Peters Jim: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Peters Jim: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17112] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 It is unfortunate that Part 5 has not already been incorporated into the Resource Management Act as it will be. If it had been then some of the erroneous comments that have already been made by various members of the Committee would have been seen in context. In that regard we should think about the comments made by Mr Fairbrother which place Part 5 in the straight Resource Management Act framework. If we do that the first thing that Opposition members ought to realise is that this so-called important provision in clause 74 which adds a paragraph to section 6 of the principal Act : “(g) the protection of recognised customary activities.” is only one matter of national importance under section 6 in Part 2. There is no hierarchy. There is no ranking order under Part 2. They are all matters of national importance. Case law will say that over and over again and it has said so. Regional plans district plans and other plans say just that and to imply that part of this bill selectively elevates this matter to a height that the other matters of national importance do not have is misleading. It is mischievous to make that assumption.  
If one does that then one can move very very quickly to the matter of the so-called veto which has been mentioned by various Opposition members. If those members present had read the bill and carefully read the so-called veto clause clause 93 which inserts new sections 107A to 107D they would see as Local Government New Zealand said a good set of criteria to guide decision making.  
Secondly that final decision does not constitute a veto because that decision does the following. First of all it goes through provision by provision. If we look very carefully at section 107A(2) we see the matters that the relevant authority must look at. It must consider the effects the area the degree to which the recognised customary activity must be carried out to the exclusion of other activities whether that customary activity can be exercised only in a particular area and whether it can be mitigated. In other words at the end of those considerable paragraphs (a) to (g) an authority considering the percentage— 
Phil Heatley 
: This man was a regional councillor. 
JIM PETERS 
:—that is right—and a regional council hearings committee or a district council committee would be doing just that. They would make a decision that if there were no longer any significant adverse effect—[ 
Interruption 
] After consideration of each of the items listed there a final decision would be made by the consent authority. Where is the veto that has been mentioned by Mr Hide? Where is the veto that has been mentioned by other members? In actual fact there is no such veto there implied or in any other way.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Of course there’s subsection (1). 
JIM PETERS 
: I say to the Hon Dr Smith that when one reads it one takes in the context of the provision relating to matters of national importance and one then takes the application that is before the hearings committee and carefully and selectively works through the criteria set there. That committee exhibiting balance will finally consider and make a decision. There is no implied veto. There is no alternative other than a proper and considerate decision being made. [ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Heatley were the applicant it could be made on his behalf the same as it could on anyone else’s behalf. It ill behoves members to come to this Chamber to go through the National Party’s 1991 Resource Management Act and to say otherwise.  
The other part of this bill that is highly significant is this: the select committee heard representations made by various national concerns and bodies particularly with regard to the vision of certain infrastructure and related operations. I am very pleased to say that the alarmist fears that were heard around the country and retailed over and over again about reclamations port operation and utilities not being able to go about their tasks were never ever realised.  
In actual fact if members concerned look very carefully at the whole of proposed new section 107B they will see the guidance the direction and the clarity. What does it say? It says contrary to the alarmist fears that were aired by certain members of this Committee that whether in Northland or Southland Timaru or Bluff this applies: “(2) In this section infrastructure work and its associated operations is limited to any infrastructure works and associated operations that are owned operated or carried out by 1 or more of the following:”. And who are they? They include the Crown a local authority a network utility operator and an electricity generator. I can recall numerous comments made by members of the National Party about Transpower and other utilities that would be severely compromised by this bill. In actual fact they even implied that wholesale government would stop.  
What does this provision state? It includes a port company or a port operator as defined by section 65OJ which covers one or two such as Northport and the Maritime Safety Authority. All those bodies will be able to carry on exactly as they did yesterday. If they have a work that has been planned and that has gone to the first consent stage they will be able to carry on as they did yesterday. In other words as the Rt Hon Winston Peters has already said very clearly what was there yesterday will be there tomorrow just as we knew it would be. The limitations are those that are considerably exercised in law and which are clearly outlined here.  
So my advice to members of the Opposition is please to read if only for the first time the language of the bill and then come to the Chamber and make their statements in the full light of the bill. They will be able to talk not about the past the present or something imagined but about the strict and express language that this bill uses. That strict express language will enable development to take place as it did yesterday. It will enable each one of those bodies to carry through. I am very pleased to acknowledge that New Zealand First has helped to make that possible. In other words this party supports commercial development. It supports the development of an infrastructure. This express provision allows just that to continue as it did yesterday and as it will do today and tomorrow.