorate newsletter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the Minister in the chair actually introduced legal aid. Can she tell the Committee how introducing legal aid for objectors reduces the costs, the uncertainties, and the delays in the Resource Management Act? We know that there are cases where the community is desperately trying to build roads to get rid of traffic congestion, and this Minister is funding people to object to them. Even in respect of roads that her colleague the Minister of Transport is on the public record as supporting, she is writing out cheques for people to oppose them. What sort of hideous nonsense is that?

Hon Tony Ryall: It’s a boo-boo.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister is one big boo-boo, and it would be a joke if it were not so serious. The provisions for removing security of costs—that right from the courts—are the provisions in this law that all our major energy companies object to. For 43 days we have had resource consent hearings over Contact Energy, which has been trying to renew its consent for the Clyde Dam. To date, that has cost $5 million. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? Will we do what was done in Tasmania and take the dam out?

Hon Tony Ryall: You’re joking!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. There were 43 days of submissions—$5 million of costs—for a public facility that already exists. That is the sort of thing that this Minister is not only condoning but will make worse. Yet she pretends that she is about reducing the costs and uncertainty of the bill. She is making it a whole lot worse.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I just wanted to clarify the question that Dr Nick Smith asked. I have stood up here at least three times tonight and answered questions raised by him, so I have been answering questions. It is a shame he is not always aware of that.

He asked why I was ignoring Meridian. Today I received a copy of the letter that Meridian wrote. It is now being replied to. It arrived during my absence from this country for the last 3 weeks. The member noted that I had nodded. I was nodding because I have worked with Meridian on a number of issues. I fully recognise Meridian’s, and Meridian’s lawyers’, concern about any change that occurs to the Resource Management Act. The previous Government wanted to make a change in redefining the meaning of the word “environment”, but the Local Government and Environment Committee advised it not to do that, because the resulting legislative change and casework would have brought about too much uncertainty. The work of the select committee over the last wee while has been to retain the language of the Act to reduce uncertainty, while at the same time trying to make it a finely balanced Act that really understands the meaning of sustainable development—which is to develop and grow, yet allow the community to ensure that it has choices and a future. I think I have answered the questions this morning.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have a serious issue here. The Minister has just told the Committee that she read the Meridian letter this morning. In the House this afternoon, the Minister said that she had not seen it.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I wasn’t in the House this afternoon.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, the Minister of Energy answered questions on her behalf, because she was not here. In response to a question, the Minister said she had not seen the letter. The House has been misled.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I was listening to the comments that the Minister made, and I wrote an answer for him. I think the primary question was: “Have you received any advice …?” It did not ask whether I had received a letter from Meridian. The answer I dictated to be read out was that I had received no advice on the current energy questions from my officials.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): I congratulate the Minister, Marian Hobbs, on being in the chair and taking questions tonight. I will say this about her: I have never seen her knitting while she has been the Minister in the chair. That is a good point, and it is nice to be able to say that. I am very sorry to hear she has been sick. I thank her for being here tonight and enlightening us about letters and advice, and the difference between them, and about officials and Meridian.

I would like to speak tonight about the spiritual issues in this bill. I take up the point made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu about how constantly going on and on about spirituality in bills like this serves to bring Māori into disrepute. In addition, I need to say that Māori are not the only people who have spirituality. Again, I think that was something that Georgina te Heuheu mentioned—that the bill was not only about Māori spirituality. I have Irish heritage, and if members ever ask people who have Irish heritage how they feel about land, they will note that they tend to get very emotional, because the Irish were not allowed to own land in their own country. It is a shame they did not have a treaty.

One of the problems with spirituality connected to land is that sometimes families sell that land. My own family sold its land in the Waikato after about 50 years. That was the only home I felt was mine, and my mother sold it just before she died. I feel a deep spirituality towards that land—so deep that I refuse to go anywhere near it at the moment, because it would upset me. I know that the land might not be exactly the same as my parents left it, and it would upset me to see that. So spirituality is there, but I will tell members this: it is none of my business what the current owners do to that land. It has nothing to do with me—

Hon Ken Shirley: It will after this Act is passed.

JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. My mother sold the land for fair value. It is a shame she did not keep it for a few more years, as it would have been of more value, but she sold it for fair value to people who bought it honestly. It is their right to do whatever they want on that land, as long as it does not affect other people, or unnecessarily damage the property of others or the environment. Under this bill, I believe I would have the right to say to the current owners of that land: “You shall not do anything on this land, because it is a place of spiritual significance to me. There are things that have happened on that land that mean a tremendous amount to me and my family.” That is not right. We cannot have that sort of silly legislation, because once people sell land, they have to be able to let go and let other people get on to it. The world does not stop turning because we happen to have an allegiance to land, or whatever.

People who own land, or who wish to buy land, must know for certain what they are getting. They cannot buy land, pay a tremendous amount of money for it, put themselves into debt, shift their families on to the land, and then be told that they cannot do what they want to do because someone whose family happened to own the land 200 years ago is now saying they cannot. That is absolute nonsense. There is no reason even to say 200 years ago—it could be 50 years ago, 10 years ago, or 5 years ago, because nothing is defined.

I congratulate the Minister on saying tonight that she had concerns about that. Good on her for saying that. She has real concerns, so why are we rushing this legislation through? It has not even been back to a select committee, or had proper submissions on it since all those new provisions have gone in. If the Minister and the other Labour members who have spoken tonight are right when they say that there was extensive consultation, which bill was there extensive consultation on? It was, of course, the No. 1 bill, and there have been significant changes since then. The first bill was the one before the No. 1 bill—Simon Upton’s bill. What has happened is that there have been changes, and those were so significant that when the rebel committee set itself up, it had over 30 submissions from the very people who had been heard before.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): I want to draw to the Committee’s attention tonight the fact that at the same time as we are debating this bill, the Government has announced that the Historic Places Trust will receive another $4.5 million of funding for the identification of wāhi tapu. I alert the Committee to what happened with wāhi tapu in Welcome Bay in my electorate. On 180 hectares of land on the hills of Welcome Bay, four families have been making their living and planning their futures. They discovered that the Historic Places Trust had entertained an application from local Māori to have 180 hectares of their land declared wāhi tapu. There was a flawed and totally inadequate consultation programme by the Historic Places Trust, and as a result, those four landowners found that wāhi tapu was registered on their property.

The consequence of wāhi tapu worried those people. They sought dealings with the council, from which they got the very clear impression that wāhi tapu would limit any ability they had to use their land. As a result, the Leader of the Opposition and Dr Nick Smith held a public meeting in Welcome Bay, which 300 Tauranga residents attended. What became clear was that there was real concern about wāhi tapu. It got to the stage of becoming a national issue, and the Prime Minister made the comment that statutory protection for wāhi tapu could come only from a district council listing, as under the Resource Management Act. She said it was up to the council to decide. But at the same time as she was saying that on nationwide television, she was in the Cabinet room passing a bill through the Cabinet process that will have wāhi tapu declared a matter of national importance. According to the Resource Management Act, what that means is that if a matter is of national importance, the decision-making authorities shall “recognise and provide for those matters”. That means that if someone has wāhi tapu on his or her land, it is a matter of national significance, and it overrides what the council’s plans say. It becomes a matter of national importance that the authorities must recognise and provide for.

So what is the consequence of that for the people of Welcome Bay? What it means is that when they thought they would now be covered by the district plan and could chop down the trees, harvest the forest, build the house, and add to the garage—as they could under the district plan—all of that was out of the window. The Prime Minister’s pledge that it would be the council that decided has been found to be a nullity. As the Prime Minister was on the Holmes show saying that it was the council’s district plan that would be predominant, she was in the Cabinet room shepherding through a bill that makes wāhi tapu an issue of national significance and importance, and that means it overrides what the council says. That has really big consequences.

I cannot understand why the Government wants to set the spa-pool liberals of the Historic Places Trust upon the landowners of New Zealand with another $4.5 million of the taxpayers’ money to identify wāhi tapu around the rest of this country. We will end up with the outrageous situation where 180 hectares of land has been declared wāhi tapu in Welcome Bay and now, with the progress of this bill, the council’s views will be completely overriden and the wāhi tapu will determine the future use of that land—not the landowners operating under the district plan. It will be the local Māori who decide what happens, and that is not right.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I want to pick up an issue raised by Nick Smith a few minutes ago, and explain to the Committee the process that the Local Government and Environment Committee went through in introducing new section 284A in clause 80 of the No. 1 bill, which has become clause 80 of this bill. When Simon Upton’s bill came before the select committee, the committee had recently received a member’s bill in the name of Sandra Lee, called the Resource Management (Costs) Amendment Bill. That bill sought to protect from outrageous impositions of costs those persons and groups who were genuinely bringing a case representing some matter of the public interest and who just happened to lose, because one can never absolutely predict what the courts will do.

