Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill

As I was saying earlier on, there is no reason why the Card Creek development could not go ahead. When we look at Part 1, “Commencement and interpretation”, we see that there are plenty of reasons that the Minister should take a call and explain why the development should not proceed. TrustPower has proposed building a 60-megawatt, $150 million hydro scheme at Card Creek, and it is being denied that opportunity on the basis that Card Creek is a high-value ecological area.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: What’s this got to do with the commencement date?

I say to Mr Ian Ewen-Street that this omnibus Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill could have included the opportunity for that to happen. The Minister had the opportunity—because we have proposed it on numerous occasions—to include the transfer of that land from its current status to a status that would allow the development to proceed.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: What’s the commencement date?

I need Mr Ian Ewen-Street to take a call and tell us why he thinks that it is not so. I am talking about why he thinks this bill, and in particular this part, could not be used for that purpose. I am sure that neither the member, nor the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, will be able to do that, but I look forward with great anticipation to either of them being able to enlighten me. The only explanation I can give is that the Minister has been heavied by the Forest and Bird Protection Society, by the Greens, and by “Minister Smith”—not the Hon Nick Smith—the former Forest and Bird Protection Society official who works in the Minister of Conservation’s office.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The real Minister.

Yes, we could say Mr Smith is the real Minister, especially when it comes to this decision.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Chris Carter says: “How high?”.

I could not possibly say that. But the reality is that certainly a lot of decisions are taken in that office that one has to question, particularly around sustainable development and business that is successful, and—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s run by a madman.

I will let the member say that in his speech, but it is being run by people who have a dubious understanding of what development is, and what conservation is. It is run by people, I guess, who have double standards. Clearly, there is a double standard when other conservation land is being used for development, as in the case of Project Aqua, but in this case the Minister says it cannot be done. I would like somebody—the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, any other Minister, or even the member for the Green Party—to tell us why that is so.

When he is doing that, can he also tell us how using coal in emergency generation—which is the proposal at the moment—actually mitigates against a proposed hydro development in relation to the Kyoto Protocol? It just makes no sense to me that we would burn coal or gas, or any other fossil fuel or energy that is not renewable, to generate electricity, yet turn down something like this, which has reliability, development value on the West Coast, and a huge potential to make New Zealand and the West Coast a much more viable, reliable, and safer place to live. I just do not understand why that is so. I look forward to the Minister taking a call to explain to us why that could not be done.

Certainly, I know that the West Coast, which is the birthplace of the Labour Party, really wants to know why this Labour Government—Auckland-based academics that they are—is turning down its opportunity for development. [Interruption] I am not talking about the rats and mice that make a noise up the back. I am talking about the front bench—the Auckland-based academics who are turning down the Coasters’ opportunity for a huge development project that, clearly, would be benefit Auckland and the rest of New Zealand, as well, for no good reason—particularly given the work done by the local authorities down there, the Department of Conservation itself, the energy industry people involved, and the regional development Minister himself and his office.

It all points in one direction, and it is that this a good idea that should proceed, and all but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office agree. United Future agrees, the ACT party agrees, New Zealand First agrees, but “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office—

💬 Government Member: “Minister Smith”?

Yes, “Minister Smith” in Minister Carter’s office—the real Minister! The member at the back who does not understand who I am talking about should go and talk to the Minister up there, and find out who “Minister Smith” is. He is a former member of the Forest and Bird Protection Society, and he is totally adamant that the only way forward for the West Coast is to get all the people out. At that point in time, of course, the coast would have no regional development and there will be no purpose in going there. So I am suggesting to the Minister in the chair that he take a call—I am sure he is going to; he is looking a little anxious—and tell us why that will not happen.

The Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, or “ROLD” bill, is a non-controversial bill. I would suspect that the Leader of the Opposition sometimes wished that he was a non-controversial Bill, but I guess he will just settle for not being rolled!

The point of this bill is that it is non-controversial and by agreement. The amendment moved in the name of Nick Smith does not meet, in my view, four of the points that are important about a Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. Firstly, to be in such a bill, an amendment must be of a technical or administrative nature, correcting oversights, errors, or omissions—this amendment does not—or it must be to remove from land restrictions that are no longer relevant. This amendment does not do that. It must be non-controversial and have the consent of all the parties. It does not meet those criteria. In relationship, the land must be owned or administered by the applicant, and on this occasion it is not. So I think that the amendment is in fact out of order and should be struck down, but if it is not, then we will be voting against it.

