Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22312] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The first thing I will respond to is the misquote that the previous speaker attributed to me. Finer arguments are often missed by her and she missed one on this occasion as well. I did not deny that there is a history of stand-over tactics on occasions by objectors who use the position of their objections to try to extract some promise from applicants in order to secure the removal of their objections. I did not deny that. What I said was that the way we remedy that in this bill is to make it absolutely clear that no one has an obligation to consult anyone in relation to a consent application. 
Sandra Goudie would go further. She would have us say that Maori do not have a right to be consulted in relation to plans—a position that is absolutely irreconcilable with National’s own legislation the Nga Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act was passed by a National Government and gives absolutely express statutory recognition to a promise made by the then National Government that it would consult Nga Tahu in respect of plans for the South Island. What cant we are hearing from that inconsistent National Party today! 
The next issue—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that hurts those members: the fact that I stand here representing the formerly true blue seat of Otago must be like a burr under the saddle for all those old hacks in National. All I can say is: “Look forward to another 3 years of it!” It was no accident that I overturned the many-thousands vote majority of the previous National Party spokesperson on agriculture. My constituents in the Otago electorate made a reasoned decision— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is not relevant to the issues that arise in this debate on Part 1. We do not want a recitation of that man’s successes and failures. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that this matter has been put into the debate by National members. They cannot now deny its relevance having first put the issue into the debate. 
Brian Connell 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. I am going to rule on the point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: I just wanted to make a contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. Members all know that there have been numerous references—I think it is the time of the week the end of the term or something to do with something else. Maybe it is in the water but certainly they have been general throughout this debate. 
DAVID PARKER 
: They do not like the situation do they? But they have it and I am here to stay. 
Let us just reflect on the Waitaki legislation. Why is it that the National Party is so out of step with every newspaper in the Otago electorate? It is because they have flip-flopped so many times on that issue. Within this term of Parliament Gerry Brownlee National’s deputy leader has called for the Government to wipe aside resource management constraints and push through Project Aqua—as the National Government did with the Clyde Dam. 
Some months later in Oamaru Dr Brash said: “Oh no we don’t need that. What we need is a board-of-inquiry approach.” What did the Government do? The Government actually agreed with that. We set up a board-of-inquiry approach chaired by a judge in order to apply Resource Management Act principles independently. 
What was National’s response to that? It claimed that we were trying to “think big” Project Aqua. That was strange. Project Aqua was pulled and what was the National Party’s response then? All of a sudden an independent board-of-inquiry approach was wrong and National members were saying that if they did not like the result they would overturn it. What would they do? What is that code for? They would “think big” Project Aqua; that is what that code is for. National would impose a central government decision rather than a proper principled Resource Management Act decision chaired by a judge. 
What is the latest bit of cant? It is a Supplementary Order Paper by Dr Smith calling for more time for submissions to be heard in respect of the Waitaki legislation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has just said that that is right. He should read this morning’s  
Otago Daily Times 
. The hearings have finished; everyone who wanted to be heard has been heard. The hearings are finished and now that board has 2 months to write its decision. What absolute sophistry we are getting from the National Party on those issues; it is ridiculous! 
In relation to the other suggestion that the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper is full of new ideas I tell members that I actually sat through all the submissions I read the bill and I know about the issues. There is only one issue in that Supplementary Order Paper that was not considered by us at the select committee and it relates to aquaculture. That is the only issue. If those National members cannot get their heads around that now it really shows the lamentable lack of intellect on that side of the Chamber.