As I have said in my previous speeches, the Act relies on a contest of evidence and ideas between developers and members of the community in order to ascertain what complies with the Act and what does not. Because we had that bill before us, the committee decided to call for submissions on both bills simultaneously. It decided that, in the interests of good legislation, whatever we might decide to do with the member’s bill we would do as part of the amendment bill so that we did not have another little bill sitting out to the side. After hearing submissions and advice, the committee members felt that we could not give a blanket exemption to awards of costs to community groups, because there must be some sanction for wasting the time of the court and the applicant. If the case has no merit, there must be some sanction for failing to comply with directions of the court, and there must be some incentive for people to prepare a case properly and observe the normal rules that go with running the process. That sanction is the ability of the court to award costs against any party to the court that misuses the process.

However, what submitters told us—those who had been through the experience of objecting to the Environment Court—was that their main worry was not the possibility that, if they lost, costs might be awarded against them. That was a risk they felt they could foresee and manage, and have considerable influence over. They told us that the much bigger issue was that developers were using the ability to get security for costs awarded at the start of the process as a threat and as a way of preventing participation in the cases at all. They cited a number of cases where groups had never gone to court, even though they had a good legal case, because the developer had said: “Well, we’ll seek security for costs.” The court has been known to award up to $30,000 for security of costs at the start of a case, and that is a huge disincentive for people getting involved in the court at all. It is true that the courts have not done that often, it is true they have not done it lightly, and it is true that they have not done it frivolously, but the fact is that community groups do not necessarily know that. They do not have all the research facilities to find that out, and they are frequently told by applicants that they will have to pay the money upfront if they want to take part.

The fact is that the Environment Court did not always have that power. For the first few years of the operation of the Act they could not award security of costs. It happened only by accident in 1996, when an amendment to the Act gave the court the powers of a District Court; and what happens by accident can equally well be taken away. Environment Court proceedings are so often David and Goliath undertakings, where the applicant is backed by millions of dollars. It is true that applicants also have millions of dollars to lose, but they have all the resources. The community group has nothing but what it has raised through its cake stalls, so it is appropriate that it be given the opportunity to obtain justice, providing it abides by the rules. The committee therefore decided to take away the right of a court to award security for costs at the beginning, but to leave in place, at this stage, the ability to award costs against groups, in the hope that it would encourage them to run their cases as well as possible.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): It has been pointed out in the debate already that the Minister in charge of this bill, Minister Hobbs, is, regretfully, rather poorly. She has contracted a flu-type virus and is relatively sick. I cannot help but reflect on the fact that most landowners in this country, when they look at what is happening in this bill, will be as physically ill as the Minister is.

The impact of this bill is huge. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damian O’Connor, what price a spiritual value? How much is a spiritual value worth? I ask the Minister whether a spiritual value can be traded. I am not getting any answers here. Can a spiritual value be bought? These are terribly important questions. Can a spiritual value be bought? I am not getting an answer from the Minister in the chair. The reality is that the answer is, yes, it can. Ngāi Tahu put a value on its spiritual values by accepting $1.5 million when it came to ensuring water rights on the Clutha River. It said: “Our spiritual values are worth $1.5 million.” They can be quantified.

So what, then, is the worth of the spiritual value of a river to a fisher and his family who have fished that river for, sometimes, as long as Māori have been associated with it? I have people in my area, down in Ettrick and beyond, who have huge historical and spiritual association with the river, but according to this bill their spiritual attachment is worth absolutely nothing. I ask the Minister to explain why there is a difference. From the way that the bill reads, it is only Māori who have spiritual values, and Pākehā, people from Europe, Chinese—wherever people may come from—do not have spiritual values.

