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:22310] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak in regard to new clause 90AA in Supplementary Order Paper 389. New Zealand First does not have regard for the opinions already expressed with regard to the Waitaki catchment. Our party gave firm support to the Waitaki Catchment Board being established. We have faith in that board. We have followed very closely day by day the submissions made to that board and the time frame that is set is one with which we concur and we concur with the insertion here of the provisions that relate to the implementation of that plan. 
 We know contrary to the belief outside that should there be concern on the part of any of the local authorities they have the right of appeal. That is not generally understood because there is a widespread feeling and myth being perpetuated out in the community that this board’s finding is absolute. It is not. In actual fact all local authorities have the right of appeal before the final plan becomes part of Environment Canterbury’s regional water plan. In actual fact anyone who has studied the Waitaki catchment and the valley past and present and the need for water will understand exactly why this Waitaki board plan was a sound move. 
We in New Zealand First hope that this will set a new regime for water flow and a new regime for rivers and that it will be a model as we stated during the debate. So we earnestly support this part. It is the one part although we do not support the Supplementary Order Paper and the rest of the bill that we can relate to. 
I come back very quickly to another matter. I said this earlier and I want to reiterate it. Unlike other members we see provisions in Part II of the principal Act relating to Maori. We will be looking for further explanation in a reviewed Act as to what sections 6(e) and 7(a) actually mean. We do not concur with the opinions that have just been expressed by other parties in this Committee. We are very conscious of the fact that as far as we are concerned we agree with Dame Anne Salmond—it is a basic fact that Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. They forged a unique society before other settlers arrived and they in turn with regard to Maori language arts marae and tribal histories have a real part in our present and are part of our past and our future. They exist nowhere else in the world and they help to define what is special about our country. 
That is the New Zealand First stance but having said that if that were implicit in Part 2 in an expanded form there would be no need for the issue of co-management. That introduces another element altogether. That is an element in this revised bill that we do not concur with because that takes us into another realm and it is nothing more as far as most rate payers are concerned than a recipe for uncertainty. The bill should have clarity. This creates uncertainty with regard to issues place by place and region by region and with that part we do not concur.