Carter John: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5527] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat has misled the Committee because what she neglected to tell the Committee was this. Simon Upton certainly did introduce the Resource Management Amendment Bill—there is no question about that. But then there was a change of Government. The Minister who was then in charge of the legislation—I understand it was Helen Clark but I can be corrected on that—introduced new parts into the bill after the public submissions had closed that introduced things such as ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and spiritual values. 
The point is this: the problem with that member’s contribution was that she tended to suggest that the public has had the opportunity to have an input on those issues. That is not so and the member knows that. The member should have said to the Committee that while there certainly were public submissions nobody from the public had an opportunity to make his or her point on those sorts of issues. When the member said no concern was expressed that is true because the public did not have an opportunity to express concern. Was there concern expressed? Yes. Opposition members of the committee certainly expressed concern. But what happened then? The bill lay around on the Table of the House for about 2 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was 100 weeks. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It lay about for 100 weeks until such time as the Government decided that the best thing it could do was to discard that bill jam its provisions down into this two-part bill call it the Resource Management Act Amendment Bill (No 2) and ram it through without submissions. There would have been no public submissions had my colleague Nick Smith not taken the initiative to say that if the proper select committee would not hold a hearing National ACT and New Zealand First would hear submissions from the public. He said that because we thought the public should be able to make a contribution—and they did. 
I will draw one submission to members’ attention: that from Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy is a State-owned enterprise—and does the word “energy” ring a bell with anybody? Let me tell the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs one or two things that Meridian Energy said. The Minister is nodding. There may be one or two people at home listening to this debate on their crystal sets who would like to know what Meridian Energy said as well. Meridian Energy said for example that it was worried that national environmental standards would unintentionally frustrate the Local Government and Environment Committee’s emphasis on providing increased certainty to resource users. That sure as hell does not sound very helpful to people in Northland let alone to those in the rest of New Zealand. Meridian Energy did not know what clause 18 meant and was uncertain as to its effect. It went on to say that consent-holders would be undermined by the lack of certainty. 
Who said that? Meridian Energy said it. What is Meridian Energy? It is a State-owned enterprise. What does it provide? It provides power for hot water for showers and for us to have the lights on with no blackouts. Meridian Energy went on to comment that the requirement to review consent conditions would cause problems and increase uncertainty. It had other technical concerns with the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy provisions and had several concerns about technical uncertainties. Why did it keep using that word? Did the Minister consult Meridian Energy? Let us go on. Regarding clause 54 Meridian said “We do not agree with this proposal.” That comment is from the State-owned electricity generator which provides lights power and hot water. 
Brian Connell 
: Who is the Minister? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I think it is someone called “Pistol Pete” Hodgson. Meridian Energy said it did not agree with clauses 7 61 and 63. It said that clause 67 does not provide a remedy and it did not agree with clause 11.