Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22299] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want again on behalf of New Zealand First to register our dismay at the fact that the Minister for the Environment has been so cavalier in the treatment of Parliament that this morning was the first time we had the opportunity to see the considerable number of matters raised on Supplementary Order Paper 389. It reminds me of a memoir of the last days of the Attlee Labour Government that tells of a newspaper correspondent who went to see Mr Herbert Morrison and found a half-smoked soggy cigar—the emblem of a dying ministry. The rush and haste evident in that Supplementary Order Paper indicate something of the same sort of feeling across there on the other side of the Chamber. 
I particularly want to ask the Minister in the chair why at this late stage there are so many references to the coastal marine area. Why was the coastal marine area not subject to the consideration of the Local Government and Environment Committee or is there some truth to the rumour that this Government has a desire to embark upon mining expeditions up and down the west coast all the way from Kaipara down into the Taranaki Bight? Is that the reason why there suddenly appears for the first time and for no sound reason at this late stage reference to the coastal marine area to the Minister of Conservation and to their place in the whole matter of resource consents and planning? One questions why the committee was not subject to the same thinking that seems to be indicated there. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s answer as to why there is that late reference in more than one provision to the coastal marine area. It certainly would not have anything to do with the foreshore and seabed legislation; if it did we would want to know exactly what that was. 
Secondly I want to make very brief mention of the fact that in my earlier second reading speech on behalf of New Zealand First I did not mention a key factor—that is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. Unlike other parties in this Parliament New Zealand First members have high regard for on matters of national importance Maori traditions and culture being exactly and expressly spelt out. But we believe that the Treaty of Waitangi provision which was put there in 1991 by National which was not the subject of the review by the group who looked at this matter in 1998 and 1999 and which now seems to be the subject of some concern does not belong. Because of that I want to register now our concern— 
Phil Heatley 
: That’s not what the member says on marae. 
JIM PETERS 
: I beg your pardon; we say here exactly what we say everywhere else. That is unlike others I tell Mr Heatley who have a background of including Treaty of Waitangi principles in over 25 Acts passed by the National Party in its time in Government and who now wish to completely repudiate in an instant—in a flash; before lunchtime—all of those sections. New Zealand First is a party that knows what Maori mean to this country that knows their place in the culture and history of New Zealand and that is prepared to give every ability for that to be expressed in the right and proper manner in the Act. But I want us to go through those provisions in Part 1 that we believe elevate particularly with regard to co-management a concept that this party has no truck with.