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:9291] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill for the reason that we have here—and we have just seen a demonstration of it by the previous speaker—yet another double standard. We have often heard the Prime Minister speak in the third person and we have recently heard the Attorney-General when talking about the Privy Council speak in the third person. One wonders why we are here today talking about the Dobson dam in relation to this bill. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Minister of Conservation Mr Carter is having an out-of-body experience or a third-person experience as well. 
Despite the logic; despite the fact that earlier this year we had a power crisis in this country; despite the fact that the energy company that wants to develop the Dobson dam in the South Island is prepared to fund it; despite the Minister for Industry and Regional Development Jim Anderton and the local MP Damien O’Connor saying it is a good idea here we are debating this bill today and the Minister will not budge. What do members make of that? What reason could the Minister Mr Carter have for that? The only conclusion I can come to is that once again there is one standard for one group of people and another standard for another group. 
I use the example of Project Aqua where the Minister for Industry and Regional Development and the team involved in that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: They have found a way to get around— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill with regard— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which clause? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —with regard to the issue of what land can be sold what legislation can be changed what bits of land are able to be disposed of and what bits of land are not. 
Clearly we have a double standard there. Project Aqua which I use as an example of what is going on here is able to go ahead by amending the Resource Management Act. We have got around the conservation issues there and found a way forward but in the case of the Card Creek and Dobson dam development we are unable to proceed. The Mount Buckley land that was to be swapped for the land in Card Creek is in pristine condition—I have been there. Ian Ewen-Street suggests that the land in question is a prime piece of conservation land—I have also been there. When I tramped through it I saw nothing but standing gorse with some trees around the edge. We are talking about 0.2 percent of the total area in conservation on the West Coast. Currently 80 percent of the West Coast is in a reserve and the only conclusion one can come to is that there is a different set of criteria for this legislation and this proposal than for other proposals. 
I want to look at some of the other things that are in this legislation. I think it is a good idea to dispose of the Gore land. It is an endowment piece of land that has outlived its useful purpose. There is a proposal for that to be disposed of and it is a sensible suggestion. Why not do the same on the West Coast? Why is there a difference? Why do we have a situation where despite the fact that the Prime Minister is saying that we must do more with regard to our environment we are now going to generate our emergency electricity from coal? Why is that so? Perhaps the Minister on the other side of the House will take a call. Why has the Minister of Conservation acknowledged that we need to do more in terms of sustainable energy in this country? He said that. Why will he not let this development proceed? I do not know the answer to that. 
I know that you Mr Speaker have been challenged once or twice recently over double standards and the only thing I can suggest to you is that this is another example of that. I also know that the issue of the prayer at the beginning of Parliament has been a topic of discussion in recent times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stop his speech. The subject of the prayer in Parliament has nothing to do with this bill. Please come to the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am speaking about the bill. I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I am just pointing out that we have different standards whereby one Minister says that an area is a conservation area and a different Minister says that in another area it is fine for development to proceed. If that is not in some way linked to this bill Mr Speaker then perhaps I will talk to you after the debate and you can explain to me why that is so. 
There are several bits of land in this bill that will be disposed of that will have their legal title changed and that will have different outcomes for whatever it is they are required to have. Those lands are in no way different from the piece of land in Card Creek we are discussing now. Unless someone can explain to me why that is not so then I hold fast to the view that what we have here is no different in that regard. Five percent of one reserve on the West Coast is what we are talking about here. The West Coast is crying out for electricity and has to bring it in from right across the other side of the country. There are issues with transmission with efficiency and development on the West Coast. There is total inconsistency between what we are proposing in this bill and what the Minister of Conservation has denied the people of the West Coast with regard to the development of the Card Creek or Dobson dam development. 
We have an opportunity to generate 62 megawatts of electricity which is something the nation desperately needs. It is a totally renewable generation system—unlike coal gas or others being proposed by the Government. At this point in time the project is being denied the opportunity to go ahead because the Minister of Conservation says the land has a special designation yet there is no evidence that it is any different from the bits of land that are in this legislation. Therefore as far as he is concerned it will be treated differently. 
That is unacceptable. The Minister’s explanation needs to be better. The Minister—along with the member for the West Coast Damien O’Connor and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development Jim Anderton—needs to tell people on the West Coast why their development is being denied yet other developments are not. This bill would have been an opportunity for them to do. Why are they not allowing that development to proceed? I hear a deafening silence from the other side of the House. I am ever hopeful that there will be a speech from the other side of the House to explain it to us. 
Sixty megawatts at $150 million would be a major development for the West Coast. It would be very beneficial for the West Coast’s economic development and for New Zealand. As Mr Copeland said there is no logical reason why it should not go ahead. 
Bill read a second time.