Parker David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5638] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support this No. 2 bill passing into law at its third reading. I was privileged to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee when it reconsidered this legislation and I think there is general agreement amongst United Future the Green Party and the Labour Party that this bill brings about some significant improvements to the Resource Management Act without undermining its underlying purpose which is to balance the interests of those who wish to utilise resources against the interests of those who wish to have a say on whether proposals should proceed. 
The main area of disagreement between United Future and Labour on the one hand and the Greens on the other hand is in the area of limited notification. I understand the concerns that were expressed by the Greens’ co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons but disagree with her outcome. I support the introduction of limited notification. I also support the other provisions that will enable the smooth operation of the Act. One of the notable failures under the original Act was that it had very complicated procedures for the introduction of national environmental standards. They were so complex that they were never implemented. Through this bill the Minister has introduced proposals that will make those mechanisms more practical so we will see national environmental standards promulgated for the first time. 
I would like to spend a little time on the extreme statements made by the Hon Nick Smith in respect of the Act and his allegations that it is behind the problems leading to our current power shortage. In his speech some 10 minutes ago he said that the Act was responsible for delays of up to 8 years in resource management projects. That is just nonsense. The  
National Business Review  
had a similar article last week stating that Business New Zealand had said that the Act was the reason for delays in the commencement of Project Aqua. Again that is absolute nonsense. In the case of Project Aqua the consent applications have not even been filed. If we have a $1.2 billion development such as Project Aqua and we cannot put it through proper scrutiny via the Act when would we ever have public scrutiny of and input into a project that has environmental effects? 
The suggestion to the contrary from the likes of Nick Smith is woolly thinking that disregards our not-so-distant history in respect of the Clyde Dam. By a governmental decision the then National Government whipped through under the National Development Act a high dam at Clyde. The eventual cost of that project was 14c per unit of electricity that was produced. In comparison if Project Aqua proceeds—and I am not saying it should but if it does—the likely cost of the electricity some 20 years later will be 4c to 6c per unit. That is about one-half to one-third of the cost of that produced by the Clyde Dam. What was seen as clever footwork on the part of the then Government to disregard the rights of individuals had the effect of escalating the cost delaying the commissioning of the project by many many years and in the process cutting across the private rights of many individuals who live along the Clutha. 
 The predecessor dam the Roxburgh Dam which is lower down on the Clutha was put in about 20 years earlier. In fact it was around the time of my birth in 1960 I think. I can say that because I was born at about the same time in the Roxburgh hospital which was there as a consequence of the dam. From 1960 until 2002 the people who were adversely affected by the Roxburgh Dam had no avenue through which to express their concerns. It was only as a consequence of the date coming up for the renewal of Contact Energy’s rights on the Clutha River that the people who were affected by flooding as a consequence of the Roxburgh Dam have had their interests taken into account. 
Finally I would like to mention the heritage protection processes. The heritage protection provisions of the bill were an area of some controversy. The Hon Nick Smith and Jim Peters made some valuable comments in the select committee. The chair Jeanette Fitzsimons took up their suggestions. She suggested that some of the parties work together to see whether some of the definition issues could be resolved. In the final event as a consequence of that process an amendment was promulgated that properly limited the definition of heritage protection. Now we are criticised for doing that. One cannot have it both ways. 
I support the legislation.