A spiritual value comes from within an individual. It is not found in a river. A spiritual value is not found in a mountain. Society in this day does not believe in the animist belief. We do not worship mountains; we do not worship rivers. Perhaps we understand the life-giving forces within them, but they do not possess a spiritual value. The spiritual value comes from within the individual who has the capacity to understand the importance and the significance of those things that are important to us. We each of us have our own value, whether we live in the town or the country. At my own property in Roxburgh I have special spiritual attachment to certain areas that I find have a quality that cannot be defined. But that ability comes from within me. It is not recognised by other people. It is not recognised in statute, nor can it ever be. It is something that comes from deep within the individual. How, then, can this bill attempt to quantify a spiritual value?

I want to shift to a slight different tack. Members have talked about the energy crisis. This bill talks about landscape values. It was not so very long ago that one could not—and one still cannot in many areas—build a shed or plant a block of trees because it would upset the landscape value. According to the Minister of Energy, we will now have massive wind turbines placed on ridgelines. That will totally destroy the aesthetic values of scenic corridors, such as those on the Old Man Range, for example. I cannot put a shed or build anything—

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I want to make a relatively brief contribution to this debate. I was interested in listening to the previous speaker, Gerrard Eckhoff. I think it is important to focus on the key changes that this bill introduces. It was my pleasure and privilege to be a member of the previous Local Government and Environment Committee in the last Parliament, and to be the deputy chair. My good colleague Richard Worth and I—

Richard Worth: We worked hard.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: It was a very good committee, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to people like Eric Roy and Owen Jennings. I found Owen Jennings to be a good member of that committee and a good member of Parliament—

Gerrard Eckhoff: A good ACT man.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Yes, and well should the member nod. We had some philosophical disagreements, but he was a good Kiwi and a good New Zealander. I am not going to say how his party treated him, because that is provocative, and I think we can have a positive discussion.

What this bill really involves is the balance between our need as a country to develop, and our need not to lose, by stupidity or by accident, the very special qualities that make us the unique and beautiful nation that we are. It is really sad that members opposite immediately seize on this, and moan and groan—but not all of them, because there are one or two very good members in the Opposition. Let me pay tribute to Richard Worth, who was a very good member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and whom I found personally very helpful.

One of the things this bill is about is not repeating the mistakes of the past. One of the programmes that I became involved in, as a very young environmentalist, was, lest we forget—and I think we should not forget—the Lake Manapouri campaign. Within our lifetimes and within our generation, there was a Government, which happened to be a National Government, that was going to raise Lake Manapouri. It was going to lose a lake and an ecosystem that had evolved over millions of years, for the so-called greater economic good. I wonder whether we could find anyone in this Parliament who would stand up, be counted, and be identified with that. Yes, indeed, we have the deputy leader of the ACT party. It is a shame he was not the deputy in terms of his list ranking. But he has made a good contribution, and I do not bear any personal rancour against Mr Shirley. Stand up those who would still raise Lake Manapouri!

The sort of thing that distresses me about this kind of debate, and even in the community at large, is a very distinct lack of balance. All the blame for some development issues and some processes are laid at the Act’s door as against the resourcing of the Environment Court. But, dare I say it, one of the dangers of ensuring that balance, one of the issues that arises if we are not careful, is that, bit by bit, we will lose what makes this country special. Because it is special, it is competitive. It is an attractive place to invest in, work in, and live in. It is a bit like the whole thing about the loss of some of our public estate, our high-country estate, but particularly our coastline, as it is subdivided and built on. Coromandel is a really good example; Jeanette Fitzsimons will know this extremely well. One day we will wake up and find that the last bit of unplanned development is happening, and what was special about that area will have gone. We have lost, squandered, and stolen from our grandchildren what makes this country special. I think there are a number of members of this Parliament who in their heart of hearts know that to be true.

Having said that, I say that the other balance that we grappled with as a committee, particularly around issues of introducing limited notification of resource consents—and I acknowledge the difference of opinion that Labour members have with the Greens on this issue and others—was the balance between what is in the broad community interest, and the ability of what one calls the vexatious litigant to hold up unduly and unfairly, and potentially compromise, what indeed could be very positive development. I have experienced this at the local government level.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I want to spend a few moments talking about Part 1. I want to start with the changes to notification.

