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:22327] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The leader of New Zealand First often refers to “two tired old parties”. That exchange first of all by Dr Nick Smith and then the response from the Minister brings every use of that phrase to mind. I have been familiar with this Act since it was passed in 1991. When I hear Dr Smith making those very passionate comments I think of the period between 1991 to 1999 when I saw one guiding step from the Government—namely a coastal policy statement. Not one other item of real guidance went to councils throughout the country who basically had to find their way through the planning stages from 1991 to 1999. It is no wonder therefore that many councils although they are sympathetic to the present suggestions in this bill are also very well aware as I have already mentioned of the high cost in terms of funding staffing time and even more important the community input that produced their plans. As has already been said although the councils have been under the auspices of Local Government New Zealand generally sympathetic to this bill in other ways they have reservations about how it will impact on the community. 
For a Government that has prided itself as it did during the passing of the Local Government Act 2002 on a high level of advocacy with regard to consultation and that has talked about expanding the role of councils—I believe unwisely—so that they are now all things to all people at a high cost to their ratepayers to now come to the Chamber and suggest that it has adopted a different path is rather unseemly. I too recall coming to this Chamber in 2002 and seeing a truncated attempt by the present Government with regard to the reforms advocated by Simon Upton. It was very very strange as I observed in the first reading debate to come back and see how many of those ideas are inherent in this bill but never acknowledged. Instead we still have no real acknowledgment of much of the genesis of the ideas that are being expressed in this bill. 
I know that many councils are friendly toward this bill and the suggested changes. They have yet to see the real teeth with regard to policy statements and national standards which I have no doubt will be superimposed on what I have already stated as being a command and control approach to these matters. I would have hoped that for once in the course of this debate there would be a reasonable explanation by the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope as to what the Government’s intention really was in bringing this bill into the House. I see it as being not much different from that envisaged by Simon Upton in 1999. 
I say on behalf of New Zealand First that we do not support this bill. We recognise again the excellent work done by the Local Government and Environment Committee and the people who were involved in advising it but this bill is not the answer. The time for change is yet ahead and I look forward to being part of that process after the next election.