Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill be now read a second time. I wish to report to the House that this bill has had its first reading and that it is just an omnibus bill, according to Standing Order 258(1)(d). Usually such a bill is regarded as a wash-up bill for non-controversial land-related matters that cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Those bills are enacted from time to time as sufficient matters arise. The last one was enacted in 1998.

This bill deals with four pieces of land located at Paparoa National Park, Gore, Port Chalmers, and Picton. Specifically, it provides, firstly, for the exclusion of a small section of land from the Paparoa National Park and declares it to be a road. The land has been part of the Paparoa National Park since 1987, but has been part of State Highway 6 since 1985. The second part of the bill is the removal of the status of “trust without power of sale” from certain land owned by the Gore District Council. That will allow the council to sell the land if it wishes to do so. Thirdly, the revocation of the reserve status of certain land at Port Chalmers should have been done before the land was sold into private ownership. Approval was given to revoke that reserve status in 1983, but it did not occur. Although the transfer of the land was legitimate, it was contrary to section 112 of the Reserves Act. Fourthly, the bill provides for the discharging of all trusts and endowments over three areas of land vested in the Marlborough District Council. That will allow for more efficient commercial use of the site.

I note that the Primary Production Committee has recommended no changes be made to the bill. I thank the committee and the officials for their efforts and their careful consideration of the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

The Minister, when reporting on the Primary Production Committee, declined to mention the very important submissions that were heard by the committee, because that would have exposed the quite distinct double standards of this Government around reserve lands. This bill is about reserves and other lands, and the changing of their status. Every member of this House will be aware that over this past winter there has been a power crisis—the second one during the term of this Government—yet the Government has refused point-blank to consider the very sensible hydro development project on the Arnold River in the community of Dobson on the West Coast.

The Minister of Conservation has said in this House that it is impossible to change the status of reserve lands. Well, hello, hello, here we have a bill that does just that. With this bill, we are to change the status of certain areas of reserve land so they can become road, can be sold, or can be used for commercial purposes. Members on the Opposition side of the House say that if it is possible to do that for roads, for commercial uses, and for the purposes of land being sold, then we should, in fact, allow the land in the ecological reserve at Card Creek to be considered for that hydro project.

I want to put into context just how important that particular project is. The communities of the West Coast, Marlborough, and Nelson are at the end of the wire in terms of power supply in the South Island, and have been particularly at risk. I have been advised by my own power company that we have had voltage outages that resulted in the failure of industrial equipment for the first time in 30 years in my home region. This project would enable the generation of 60 megawatts of electricity, thus making the West Coast of New Zealand self-sufficient in power. Not only would it be self-sufficient but it would be able to produce power that could be exported into the regions of Tasman, Nelson, and Marlborough. We have heard from the mayors of all those districts. They have pleaded with this Government to please allow this sensible project to be considered. We have had from the Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, nothing less than absolute rejection. There was not even the option of considering the use of the Card Creek ecological area—there was no consideration at all of that particular project. The select committee heard submissions from the Greymouth District Council. It asked the Government to please consider allowing that reserve land to be used for the hydro scheme. I want to give notice today that the National Opposition will move amendments during the Committee stage of this bill to make provision for that project.

I want to bring to the attention of the House just how small an area will enable the West Coast to be self-sufficient in sustainable electricity. The Card Creek ecological area is one of hundreds of reserves on the West Coast. The area we are talking about is 5 percent of one of those reserves. The question this House has to ask itself is whether we so selfish that we will decline the people of the West Coast the use of 5 percent of one of hundreds of reserves. That land totals 0.02 percent of the conservation land on the West Coast. The Government is saying that it will not even let the people of the West Coast use 0.02 percent of that land, in order to be self-sufficient in electricity.

This issue will be a real test of the member for West Coast – Tasman, as to where his loyalties lie. Is he one of those members who will simply sell out on his West Coast – Tasman electorate and vote down the provisions that are proposed? It is also very interesting that Jim Anderton, the Minister for Economic Development, told the people of the West Coast that he thought this was a good and successful project. Well, I have to say that the issue will get very interesting, because Gordon Copeland of the United Future party has said that he thinks the Dobson hydro project is a good, sensible proposition, and that he will be supporting our amendments. I understand also that the New Zealand First Party has said it will be supporting our amendments in that regard. If Damien O’Connor and Jim Anderton do what they say they will, then we will see those amendments passed and we will see common sense prevail.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: And ACT!

