Smith Nick: General Debates 
Smith Nick: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4429] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know how effective the leader of the Opposition is being when every single Labour member chooses to attack him personally in the general debate. This afternoon I want to address the real issue facing the people of New Zealand which is the energy crisis and the complete failure of the Government to take the issue seriously and to do anything about it. Regardless of whether we have a market or State model the real issue is how we get more generation. As my colleague Mr Gerry Brownlee has pointed out if it is with regard to thermal energy the Government says “No” because of the Kyoto Protocol. When it comes to hydro energy the Government says: “No we have to protect the gorse.” 
It does not matter what it is the Government does not want to have new generation and that will have huge impacts on New Zealand’s growth and wealth. The single greatest barrier to meeting this country’s electricity challenge is the Resource Management Act. I was holding out in the hope that we might see some sensible reform but instead we saw one of the biggest con jobs that I have seen in a long time which will do huge damage. 
I want to challenge the United Future party today. The United Future party in its manifesto said it would be pushing for changes to the Resource Management Act. United Future members told us last week in the House that they had had a big score—a big hit because they had got two big changes to the Resource Management Act. Well it was a fraud. Let me tell members why. The Local Government and Environment Committee was briefed on the bill and I will read out to members what that written briefing stated: “The two key changes in the bill with respect to limited notification and appeals ... the Cabinet directed the drafting instructions in October 2001.” If those were the big hits that the United Future party achieved with regard to the Resource Management Act well we must have retrospective hindsight because the United Future party is claiming credit for them. Even Marian Hobbs stood in the House and told us that those were the big concessions to the United Future party. How come the instructions were given for drafting 9 months before the United Future party even entered into a relationship with the Government? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that true? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is true. This matter is serious. If we are to address the economic loss of a billion dollars a year caused by the traffic congestion in Auckland we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to have new generation stations for electricity we have to fix the Resource Management Act. If we are to be able to irrigate the lands that are currently suffering from drought we have to fix the Resource Management Act. I say to United Future members that they have sold out on the New Zealand economy. They have sold out on the farmers on the workers at Tiwai Point and on the workers at the steel mill in south Auckland because the changes they have made to the Resource Management Act take us backwards. 
I refer to Owen McShane. He put out a paper yesterday on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in which he said that this bill was the single greatest challenge to and undermining of private property rights in the history of New Zealand. The United Future party proudly says in its manifesto on its website that it is here to stand up for private property rights. Last week its members voted for a bill that an expert on resource management says is the biggest undermining of private property rights in the history of New Zealand. I say to United Future members that it is not good enough. They should find their backbone because they will have support from ACT from New Zealand First and from National to get some decent changes to the Resource Management Act. Otherwise the consequences for this country are so serious. They are so serious in terms of energy in terms of roading and in terms of every possible respect of the New Zealand economy. I say to United Future members that they should live up to what they said to the electors or face political oblivion. It is as simple as that. They cannot say one thing to the electors at election time and another thing last week in the Parliament then find in the official documents that it is all an exercise in political sophistry. 
I challenge the next Labour member to say how come what the Minister says is different from what the officials tell the select committee. Stop telling porkies. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member well knows that he cannot use that last word. He will stand withdraw and apologise. That particular phrase was ruled out of order by the Speaker last week. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek the leave of the House to table the official advice given to the Local Government and Environment Committee noting that all the changes to the Resource Management Act were agreed by Cabinet in October 2001. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.