Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17973] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I realise that with a few short days to go until Christmas one should be filled with joie de vivre and the joy of Christmas and be charitable to all men— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: And women. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: —and women as the member points out. But to be charitable to David Benson-Pope over this bill is probably to go to the well too many times. I was stunned to hear the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act tell members that the Act was designed to protect the environment for future generations. I ask the Minister to read the Resource Management Act. It is about the sustainable development and management of our natural and physical resources. We have a Labour Minister in charge of the bill who really knows nothing about the whole process. 
The Resource Management Act has become known by virtually all resource users in this country as probably the most obnoxious Act that New Zealand has. Some of us held our breath in the vain hope that a review of the Resource Management Act would remove the nonsense from it. That has not happened. The vexatious objections will still occur on a constant basis. Nothing has been done about that at all. 
The Resource Management Act has ensured that no significant project has taken place in this country since it was passed back in 1991. I asked the Parliamentary Library to list for me the major projects of over half a billion dollars that have occurred since the Resource Management Act was passed. The answer was none. There has been not one project costing over half a billion dollars. I have to drag it out of my memory but there were only about five projects costing between about $100 million and $450 million. That is outrageous. I draw attention to the member for Otago’s speech in which he said it was remarkable that we have significant growth in this country. I think it is a huge credit to the productive sector that it has still managed to do a fantastic job of producing wealth for this country despite the Resource Management Act. 
This bill is really about recognising the need for the Government to fast track projects that it approves of. I am sure that members recall the Meridian Energy project down in the Waitaki Valley that fell over recently due to the Resource Management Act. There was little doubt that there would be claim counterclaim Environment Court hearings and appeals and that the project would be stopped. I do not know whether Project Aqua was needed but we most certainly do need power generation in this country. That proposal by Meridian Energy was stopped by the Resource Management Act and I am told that during this coming winter we can look forward to power cuts regardless of the state of the lakes in this country. So when people all get up to vote in the spring after having a cold shower they should remember who caused the problem—Helen Clark her Government and the Resource Management Act. 
Why is this bill before the House? I said a moment ago that it is for Government projects that need special treatment. It is not projects designed by businessmen from Southland to Northland that will be assisted by this bill; it will be the projects the Minister considers necessary to provide infrastructural benefits to this country. I am not opposed to that. I think the Resource Management Act should be fast tracked. I think projects of significance should be fast tracked. But then I also think a dairy farmer in Southland or a sawmiller in Northland should have his or her project fast tracked or given the same treatment that we will be giving—whether or not we like it—to all Government-approved projects. 
A pylon project in the North Island just came up recently. It is the big project that Transpower is undertaking through some of the best farmland in this country—and I say that as a South Islander which is saying something. I went through that area just recently and there is some magnificent country there. Frankly the thought of those—how do we describe them—awful Eiffel Towers going up through that pristine magnificent farmland fills me with abject horror. 
Having said that I recognise and my party certainly recognises that electricity is the lifeblood of this country. We have to do that project but my concern is really whether this bill will protect the rights of those landowners. With the infrastructural changes to their land will the aesthetic qualities and the natural environment of their land be enhanced and will they receive adequate compensation? The answer to that I am perfectly certain will absolutely be no. There will be no enhancement of the environment and the compensation will be a few paltry dollars that will pass but the towers will be there forever. The people will look out of their kitchen windows in the morning and see those towers that the Resource Management Act and the Labour Government have given them because the Government is putting through special legislation to drive those sorts of projects. That is called “special consultation”. I think we will see and have seen from the Resource Management Act selective consultation. We have seen self-interest driving the Resource Management Act. We have seen and will see more centralised control more ministerial discretion and more ministerial direction as a result of the bill being debated at this time. 
As a member of the farming community I am well aware of the need to ensure that our natural environment is cared for and protected and there needs to be some process to ensure that that does occur. But I want the same standard applied to the Government that the Government is demanding should be applied to Farmer Brown the sawmiller or any other person who is engaged in industry in this country. 
I have very very significant concerns and I warn the Government over a particular aspect of this bill that the select committee will no doubt consider—the allocation of natural resources especially around the allocation of water especially in the South Island. Let me tell this Government that if it wants demonstrations of a size that make the recent Maori land march the protest against the “fart tax” and even the Destiny Church’s protest outside Parliament appear to be all rolled into one and doubled it should start tinkering with water rights in the South Island and taking away the water rights of every farmer or landowner who has invested heavily in those rights. I warn this Government that it must be exceedingly careful of that aspect. I regret deeply that this bill is likely to go to a select committee.