The ACT party, of course, has also indicated that it is in favour of the common-sense position. If the West Coast – Tasman MP and Jim Anderton stand by their word, then we will see some changes to the bill. I have to emphasise right now that those changes will not override the Resource Management Act. Of course, this project will have to go through that proper process, where the range of issues will be dealt with. But those changes open the door and allow that project to be considered.

I challenge members of the Government as to why they want to stop the West Coast being self-sufficient in electricity. I have been to the Card Creek area with my colleagues Bill English, Gerry Brownlee, and also, bless his soul, Shane Ardern—without his tractor. When we went and looked at that area we saw that the bulk of it is over 6 feet high in gorse. I want to challenge Government members by asking why we should want to protect a block of gorse when the lights may be going out. That does not seem to make much sense to me. So I challenge members opposite about the report on that project.

It is interesting to note that the Department of Conservation, in its report to the select committee, said that it did not think the Government should change the status of that land. Well, I bet it did. But that is not what the Standing Order states. If any member wants to refer to Standing Order 258(1)(d), he or she will see it makes the claim that reserves and other lands disposal legislation allows this Parliament to make a determination to change the status of any reserve. I have looked over the history of that legislation and have seen that over 260 different blocks of reserves in national parks had their status changed by such reserves and other lands disposal legislation.

I tell this House that we should apply common sense and allow that small area to be used for the hydro scheme. I would emphasise that the Greymouth District Council proposes to do a land swap that, if the hydro site is made available by this legislation, will see 700 hectares of Mount Buckley added in to the Card Creek ecological area. A consequence of this bill and the deal that would flow from it would see the Card Creek ecological area become larger, and there would be a net conservation benefit from that. So the provisions I am proposing make good conservation sense, good energy sense, and any kind of economic sense, and most of all, they make for common sense.

I look forward to contributions from the politically correct Labour Government as to what it has against the people of the West Coast, that it will not allow them to use 0.02 percent of West Coast conservation land for the purpose of being self-sufficient in electricity. I particularly wish to challenge the member for West Coast - Tasman to stand firm for his people, and not to sell out again to the political correctness that this Labour Government so often opts for.

I rise to support this bill.

I commend the Hon Nick Smith for the speech he has just delivered to this House. He is a former Minister of Conservation and one who I know has made a great contribution to conservation in this country. The issue is that this bill exposes this Government. This bill has found it out. Members will recall that the Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, said in this House that there was no way he could uplift the reserve status of Card Creek, to allow the power scheme on the West Coast that it so desperately needs to be proceeded with, and said that that would be a breach of the Conservation Act. He even misled the House and had to apologise, as members may recall, when he gave quotations that referred to Ngakawau, many, many miles away. He tried to deceive the House, was found out, and had to apologise to the House. The Labour Government has been caught out here. This bill is the mechanism whereby the reserve status of the land at Card Creek on the West Coast could be amended to let a very sensible scheme proceed.

The facts are that there is an existing power scheme on Arnold River, the adjacent catchment, which generates some 5 megawatts of electricity. It has been there for many decades, and the proposal of TrustPower, fully supported by West Coast local bodies and the community, was to create another dam on Card Creek, create a relatively small lake, and increase the power generation from 5 megawatts to 65 megawatts of much-needed electricity. The point is that the West Coast of the South Island has a prevailing wind and a very heavy, consistent rainfall. It is not like the dry eastern catchments of Lake Tekapo, Lake Pukaki, and the other catchments that feed our hydro schemes, because it is not subject to the risk of dry-flow years. So the Card Creek hydro scheme was very sensible. It would have made the West Coast—and I hope one day, with a change of Government, it still will make it—self-sufficient in power. Not only would the West Coast be self-sufficient but it would export electricity to other areas through the national grid. Moreover, there are two very tenuous transmission lines into the West Coast that need substantial investment in upgrading. That power scheme would have overcome the need to make that investment. In other words, that investment could have been made elsewhere in our electricity security. But this Government, through some form of crazy ideology, refused to let that scheme proceed.

