Brown Peter: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17983] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me make New Zealand First’s position clear from the outset. We will support the Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill going to a select committee but that does not mean to say we agree with everything in it. In fact we have some major reservations. The United Future member who is sitting there admitted that his fingerprints are all over the bill. He claimed credit for it and then at the end of his speech he said there will have to be some significant amendments to it. I ask that member why we are debating a bill under urgency before Christmas when he could have had 6 weeks to sort it out and we could have put it through the House—hopefully 100 percent correct—very firmly and quickly in February. It is an absolute disgrace for a member to stand up and claim credit for legislation then say that it needs some adjustment and will have to have major amendments at the same time as we are debating it under urgency so that we can push it through before Christmas. 
I believe that every party in the House wants to address some of the concerns of the Resource Management Act. That is why we are a little bit mystified by the National Party and certainly by ACT. I listened very carefully to Mr Eckhoff. In 10 minutes he told us everything that was wrong with the Resource Management Act as it is and he made a very good job of it. I say to Mr Eckhoff that here is an opportunity to sort it out. But before he sat down he said he would oppose the bill. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The bill is a lemon! 
PETER BROWN 
: I know that the former Minister keeps close scrutiny on resource management problems. I say to him that this is an opportunity to address those concerns. He raised an interesting issue—an issue that I could not believe occurred. People in Queenstown have to get a resource consent for hiring out their houses. Did I hear the member correctly? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And for less than 3 months. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is even worse. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And David Parker supports it! 
PETER BROWN 
: That is outrageous. It is so outrageous that I found a clause in the bill that may or may not deal with it and hopefully will. Clause 33 inserts new section 75 “Contents of district plans” which states: “(1) A district plan must state—(a) the policies for the district;”. So the council will have to outline the fact that it charges people a fee to get a consent if they hire their houses out for less than 3 months. Then as set out in subsection (2) it will have to supply “(b) the objectives that the plan seeks to achieve;”. That is quite simple. Queenstown obviously wants to get more money! That is the only reason. The council will have to state that. 
Then the council will have to supply “(d) the principal reasons for adopting the policies and methods;”. That is quite clear. They want to rip off their local constituents. Then the council will have to supply “(e) the environmental results expected from the policies and the methods;”. They will have a hard time justifying that. Then it will have to supply “(f) the procedures for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of the policies and methods;”. The council will have to send the smoke-free inspectors down in their spare time to check whether the people who have hired the house are still there. 
Subsection (3) states: “a district plan must give effect to—(a) any national policy statement;”. I say seriously to the House that if we cannot get a national policy statement that does not require people who hire their houses out for less than 3 months having to get a resource management understanding then it is a disgrace. We are turning this country into a police State. 
We must get the Resource Management Act correct. The delays and hold-ups due to resource management problems cause all sorts of concerns not only to investors developers landowners and property owners but to the average Joe Blow. People want certainty. They also want fairness and simplicity so that they can understand what it is all about and the procedures they have to go through. Further to that they want transparency and speed. They want the issues handled fairly speedily transparently and in a manner that is easily understood. I ask Mr Baldock whether this bill will do that. I doubt it. He is nodding his head; he thinks it will. I will give the member a little bit of credit—the bill will go some way. But if he had taken a little longer and consulted a bit more widely in Parliament he might have got it right. My colleague Jim Peters probably knows more about the Resource Management Act than anybody in Parliament. He will be on the select committee and will sort it out. 
I ask the honourable member why he did not spend a bit more time on the bill. There is an old saying: “More haste less speed.” If this bill had been presented to the House in a form that would deliver the whole thing National members would have supported it would they not? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was promised in September. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was promised in September. [ 
Interruption 
] We have it in December and members are all admitting that it is not correct. United Future members are admitting that it has to be significantly amended. 
Part 2 which has only three clauses amends the Electricity Act. Basically that will allow access for higher-powered structures on the roading corridor. I do not know whether that is desirable. I know the arguments for—some say it will deliver power more cheaply and effectively. But there are many arguments against it. New Zealand First welcomes this bill going to the select committee so that we can hear the arguments for and against. I remind this Government that the electricity industry in this country needs some attention. The Government has made two attempts to address the issues and it does not yet have it right. We should be aiming to guarantee security of supply. 
Will the Government say whether its recent legislation will do that? I do not hear any wild shouts of confidence. We also need greater investment in electricity in this country. Will that little part in the bill achieve that? Will the current legislation achieve that? I doubt it. People want electricity prices that are fair reasonable and sustainable. We have volatile prices. Is that likely to change? No it is not. 
As I said New Zealand First supports this bill in its entirety going to the select committee. By reading through the bill quickly I can see that my colleague will be working day and night to give the select committee the sound advice it needs to amend it. I concede that there are some points of merit in it but many clauses need to be addressed positively in the interests of all New Zealanders. [ 
Interruption 
] The honourable member said something that I did not quite catch but I tell him that he has had his day in the sun with this bill. If this is the best he can come up with he has a C. 
Shane Ardern 
: A C-. 
PETER BROWN 
: A C-. It will rest heavily on the shoulders of New Zealand First—principally my colleague Jim Peters—to sort this out. If he does not sort this out or is prohibited from doing so at the select committee then New Zealand First will not support the progress of this bill. But we will support it going to the select committee so that people can come and have their say. Let us sincerely hope that between us we can make a better job than we have had thus far.