Wong Pansy: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22311] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I rushed down to the Chamber because I could not believe the comments made by the outgoing member for Otago David Parker—and I say that because Jacqui Dean from National is doing an extremely good job there. Earlier David Parker told the House that there was no abuse and no blackmail and that no money changed hands under the Resource Management Act. I thought that it is no wonder the Labour Party is totally out of touch. 
I will give a real-life example to Mr David Parker and then he can go back to Queenstown and understand why people there think their MP is totally out of touch. We have had a case in Christchurch concerning a motel developer at 160 Riccarton Road. He bought a piece of land and started to develop a motel. The neighbour objected and we thought that was fair enough because it is understood that that process exists under the resource consent process. But I want to read a quote from a letter from the objector’s lawyer to the motel developer’s lawyer: “We are however ready to entertain the prospect of a compromise provided that your client undertake to postpone the commencement of his building operation until the end of February 2004 and pay the sum of $7500 as a compensatory payment for the significant disturbance for the remaining period of our tenure the costs we have incurred and our time.” There is more: “If on the other hand your client would prefer to be free to build immediately and is prepared to recognise the greater value to him and to compensate for the greater cost and loss to us then we will be prepared to withdraw the appeal without condition on payment of $22500.” Well! And Mr David Parker says that those sorts of things do not happen under the current Act! 
The best part of the story is that the motel developer refused to pay up. The objector drew out the hearings process by objecting to one of the panel members former city councillor Charles Manning. He objected to him and kept on filing papers to delay the hearings process. Eventually a week before the hearing was about to take place the objector withdrew his objection without getting any of the compensation demanded. But that had caused the motel developer a 12-month delay. We have to ask why anybody in New Zealand would consider going through with building a factory or whatever the project is when all an objector has to do is to put in an objection and the other people then suffer. 
This amendment bill is still a compromise. I am extremely disappointed to hear from United Future’s Larry Baldock who is prepared to compromise and be a doormat. It is no wonder that United Future as low as it is in the polls. The United Future members came in here after supposedly making a promise to stand up for their supporters demand a high standard and demand the ideal solution. Who actually says that Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope should not be subject to the scrutiny of the Local Government and Environment Committee although the need for that is pointed out by our most hard-working member the Hon Nick Smith? Significant changes are included in that Supplementary Order Paper and even the Minister eventually and reluctantly took a call to briefly explain the Supplementary Order Paper. I think its tabling shows a complete disrespect for the rights of the select committee to properly scrutinise legislation. That Supplementary Order Paper is totally unacceptable. 
I hope the outgoing member for Otago has listened to the case I have outlined and will not now stand up and insist that things like that do not happen.