We now have the mechanism in this bill that proves the falsehood of what the Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, told this House, whereby the status of reserve land can be changed. There are 260 examples of situations where the status of reserves has been changed for exactly such a purpose. As we know, the conservation lands on the West Coast take up 80 percent of the West Coast’s area. We are talking about 0.02 percent of that area, and will it be ruined for conservation purposes? No. There will be a nice mountain lake surrounded by bush, and for many people, and even in an ecological sense that area will end up with a mountain lake that adds to its conservation values. Over and above that, of course, the TrustPower project proposed an additional 200 hectares of Mount Buckley would go into reserve. The point has been made, and I repeat it, that there would have been a net conservation benefit. It would have been win-win. The country would have got the power, and the West Coast would have got its self-sufficiency in power. But no, that will not happen, because of this Government’s rhetoric and the refusal of the Minister of Conservation to make that amendment to the status of the land. This bill was the mechanism whereby that scheme could have been made possible. That it will not proceed is deeply regrettable, indeed.

Again, I repeat the politics of it. It is not too late. If Damien O’Connor, who tries to sit on the fence and say that he represents the West Coast, is true to his word—because he said he supported that hydro scheme—then he could vote for the amendments to the bill. I have a letter from Jim Anderton to the local people, stating that he supports the scheme and is working on his ministerial colleagues to try to get them to change their minds. If he is true to his word, he will vote for the amendments. That makes two members from the Government who will do so. I hope that United Future’s position is still the same as it was. Mr Copeland has been an absolute champion of this issue. He has asked parliamentary questions week after week. He sees the logic of the Dobson scheme, so I know that United Future supports it. National has indicated its support for the scheme, and ACT and New Zealand First champion it. The numbers are there, as long as Damien O’Connor and Jim Anderton are true to their word. And why would we expect otherwise? I believe them to be honourable members. They have said they support that scheme; here is their chance to support it.

That would be democracy in action. It would mean that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill would be used appropriately as a tool to amend the reserve status of that land at Card Creek. That is what the bill is for. A Supplementary Order Paper is before the House that I certainly support. I think the question is where Mr Anderton and Damien O’Connor are in our hour of need. Will they come to the House to support this bill, which will then have a majority in Parliament? A sensible solution with regard to this bill would then be found and TrustPower’s very important power scheme on the West Coast could proceed.

We know this country faced an electricity crisis earlier this year. We were lucky: the rains came, and the lakes filled. Yet I am advised that our hydro lakes are at half the capacity they should be at this time of the year, going into spring. The hydro lakes have not had the benefit of the rainfalls. I believe that this Government could well be facing another power crisis at the end of next summer, as we move into the uncertain autumn period.

The Government says it is against using our coal to generate electricity, because that breaches the Kyoto Protocol. But the Department of Conservation largely stops us from using our coal reserves—another problem on the West Coast, with regard to Pike River. The department has delayed that scheme for about 5 years, thus putting the Pike River coalfield development through incredible hurdles. I understand the department is now considering whether it will appeal the resource consents. The Environment Court studied that development and said that yes, it should go ahead. But the Department of Conservation is still holding it up. This Minister of Conservation will not do anything to facilitate that development, either. So the Government says that we cannot use our coal because of the Kyoto Protocol, but it is actually importing 600,000 tonnes of Indonesian coal through the Port of Tauranga, to feed the Huntly power station. We have no other option. With the Maui gasfield expiring in the next 2 years, and actually having smaller reserves than we anticipated a year ago, the only option for this country is to use coal.

💬 Shane Ardern: Or nuclear.

Or nuclear power, indeed, and that should be considered as an option. There are problems with that, I acknowledge, but it should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, we may chuckle, but we are the only country in the world that, through some form of crazy rhetoric, will not even consider the option of nuclear power.

So we are not going to use coal to generate electricity, and this Government is stopping us from using a prime catchment in a very reliable rainfall area like the West Coast, where an existing hydro scheme can be expanded from 6 megawatts to 65 megawatts with minimal disruption to the environment, and, some would say, actual net conservation benefit. This Government, because of its rhetoric, refuses to allow that scheme to go ahead.

This bill is the perfect vehicle under which that hydro scheme could have been implemented. The Minister tried to tell us that it was impossible to change the status of reserve land. This bill and the 260 amendments that have been made elsewhere prove that it is possible to do so.

My colleague Mr Shirley will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with his stand, and that of my colleague Dr Nick Smith. Section 21 of the Conservation Act describes an ecological area, which the Card Creek area is, as having additional protection requirements to general conservation land, and that land must be managed in such a way as to protect the values for which it is held. The Card Creek ecological area was specifically described in a Forest Service report in 1983 as having a number of key natural features.