At the moment about 50,000 consents have been approved. Of those, 47,000 are non-notified and about 3,000 are notified. [Interruption] The 3,000, as Richard Worth mentions, that have to be notified are too many. The bill, of course, brings in limited notification. One would have thought that, of the 3,000 that have to notified now, there probably would be an even split; that 1,500 would have to be notified, and 1,500 would require limited notification. But when we look at this a little bit closer we see that the limited notification consents will be 1,500, but the number of notified consents could well go up to about 3,000. So here we have increased compliance costs. The point I make is that at the moment there are about 47,000 consents that are non-notified, and one would have hoped and expected that they would stay at that figure. But, no, the research that we have done suggests that that figure of 47,000 non-notified consents would drop down to 45,500, and the balance would go back to being limited notifications or notified consents.

Government members earlier on talked about how this bill will reduce compliance costs, and how this bill would be good for business and good for all those people whom we expect to make investments in the community, but in fact that will not work. I want to give two examples. In the rural electorate that I represent, Piako, there are huge developments with chicken farming. Some have new contracts to supply chickens to Inghams Enterprises, and chicken meat to KFC and big firms like that. At this stage many consents are coming forward to the district council. There have been a lot of hiccups, and there will certainly be more now that there will need to be limited notifications and, probably, further notifications.

For example, if I already have a chicken operation, and I want to extend that operation, I have to let the neighbours know. There is no problem with that, and usually, because these are established operations, they are allowed to proceed. But of recent times there have been people who have objected to the addition of chicken sheds, and the operators have had to go through the consent process. What will happen now is that even all those neighbours who have consented will have to be re-notified, and the whole deal will have to start again. That will add compliance costs and time, and it is certainly not something that we would support.

Perhaps I have a 200-cow cowshed and I want to increase the capacity to 220. I should have to look only at the increase—the extra 20—but under this arrangement, I will have to go back to square one and talk about a whole consent process for 220 cows, not just the extra 20. So although there is a role for limited notification, the view we hold is that because of the extra compliance cost, which is a factor we are really concerned about, this policy will probably not achieve what it was designed to do in the first place.

If we look at some of the opportunities that have been lost in this amendment, opportunities that we have talked about before, such as having independent hearing commissioners, having a contestable process for resource consent applications, and allowing direct referral through to the Environment Court, we see that those opportunities, which we believe are important, have disappeared. There is also the issue of the creation of a register of professional hearing commissioners who could hear the cases. Although that would cost a little bit of money, at the end of the day they would be professionals in the field who did not have a vested interest, and they could sit and hear cases in good time. The Ministerial Panel on Business Compliance Costs wrote 50 recommendations to reduce the compliance costs borne by business as a direct consequence of the Resource Management Act, and there were another two that related to the Building Act.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): This is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak on this somewhat iniquitous Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to concentrate on the area of historic heritage. I think it is in the interpretation clause, in subpart 1. There were, of course, 18 parts, which have been compressed so skilfully and manipulatively by this Labour Government.

I want to go over the area of historic heritage, with particular reference to one of the most significant developments or consents that have taken place in New Zealand in the last few years.

I am referring to the Hampton Downs dump—the largest proposed dump in New Zealand’s history. To add insult, this dump is next to the prison.

Hon Tony Ryall: They put rubbish in both of them.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: That may be so, but the difficulty is that it is rubbish coming from halfway around New Zealand. I will point out the relevance to the historic heritage part of the bill. The extraordinary thing about this development is that it was consented to under this Labour Government—the Government that propounds an interest in waste minimisation. It is allowing the largest dump in New Zealand’s history to take place in the virgin Waikato countryside, to take garbage from Auckland, Tauranga, possibly Rotorua, possibly Hamilton, and all around, yet in this bill the Government is bringing in this historic heritage part.

I have ticked off the various aspects of the definition. In relation to archaeological value, this area was pristine countryside, so we cannot say that—nor was it of architectural value. However, we then come to cultural value. This is an area absolutely steeped in culture from as far back as New Zealand has ever existed. As for historic value, it has been of huge historic importance to Māori and to Pākehā, particularly during that very sad period of the New Zealand wars. In relation to spiritual value, being next to the Waikato River it is of huge spiritual significance both to Māori and, of course, to all those who live in the Waikato. It also includes “historic sites, structures, places, and areas;”. Cultural landscapes are undoubtedly there, as are archaeological sites, and sites of significance to Māori. They are all there.

