Peters Jim: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
Peters Jim: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Readings 
[Volume:627;Page:22338] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 5) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3). I begin by going back to the policy that we looked at early last year as we thought about the changes that were needed to the Resource Management Act. We noted then that the Act in 1991 was designed to promote sustainability when managing economic development in relation to our resources. But after 13 years we thought last year that the Act required provisions to improve processes and procedures to reduce compliance costs to clarify the expectations that people had of the system and most of all to make certain that there was progress yet protection for our resources. To some degree I rise to support the fact that much of that is achieved in the legislation before the House. 
But I do not come to the House as one who thinks the Resource Management Act has never ever worked. In Northland right now as we speak there is an application by Mighty River Power for a coal-fired station. The application by the way has had a response from the community of 3200 submissions. A panel was appointed and it went as far afield as Perth in regard to gaining the skills and expertise needed to hear the application. The joint hearing is on behalf of the Whangarei District Council and the Northland Regional Council. The Minister for the Environment has agreed that the staff have the expertise and the ability to handle such a project. As I said the hearing is now in progress. No doubt when the decision is made there will be an appeal to the Environment Court. 
That is the system that we know; that is the Resource Management Act operating today and working. When I hear the calls I have heard during the course of this debate and elsewhere that the Act is responsible for so much that is not happening I cringe because it is not the reality. We all know that every major development project in this country not least the one to develop Transmission Gully or an eastern highway here requires adequate planning sequential phasing and funding and that the consent process under the Resource Management Act is but one part. The National Party’s stance is to take no responsibility whatsoever. That party was in Government between 1991 and 1999 and it did not undertake any significant major development in that time in regard to either land transport or energy yet it now has the gall to come here and in speech after speech express concern about the fact that nothing has been done. That is indicative of what the Rt Hon Winston Peters always says—that National is but a tired old party somewhat renewed in the past 6 years but not much different. 
When I think of the present Government’s response to some of these matters at this very late stage just before the election when it is trying to cobble together something of a development phase to please some of its recently acquired supporters—no doubt party funders—again I cringe to think that so much time has been wasted and so much has yet to be achieved. 
So far as New Zealand First is concerned we saw the original bill as an opportunity to catch up on some of the issues we know are inherent in the Act in regard to processes and making decisions. We were surprised as we have already expressed at how many of the submitters who came to us particularly those from councils and the legal profession were relatively satisfied with the Act and were looking for major change in regard to the first bill which we saw back in December of last year. As I have already mentioned the Local Government and Environment Committee went ahead and took out much of that bill. The final legislation that we are looking at now despite the late call on the Supplementary Order Paper is remarkably better than what we saw at the start. We acknowledge that the issue mentioned by other speakers in relation to increases in staffing and funding for the Environment Court has had a very good result in terms of reduced time for appeals. That has all been acknowledged. 
But for New Zealand First’s part I still find it very interesting that the policy statements and the national standards remain largely undefined. That is a substantial reason why we find it very hard to support this revised and improved legislation. We do not have in it an explanation of what is national interest nor do we have a clear indication of who should be heard in various matters. As we were told in Hamilton and other places there does appear to be a belief in various parts of the legislation particularly in regard to the supposed vexatious and frivolous submitter that natural justice ought not to prevail. I have here a comment made by Megarry in 1971: “It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious’ they may say ‘why force everybody to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard?”—and this is the issue for this bill—“The result is obvious from the start.’ ” For us. we would always hope that there was a part for the battler the ordinary person in our society to have an unfettered and unobstructed path in regard to what happens in his or her community. At times that ability of the ordinary ratepayer the ordinary citizen to have that part seems to be almost lost. It is one feature that we found interesting. I agree with the co-leader of the Green Party that the rights that that person has still are not clearly defined. 
The other issue which I wish to conclude on is that we have heard much debate in this Chamber about the issues pertaining to Maori. I reaffirm on behalf of New Zealand First that in the future we would look at removing from the Resource Management Act reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but in no way would that denigrate sections 6 and 7 in Part II. We would expand them after a fuller discussion of what sustainable development would be. I go back to the fact that we acknowledge absolutely—which other parties do not appear to do—that Maori in this country authorised by the Treaty of Waitangi wholesale European settlement and that the treaty promised them that they and their possessions would be treated fairly and that Maori language arts tribal histories and so on which have remained different from the European equivalents would remain. Again I restate what Dame Anne Salmond said early last year: they exist nowhere else in the world and help define what is special about New Zealand. Any attempt in the Resource Management Act to move away from that position would be one that New Zealand First would not favour. 
In this country we have no option except to find common ground. Our task in this Parliament and in the community must be to build a successful country in which people are always able to find a common cause. We should always be mindful in our legislation of our heritage whether Maori Pakeha or other—all of whom have sought to become members of our country. We should share our pride in our shared heritage with Maori and others. That should be the mark of any rethinking or redevelopment in regard to Part II. Having said that I say that we look forward to the opportunity in the future to redevelop and look at Part II. We believe that the concept of sustainable development with all the values and ethical issues it has and most of all its emphasis upon the property rights of the occupier and the owner has been lost in the past in regard to this legislation and needs to be asserted. We look forward to seeing whether this legislation really works. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I am sorry to say that we do not support the legislation going any further but will watch with interest the way that it operates.