These were, that it was a sizable pristine area of dense valley-floor podocarp forest, not found elsewhere in the ecological district. The second point is that it has an unusually high proportion of matai and kahikatea on the western slopes of the ridge. The third point is that it has a range of forest types, from hardwood-dominated to podocarp-dominated forest. The fourth point is that it has a very high diversity and good numbers of native birds, including tui, bellbird, weka, yellow-breasted tit, robin, rifleman, brown creeper, fantail, kereru, grey warbler, and silvereye. Kaka and parakeet are also recorded as being present. I know that my colleagues referred to large areas of gorse. In reality the gorse represents less than 10 percent of the total area.

It is also pertinent to note that section 16A of the Conservation Act provides that the Minister may exchange any part of a stewardship area for other land, where the exchange enhances conservation values and promotes the purpose of the Act. That is fair enough, so far. But section 26 provides for the alienation of stewardship land. The problem is that ecological areas, and that includes Card Creek, are expressly excluded from stewardship areas, and as such cannot be alienated or exchanged unless the Minister first revokes their special status under section 18(7). My understanding is that the Minister has not done that; therefore, this bill is not the vehicle by which to change the status. [Interruption] This is not the vehicle to do it. The Minister has to revoke it first.

If the Dobson Valley dam scheme were to go ahead, it would flood 394 hectares of public conservation land that lies under the Card Creek conservation area. [Interruption] The history of this area is that it was first described in 1949 as having high ecological values. It was gazetted in 1983 by forestry Minister, the Hon Jonathan Elworthy, for—members have guessed it—National. Then it was extended in 1997 by the National Government, by 64 percent. It was specifically extended because it was to add to the long-term viability of the principal reserve as a significant wildlife habitat. Guess who was the Minister of Conservation in 1997? It was the Hon Nick Smith. Dr Smith, in 1997, decided to increase the Card Creek ecological area by 64 percent, because it had highly significant ecological values. In 2003, it is a gorse-covered valley! I ask Dr Smith what has changed. It is just politics. He does not have a leg to stand on.

It is interesting that Dr Smith and Mr Shirley referred to areas of gorse. As I said, less than 10 percent of the area is covered by gorse. The remainder comprises “native forests and forest shrublands which contain mature and regenerating kahikatea, matai, rimu, kamahi, kawakawa, pockets of red and hard beech, and a number of other native species.” The gorse areas are found mostly on the former Timberlands area and will regenerate to native forests. It is likely that people flying over the recent addition from the Timberlands West Coast would see large patches of gorse, and it is not possible to flood only the gorse area.

It is also interesting to note that in 1983, when it was originally gazetted as an ecological area, it was noted as one of the best examples in the Greymouth ecological district of forest on a wide valley floor. Of course, since 1983 we have had 20 years of forest regeneration.

This is a highly significant area, and for Dr Smith to dismiss it now and say: “We need this for power generation.” is simply politics. In terms of the power generation, both Dr Smith and Mr Shirley have said that we need more power. That is one way to look at it; it is the old “Is the glass half empty or half full?” question. Do we need to have more power because there is more demand, or do we need to say: “Look, the demand is getting ridiculous and we simply can’t continue to build more and more dams to supply more and more power, because of people wanting to turn on their dishwashers or their heated towel rails in Auckland.”? Clearly, the answer is no. If we look at power demand and say that it is increasing by, say, 5 percent a year—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please come to the bill itself?

In terms of the bill itself, I have no problem at all with it. It is a considerable step forward. It is a rationalisation of pieces of land from Gore, from Picton, and from Invercargill that have gone on to be used for other things. It is sensible legislation. It was discussed briefly in the select committee. I support its passage. What I will not support is Dr Smith’s proposed amendment to include the Dobson hydro scheme. The Greens will support the passage of this bill without amendment.

United Future lent its support to the first reading of this bill, and we will vote in favour of its second reading. We will also vote in the Committee stage in favour of the amendment suggested by Dr Nick Smith in terms of the Card Creek ecological area. I have visited the Card Creek ecological area. I have been there, I have studied it, I have looked at the options, and I have worked for months now with the Minister of Conservation to try to bring some common sense and some logic into the situation that exists there. I must say I am extremely disappointed at the conduct of the Department of Conservation and its Minister in this matter, which I can only describe as bordering on fanaticism, because of the completely unbending and, in my view, unbalanced and irrational manner in which the matter is being approached.

