Dunne Peter: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 21 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:39. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future):Mr Assistant Speaker may I at the outset congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your election to your respective roles for this Parliament. You are a rather unique breed. I think yours are the only positions in Parliament that are elected by the entire Parliament and that enjoy the support of the entire Parliament. As a consequence there are certain expectations that members have of you which I am sure will not be disappointed over the next 3 years.Can I also extend a welcome to all of the new members who have joined us for this 51st Parliament. I know that many of you will be still in that state of excitement about what lies ahead—and the more immediate panic of preparing for your maiden speech and I can understand why given the two fine examples we have already heard today—and also that broader sense of purpose and commitment to the people on whose behalf you were elected. I wish you all well. I look forward to hearing your contributions and to working with you during the term of this Parliament.Earlier today we witnessed the formal State Opening conducted by His Excellency the Rt Hon Lieutenant General Sir Jerry Mateparae our Governor-General. I think that he and Lady Mateparae serve us particularly well in the viceregal role. I am very proud to be able to refer to them as our de facto heads of State. I look forward to the day when we can have a genuinely New Zealand head of State and when the oath of allegiance that we take at the start of Parliament is one to New Zealand and its people not the antiquated form that we have at the moment.I think the process that the Prime Minister has initiated regarding a debate around the flag is perhaps the start of a wider discussion about the future structure and constitutional direction of this country. Frankly I think that New Zealanders are ready for that discussion. It is long overdue. It is a mark of our reflection and our maturity and I believe that it is one that we are well capable of conducting in a measured responsible and ultimately successful way for our future. It will be a determinant of the type of nation that we want to become. Our diversity has grown dramatically in the last quarter of a century. The old norms are being challenged constantly and to keep our country relevant to the generations now and in the future we need to be prepared to consider change and that change will be significant.United Future has entered into its third confidence and supply agreement with a National-led Government following on from two earlier confidence and supply agreements with Labour when it was in office. During each of those processes there has been the opportunity to support some Government measures and to oppose those that are seen as inappropriate. That will be the pattern during the 3 years ahead. Although I would expect to vote for a significant part of the Government’s legislative programme there will be matters that will draw some criticism from time to time and a contrary vote.If I can refer to the speech delivered earlier today there were a couple of matters raised there that I want to comment upon a little further this afternoon. The first relates to changes to the Resource Management Act. Ever since its introduction in 1990 the Resource Management Act has been a talisman for opposition from a range of quarters who do not understand its fundamental purpose. They do not recall that prior to the passage of that Act planning legislation in New Zealand was found in some 54 different pieces of often contradictory legislation. What the Resource Management Act sought to do was bring all of those provisions together in one place and set an environmental baseline upon which decisions could be made regarding development opportunities for the future.I think that one of the grave tragedies with the Resource Management Act was that the great New Zealand tradition prevailed and it was launched in a vacuum. A change of Government had occurred and the new Government was not as committed to the legislation as the previous Government. As a consequence a lot of the preparatory work in terms of the preparation of national policy statements etc. did not take place. But that is not an excuse to now come and say that to make the Act more relevant to today’s situation we will gut its principles altogether. No one argues that there is not a case for streamlining the procedures of the legislation and no one argues that there is not a need to address issues such as the provision of housing but they can be accommodated without amending Part 2 of the legislation—clauses 6 and 7 in particular.If the Government wants to proceed on the basis of making those necessary process changes it will have my full and loyal support. But I will not support legislation that weakens or significantly changes the provisions of Part 2 because they fundamentally remove the whole basis on which the legislation has been founded and operated. They remove 20 years of case law. They set us back to the days prior to 1990 and 1991 when we had a convoluted difficult confusing planning environment that was driven largely out of the old Town and Country Planning Act 1928. Anyone who sits and rationally looks at the situation says one thing: we do not want to go back there.We have the chance with this legislation to actually ensure that we address the issues that need to be addressed. After all a quarter of a century later many of the processes will have changed simply because of the change in technological procedure and it is appropriate to tidy those up. But it is not appropriate to throw out the principles on which the legislation hailed as groundbreaking at the time was founded. I hope that the Prime Minister’s announcement a couple of weeks ago that indicated a little bit of movement perhaps is carried through and I am looking forward to discussions with the Minister for the Environment on those matters. I think there is a reasonable compromise available that will allow the Government to maintain its objectives but also keeps in place the principles under which the Resource Management Act operates.The second issue that the Speech from the Throne referred to today was the international situation regarding terrorism and the need for a review of New Zealand’s privacy legislation. The two are not immediately related although there is a tangential connection. Like everyone else in this House I am not in any way impressed by tolerant of or supportive of the activities of the Islamic State. I cannot believe the barbarism the cruelty and the crudity of a lot of its actions. I think that the world does need to take positive steps to ensure that the spread of that virus if you like is contained. But we need to be careful as we do so that we do not compromise unreasonably the privacy of our own citizens and that we do not use the opportunity as one to strengthen other intelligence-sharing relationships that we might have amongst international partners. This is a very specific and very serious situation but it occurs against a backdrop around the world where the whole issue of the protection of personal privacy and communication is becoming far more pronounced. When you see details emerging about the type of information that telecommunications companies have for instance and that large entities like major companies have and are sharing often without protection day by day then the issue becomes more pressing.This Parliament was elected to work our way steadily through those issues with a measure of good judgment and balance. I think on reflection that the speech we heard this morning delivers that in large measure but the challenge for this Parliament as it starts to come to grips with the issues will be to ensure that we do not get carried away by the immediacy of a crisis and end up doing things or restraining people’s activities in ways that we will regret later on. That is a fundamental principle on which a liberal democracy is founded—the protection of the rights of the individual the upholding of the prerogatives of the State and ensuring the maintenance of balance between them. I look forward to working in this Parliament as we seek to achieve those goals.