But when it is convenient to this Labour Government it does not give a toss. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Damian O’Connor, might like to take a call. The Minister at the time, the Hon Marian Hobbs, had the opportunity to use her call-in powers because this area was of such huge significance to New Zealand. However, she said that it was a local issue. What is the use of putting all these provisions in this bill when, if it is convenient to the Government, it takes absolutely no notice whatsoever? That is the absolute hypocrisy of this Labour Government.

Hon David Carter: No objection! The truth hurts.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: The truth hurts, as the Hon David Carter said. This is a hugely important development in the Waikato. It is hugely important for those people living in the area who, hopefully, under the Resource Management Act, had the opportunity as small landholders to have a reasonable say about this enormous development. They had nowhere near the resources of the applicant. This was one opportunity where a Labour Minister for the Environment could show that she was truly sincere about the environment.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I would like to follow up the issue of Hampton Downs. It is a classic example of the protracted delays that have frustrated development in this country, and there is nothing in this bill that overcomes the basic problems or even addresses them.

Hon David Carter: It’s worse!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Mr Carter is quite right. The bill actually compounds the problems, and makes them considerably worse. Hampton Downs is a very good example. Over a number of years I was involved with Olivene’s proposal at the Meremere power site—a decommissioned station. Olivene was proposing a process of high-temperature incineration, involving picking up solid waste from Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, and Rotorua, then vitrifaction of the ash, through to the production of roading material. One would not believe the delays and the frustrations that the company encountered, associated with the Resource Management Act, in dealing with the Waikato District Council and Environment Waikato. It was utterly unbelievable. There were absolute delays and frustrations at every turn.

Finally, of course, Olivene gave up and went off to Australia. The company had been battling for 5 years in this country, and I forget how many millions of dollars it cost, but in the space of a few months it got approval in Australia and is now building its high-temperature, state-of-the-art incinerator in Perth. The company got the approval, and everyone there is delighted.

It could have been generating energy for this country. A lot of people do not realise that solid waste—the stuff we send to our landfills—has an energy value almost level with coal. So we would have recovered the energy, solved the problem, created an inert substance for roading from the ash, by a vitrification process. But the proposal was totally rejected by our planning process. Olivene described it to me as “just like kicking a haystack”. One could go nowhere.

We have many other examples. I know Claymark Sawmills in Te Puke, right in the heart of our “wall of wood”, shall we say, in the Bay of Plenty. It is adjacent to the volcanic plateau, has substantial plantations, and has been trying for 6 years to get a process through under the Resource Management Act. It cost the company $2 million, before it finally managed to make the progress that was required. This is the difficulty faced by small business all around the country. This is not pub talk; these are hard, hard facts. The Government’s own compliance cost report that Minister Swain commissioned identified the part that the Resource Management Act plays in this, but this bill does not—

Hon Tony Ryall: No. 1 issue!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: It is the No. 1 problem! What was the Speech from the Throne all about? It was about removing the barriers to growth. Does this bill do that? The Government’s own report identified some 50 measures, but none of them in this bill before us tonight actually amends the Resource Management Act.

I would like to come to a very specific point in respect of clause 41(1). The New Zealand petroleum industry made the point to the Opposition select committee, because that is the only select committee that heard any evidence in respect of this bill. The Government would not even hear submissions. It did not want to hear all the horror stories and be exposed to them. Opposition members took it upon themselves to hear submissions, as we thought it was a critical part of our democracy to hear some submissions on a bill of this significance. We were told by the petroleum industry that it wanted to see an amendment—and it is a very practical amendment that we could have had—to clause 41(1) that would have amended section 92(2) of the principal Act. The simple point is that a consent authority can commission a report on any matter that is raised in relation to an application for consent approval, without the applicant’s consent. This is what councils up and down the country are doing. If they are not sure, and often there is a bunch of lay people sitting in judgment, then that is how they wait it out. They say they want another report.