I want to put some facts on the table. First of all, Ian Ewen-Street correctly said that Card Creek is an ecological area—that is right; it is. We are looking to use only 9.6 percent of that area for the Dobson dam. Mr Ewen-Street mentioned the birds that live there. Well, they all have wings and they can all fly. That is not a logical thing to say. In addition to the birds, there are numerous stoats, weasels, possums, and other things there. If logic and common sense were able to prevail, it is quite possible that TrustPower Ltd, which wants to build this dam, would be quite happy to put a considerable amount of money into reducing the number of possums, stoats, and weasels in that area so that the birdlife there could flourish. We can have a classical win-win situation.

However, it goes further. At the moment, through the West Coast District Council, the good people of the West Coast own 720 hectares of land in the Mount Buckley block. They are prepared to gift that land to the Crown in exchange for 500 hectares, because they want this scheme to go ahead and they want the electricity. That is a gain of 220 hectares to the conservation estate that could immediately be redesignated as an area of ecological significance, and we could all gain again.

This process lacks any kind of integrity, because the reason the Minister and the Department of Conservation give for not wanting to do that is that the 720 hectares owned by the West Coast District Council is already in the conservation estate, and it does not add to it. I find that completely dishonourable and lacking in integrity. But it goes further. Mr Ewen-Street mentioned that there are some regenerating kahikatea there—and there are; I have seen them, and they are pretty average trees in my opinion. Just up the road, on privately owned land and accessible to far more people, there is a stand of similar kahikatea. The only difference is that it does not have wet feet and it is in better nick. Again, I would say that the proponents of the scheme would be quite happy to buy that private land and gift that kahikatea to the nation in exchange for the inferior trees in the Card Creek area. Again, it cannot be done, because it is already a place of national significance, apparently.

The owners’ property rights mean nothing. In other words, the Department of Conservation says: “We already have that little bit of land under our control. We know that it is privately owned, but effectively it is ours. We will not compensate the owner for it, but effectively it is ours, anyway.” To me, it completely lacks any kind of integrity to have those kinds of dealings.

The bottom line is this: the people of the West Coast want this project to go ahead. It can be done in such a way, if common sense prevails, that it is a win for everybody. It is a win for the birds, for the kahikatea trees, for electricity, for the people of the West Coast, and for the people of this nation. Why on earth do we not do it? No one in all of these discussions has been able to come up with an answer, except to say that it is illegal under the present Act.

But is Parliament not here to remove legal obstacles that restrain the economic development of this nation and that act as a constraint on its conservation plan? Why on earth should we hide behind a law when we can change it in the House? I congratulate Dr Nick Smith on coming along and proposing that we jolly well change it.

There is another aspect to the whole thing that is most unsatisfactory. Nick Smith’s amendment allows the bill to have a resource management hearing. What could be fairer than that? It should go to a hearing at which everybody can have their say, including the Department of Conservation—but no, we are not prepared to let it go to a hearing. Why? Because, in this case, the Minister says he is not only the judge but also the jury. He wears two hats. The case has been to him, and he, as the jury, has decided that it will not go ahead.

I ask him where people go and on what criteria the decision has been made. Where is the transparency, the openness, and the due process of the law? Where is natural justice in all this? I am told that it is “whole of Government”. In other words, the only way we can get this changed is to convince the Prime Minister to change it. Again, where is the transparency and openness? From the point of view of a company that wants to develop the power station, it is completely unsatisfactory to be told that the only way it can be done is go ahead and convince the Prime Minister to do it. We in this House should be encouraging open and fair processes, and arbitration of these questions. None of that will occur in this situation and I, for one, have found trying to argue something on the basis of a win-win, a gain for everybody—particularly for people on the West Coast, in this case—to be a most unsatisfactory experience.

One person said to me that it is to do with tourism. I said to him that there are about four people a year who get there. Let me be generous—perhaps 100 people a year might hike the day’s journey in to see those trees—but the fact of the matter is that, if we are not careful, the tourists who come to this nation to see the beauty of the West Coast will be going past houses that are not painted and have rusty roofs because the people on the West Coast are being denied economic self-sufficiency. That is ridiculous. It put snails and birds ahead of people, and that is wrong.

I rise to speak on the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill for the reason that we have here—and we have just seen a demonstration of it by the previous speaker—yet another double standard. We have often heard the Prime Minister speak in the third person, and we have recently heard the Attorney-General, when talking about the Privy Council, speak in the third person. One wonders why we are here today talking about the Dobson dam in relation to this bill. The only conclusion I can come to is that the Minister of Conservation, Mr Carter, is having an out-of-body experience, or a third-person experience, as well.

