Ardern Shane: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9293] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 As I was saying earlier on there is no reason why the Card Creek development could not go ahead. When we look at Part 1 “Commencement and interpretation” we see that there are plenty of reasons that the Minister should take a call and explain why the development should not proceed. TrustPower has proposed building a 60-megawatt $150 million hydro scheme at Card Creek and it is being denied that opportunity on the basis that Card Creek is a high-value ecological area. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What’s this got to do with the commencement date? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that this omnibus Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill could have included the opportunity for that to happen. The Minister had the opportunity—because we have proposed it on numerous occasions—to include the transfer of that land from its current status to a status that would allow the development to proceed. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: What’s the commencement date? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I need Mr Ian Ewen-Street to take a call and tell us why he thinks that it is not so. I am talking about why he thinks this bill and in particular this part could not be used for that purpose. I am sure that neither the member nor the Minister in the chair Rick Barker will be able to do that but I look forward with great anticipation to either of them being able to enlighten me. The only explanation I can give is that the Minister has been heavied by the Forest and Bird Protection Society by the Greens and by “Minister Smith”—not the Hon Nick Smith—the former Forest and Bird Protection Society official who works in the Minister of Conservation’s office. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The real Minister. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes we could say Mr Smith is the real Minister especially when it comes to this decision. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Chris Carter says: “How high?”. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I could not possibly say that. But the reality is that certainly a lot of decisions are taken in that office that one has to question particularly around sustainable development and business that is successful and— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s run by a madman. 
SHANE ARDERN 
:I will let the member say that in his speech but it is being run by people who have a dubious understanding of what development is and what conservation is. It is run by people I guess who have double standards. Clearly there is a double standard when other conservation land is being used for development as in the case of Project Aqua but in this case the Minister says it cannot be done. I would like somebody—the Minister in the chair Rick Barker any other Minister or even the member for the Green Party—to tell us why that is so. 
When he is doing that can he also tell us how using coal in emergency generation—which is the proposal at the moment—actually mitigates against a proposed hydro development in relation to the Kyoto Protocol? It just makes no sense to me that we would burn coal or gas or any other fossil fuel or energy that is not renewable to generate electricity yet turn down something like this which has reliability development value on the West Coast and a huge potential to make New Zealand and the West Coast a much more viable reliable and safer place to live. I just do not understand why that is so. I look forward to the Minister taking a call to explain to us why that could not be done. 
Certainly I know that the West Coast which is the birthplace of the Labour Party really wants to know why this Labour Government—Auckland-based academics that they are—is turning down its opportunity for development. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not talking about the rats and mice that make a noise up the back. I am talking about the front bench—the Auckland-based academics who are turning down the Coasters’ opportunity for a huge development project that clearly would be benefit Auckland and the rest of New Zealand as well for no good reason—particularly given the work done by the local authorities down there the Department of Conservation itself the energy industry people involved and the regional development Minister himself and his office. 
It all points in one direction and it is that this a good idea that should proceed and all but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office agree. United Future agrees the ACT party agrees New Zealand First agrees but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office— 
Government Member 
: “Minister Smith”? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office—the real Minister! The member at the back who does not understand who I am talking about should go and talk to the Minister up there and find out who “Minister Smith” is. He is a former member of the Forest and Bird Protection Society and he is totally adamant that the only way forward for the West Coast is to get all the people out. At that point in time of course the coast would have no regional development and there will be no purpose in going there. So I am suggesting to the Minister in the chair that he take a call—I am sure he is going to; he is looking a little anxious—and tell us why that will not happen.