All committees tend to do that. If they are not sure they call for a report. So applicants have to stump up for all sorts of costs, and half the time they do not even know what these reports are for. They are of very spurious worth, but the applicant has to stump up to purchase the report. It is the time value of money, but members opposite do not appreciate the time value of money

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to speak briefly to introduce the two amendments I have tabled for voting at the end of the session. The first one amends clauses 34, 41, and 42. The amendment to remove clauses 41 and 42 actually removes limited notification from the bill and restores the status quo of the Act as it stands at the moment. I outlined in my second reading speech why the Greens believe that is necessary, and I think that can stand on its merits.

The addition we have made to clause 34 remedies a major failing in the Act itself, which is that one currently does not have to consider whether the effects of a controlled activity are minor, one simply does not have to notify it at all, no matter how great the effects on the environment or on people might be. There is an assumption, which has been underlying this for a while, that if it is a controlled activity that the council cannot refuse but can only put conditions on, the effects must be minor. There are a number of cases where this has not been true, and in fact there is no reason that it should be. It simply relates to the way the plan is written, and we believe it should be subject to the same test of minor effects as other activities. If I am wrong, and if controlled activities do always have minor effects, this amendment does no harm whatsoever, because they still will not be notified. If, on the other hand, I am right, and some controlled activities have more than minor effects, it would be a good idea and it would be consistent with the rest of the Act, for them to have to be notified when they do have more than minor effects. So that is the first page.

The other page of amendments inserts new clause 82A, which is exactly the wording of the Simon Upton bill that has been removed by this Government. I am looking forward to the support of National members in restoring this provision of their colleague in the bill as it was first introduced. This is the provision that allows a review of notification decisions at the Environment Court instead of the High Court, which I spoke about in my second reading speech. That bill was introduced by Simon Upton because he saw it balancing limited notification. In fact, if National members wish to vote for this and not vote for the removal of limited notification, they will be voting in accordance with the bill that their party introduced. The select committee agreed with Simon Upton’s proposal and reported it back, the Government at the time agreed with it as well, the Government then changed its mind, and in the No. 2 bill removed those clauses. This simply gives Parliament an opportunity to decide that Simon Upton was right all along.

Hon Tony Ryall: Well, come and talk to us about it.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I have, and I will.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I am ecstatic to have the opportunity to ask the new Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damian O’Connor, the same series of questions I asked the Hon Marian Hobbs. [Interruption] No, and I can remember the questions. What I want to know from the Associate Minister of Agriculture is whether he has had submissions personally from Federated Farmers, listing their large concerns with this bill. I mentioned to Marian Hobbs earlier that the rebel Opposition select committee, of which I was proudly a member for one day, had a substantial presentation from Federated Farmers, and if, in the event the Associate Minister of Agriculture has not had the time to give them an audience so that they can express their concerns about the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), I will take this opportunity of doing so to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. He, after all, has a duty to represent the concerns of the farmers.

So what Federated Farmers said to us, I say to Mr O’Connor, is that this particular amendment bill will be worse than the current legislation. They have spent years and years and years telling Governments of both colours that there are problems with the Resource Management Act—as it exists tonight—yet the Labour Government, supported by United Future, advances legislation, the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), which in their opinion will make it worse. One of the most telling comments we heard from Federated Farmers was their concerns about significant natural areas and the way they have been imposed on private landowners all around New Zealand. But, then, they commented that the historic heritage provisions of this bill will make those problems associated with significant natural areas look minor.

I have to congratulate Marian Hobbs on making a contribution, finally, but I want the Committee to reflect on the comments she made. As people criticised the definitions of historic heritage listed in this legislation, the Hon Marian Hobbs got to her feet and said that she was also concerned about the definitions. The Minister in charge of the bill was concerned about the way we are defining historic heritage, and basically told the Committee tonight that it will be for the courts to sort out. How can the Associate Minister of Agriculture support legislation that the Minister in charge of the bill says that she herself is concerned about, then pass the responsibility from parliamentarians to the courts to clarify? I say to Damian O’Connor that it is our job as parliamentarians to pass law that is clear and concise. It is not our job to pass nebulous rubbish like this and hand it to the court.