Despite the logic; despite the fact that, earlier this year, we had a power crisis in this country; despite the fact that the energy company that wants to develop the Dobson dam in the South Island is prepared to fund it; despite the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Jim Anderton, and the local MP, Damien O’Connor, saying it is a good idea, here we are debating this bill today and the Minister will not budge. What do members make of that? What reason could the Minister, Mr Carter, have for that? The only conclusion I can come to is that, once again, there is one standard for one group of people and another standard for another group.

I use the example of Project Aqua, where the Minister for Industry and Regional Development and the team involved in that—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must come to the bill.

They have found a way to get around—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must come to the bill.

I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, with regard—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Which clause?

—with regard to the issue of what land can be sold, what legislation can be changed, what bits of land are able to be disposed of, and what bits of land are not.

Clearly, we have a double standard there. Project Aqua, which I use as an example of what is going on here, is able to go ahead by amending the Resource Management Act. We have got around the conservation issues there and found a way forward, but in the case of the Card Creek and Dobson dam development we are unable to proceed. The Mount Buckley land that was to be swapped for the land in Card Creek is in pristine condition—I have been there. Ian Ewen-Street suggests that the land in question is a prime piece of conservation land—I have also been there. When I tramped through it, I saw nothing but standing gorse, with some trees around the edge. We are talking about 0.2 percent of the total area in conservation on the West Coast. Currently, 80 percent of the West Coast is in a reserve, and the only conclusion one can come to is that there is a different set of criteria for this legislation and this proposal than for other proposals.

I want to look at some of the other things that are in this legislation. I think it is a good idea to dispose of the Gore land. It is an endowment piece of land that has outlived its useful purpose. There is a proposal for that to be disposed of, and it is a sensible suggestion. Why not do the same on the West Coast? Why is there a difference? Why do we have a situation where, despite the fact that the Prime Minister is saying that we must do more with regard to our environment, we are now going to generate our emergency electricity from coal? Why is that so? Perhaps the Minister on the other side of the House will take a call. Why has the Minister of Conservation acknowledged that we need to do more in terms of sustainable energy in this country? He said that. Why will he not let this development proceed? I do not know the answer to that.

I know that you, Mr Speaker, have been challenged once or twice recently over double standards, and the only thing I can suggest to you is that this is another example of that. I also know that the issue of the prayer at the beginning of Parliament has been a topic of discussion in recent times.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will stop his speech. The subject of the prayer in Parliament has nothing to do with this bill. Please come to the bill.

I am speaking about the bill. I am talking about the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. I am just pointing out that we have different standards, whereby one Minister says that an area is a conservation area, and a different Minister says that in another area it is fine for development to proceed. If that is not in some way linked to this bill, Mr Speaker, then perhaps I will talk to you after the debate, and you can explain to me why that is so.

There are several bits of land in this bill that will be disposed of, that will have their legal title changed, and that will have different outcomes for whatever it is they are required to have. Those lands are in no way different from the piece of land in Card Creek we are discussing now. Unless someone can explain to me why that is not so, then I hold fast to the view that what we have here is no different in that regard. Five percent of one reserve on the West Coast is what we are talking about here. The West Coast is crying out for electricity and has to bring it in from right across the other side of the country. There are issues with transmission, with efficiency, and development on the West Coast. There is total inconsistency between what we are proposing in this bill and what the Minister of Conservation has denied the people of the West Coast with regard to the development of the Card Creek, or Dobson dam, development.

We have an opportunity to generate 62 megawatts of electricity, which is something the nation desperately needs. It is a totally renewable generation system—unlike coal, gas, or others being proposed by the Government. At this point in time, the project is being denied the opportunity to go ahead, because the Minister of Conservation says the land has a special designation, yet there is no evidence that it is any different from the bits of land that are in this legislation. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, it will be treated differently.

That is unacceptable. The Minister’s explanation needs to be better. The Minister—along with the member for the West Coast, Damien O’Connor, and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, Jim Anderton—needs to tell people on the West Coast why their development is being denied, yet other developments are not. This bill would have been an opportunity for them to do. Why are they not allowing that development to proceed? I hear a deafening silence from the other side of the House. I am ever hopeful that there will be a speech from the other side of the House to explain it to us.

Sixty megawatts at $150 million would be a major development for the West Coast. It would be very beneficial for the West Coast’s economic development and for New Zealand. As Mr Copeland said, there is no logical reason why it should not go ahead.

Bill read a second time.

Instruction to Committee