In my closing moments I point out to Damian O’Connor that the most telling comment made by the Federated Farmers’ submission was that unless we get it right, the incentive will be on farmers to destroy sites of historic significance on their farms. If farmers feel that this legislation will unreasonably restrict their ability to earn a living off land they own, the threat made was that they will have little choice but to destroy areas.

Stephen Franks: And they will be serving New Zealand’s interests.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Stephen Franks says they will be serving New Zealand’s interests. I happen to farm on Banks Peninsula, and was afflicted with the Banks Peninsula district plan, which had huge swats over my land of significant natural areas. They missed the most significant part of the farm. I say to Damian O’Connor that I would not be so irresponsible as to destroy it. But it just goes to show that if we want to advance laws that protect our landscape, we have to do it with cooperation.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I believe that the review I have just been giving this bill is the sort of review that the select committee stage was intended to cover. When the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have been through the provisions in detail, over a really long period, they are, of course, very familiar with them. But someone coming cold, or relatively cold, to a bill—like a member of Parliament, who is now expected to vote—looks at the words that have become familiar to those who spent so long with them, and looks at them with the eye that is a little closer to the eye of the person who is going to be subject to it—namely, the ordinary citizen.

What struck my eye in a quick flick through was the amendment to section 31 in clause 10. There it is in paragraph (b)(iii), in subcause (1): “the maintenance of indigenous biological diversity:”. The method that subsection (2)(1) suggests, in subclause (2), is to “include the control of subdivision.”

It struck me that most of New Zealand’s coastal environment at the moment is probably in the position that a friend of mine had his farm in, about 14 or 15 years ago. I helped my friend at one stage to collect the seeds of karakas. He knows a lot about trees. He has planted and fenced-off many hectares of land on one of his farms, around dams. He has built dams to regenerate wetlands. He is very interested in the state of the natural environment and in what I imagine is meant by indigenous biological diversity—in other words, probably patches of bush and patches of native vegetation. We made a special trip around the south coast—Palliser Head—to collect karaka seeds from a variety of karakas and other plants that we found in those groves. He told me to put them in the fridge. They need to go through a winter. They have to be chilled for 6 weeks in order to get a good strike. He was going to strike a whole lot of these karakas, to plant on his coastal property.

About 4 or 5 years later I went to his place and I asked him where the karaka grove was. He had reached the common-sense decision that he would have to have rocks in his head to carry on with his plan. In fact, where the karakas were supposed to be there was a plantation of eucalypts. The reason was very simple. He had realised that if he planted what he wanted to plant there, he would never be allowed to use his land. He wanted to regenerate native bush, he wanted to attract pigeons, and he wanted to plant the land so that it recreated what might have been there 150 years ago, but if he did that he would be ruining all economic prospects for that land. In fact, he would be setting it up to be confiscated by the consent authority.

So what he did was plant eucalypts. It was the only rational thing to do with that land, or to leave it in what it had been planted, which was probably a monoculture of rye grass, replanted every 5 or 6 years, and grazed. He did this because he did want the area to be attractive. He does not regard New Zealand’s landscape without trees as the kind of landscape he wants to spend time in. He planted a variety of different eucalypts. The only reason he chose eucalypts was that they were not indigenous. It was the only way he could see to protect him land from confiscation.

Fellow members of Parliament, when we pass legislation like this, knowing that it is a rational response, knowing that the only sensible thing for people with any kind of alertness to their own interests is that they will have a bias against natural heritage, that they will regard it as stupid to buy land that has regenerating scrub and not knock it off, that they will want fires on their property, that they will want to graze it heavily so that they do not get anything unusual regenerating, and that if they find a rare species they will put a bulldozer through it, we deserve all the odium we get.

Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty): I am much obliged to be able to take this call. This afternoon the Government announced, in a pre-Budget announcement, that an additional $14.5 million will be given to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, for the identification of wāhi tapu throughout New Zealand. The term wāhi tapu came to the attention of most New Zealanders when they discovered, to their horror, that a group of landowners in Welcome Bay had effectively lost control of their property to local Māori.

What became clear in the public furore that followed the Welcome Bay wāhi tapu case was that the Prime Minister misled the country as to the status of wāhi tapu. She appeared on the Holmes programme and said that the fact there is a wāhi tapu on this 180 hectares of land at Welcome Bay was of no consequence. She said that it was the local council that would decide.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.