New Zealand First supports in principle the establishment of the Dobson dam and its development, and many of the things that are said about it in the House today. However, however this bill is the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is not the vehicle for an amendment to establish the Dobson dam process. It is well established, as anyone with any knowledge of parliamentary procedure would know, that this legislation is totally the wrong approach, and New Zealand First will oppose any amendment, although I must say I look forward to seeing it yet.

I put it to Mr Jones, who just resumed his seat, that he is quite confused on this issue. This bill, of itself, is an important bill. We regularly see other Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bills before this Parliament. With the extensive public reserves, it is important that there is fine-tuning from time to time. Bits are added, bits are sold, and status and designation change. What the Opposition members are really saying—and it is actually in the select committee report—is that here was an opportunity for the Minister of Conservation to have actually had some foresight and to have changed the ecological reserve status on the Card Creek catchment, which was the only obstacle to the Card Creek, or the Arnold River power scheme of TrustPower proceeding.

The Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, misled this Parliament. He said there was no way, that it was impossible, for that designation to be changed. Well, the point is that it was not impossible. This is the bill, the vehicle, that does make it possible—if he had had the foresight to change the designation and include it in this bill. He failed to do so, and that is indeed very regrettable.

The Minister, Damien O’Connor, is in a rather perilous position, because he has been a lion in the electorate on this issue. He tells them he will go to Wellington and will fight for the West Coasters, because he is one of them. He goes into the pub, from time to time, and tells them he is fighting for them on this issue. What is his position today? He is a lamb in Parliament. Jim Anderton has also written letters saying that he supports that power scheme proceeding, and he is negotiating and working with his parliamentary colleagues to change their minds. If he were true to his word he would be here today, with Damien O’Connor, standing shoulder to shoulder—and with the ACT party, United Future, New Zealand First, and National that could happen. The only thing standing in front of the Card Creek TrustPower power scheme proceeding is Jim Anderton and Damien O’Connor, who claimed to champion it when they were in the electorate but in Parliament they go belly up.

Let us turn to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker. Members may not realise he is a Greymouth boy; the son of a coal miner, born and raised on the West Coast. He does not say that around Hastings and in the Hawke’s Bay, but he is a Coaster. With his avuncular style, it reeks of his being a Coaster at heart. We can all tell that. He knows the feeling on the West Coast for this scheme, but what is he doing? He is sitting there like a maturing cheese. He is not prepared to stand on principle for those hard-working Coasters, who for generations have recognised that this scheme would be ideal.

Let us look at the blows that this Government has dealt to the West Coast. Soon after becoming the Government in 1999 it reneged on the West Coast Accord. I put a lot of work, along with others, into the accord back in 1987. Who signed the West Coast Accord on behalf of the Crown? It was the then Minister for the Environment—actually the first Minister for the Environment for this country—the Hon Phil Goff. He signed the West Coast Accord, which stated that in perpetuity lands would be set aside for the sustainable management of the West Coast’s forests—not all of them; just a few. A whole lot went into the conservation estate—about 80 percent—but a small area, which was production forestry, was set aside for jobs, investment, and products of high-quality indigenous wood products. That was a deal in perpetuity, signed by the unions, the Labour Government of the day, by Phil Goff on behalf of the Crown, and everyone else—all the local bodies of the West Coast.

What did this Labour Government do on coming to power? It screwed it up. It reneged on a deal that a former Labour Government had signed in perpetuity. That will never be forgotten on the West Coast. The Government tried to bribe the West Coast with $120 million, but we are saying that the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill—[Interruption] Tariana Turia made the observation they took the money. I could think of a few analogies with the treaty grievance industry. They will always take the money. I tell the member not be surprised, when the Government throws out taxpayer money, that people put their hands out and grab it quickly.

I was delighted to hear that the Minister in the chair was born on the West Coast, because West Coasters are generally speaking a good lot and I am pretty fond of them. I even have a son who has chosen to live down there in Charleston, and it is a great place. If the West Coasters have one fault it is that they tend to be more loyal to Michael Joseph Savage than they are sometimes to themselves. In other words they are in some ways a bit too Labour for their own good. Because in spite of the fact that the West Coast Accord, as the Hon Ken Shirley has just told us, was broken—and that was a broken promise—they still vote back into this House a Labour member of Parliament. I just want to tell the Government, and the Minister in the chair, as a West Coaster, because he will know this very well, that even the West Coasters do have their limits. I want the Minister in the chair to tell the West Coasters why the Labour Government is now blackballing the Dobson dam project. Why is it blackballing it?

If Michael Joseph Savage knew the facts, he would turn over in his grave. The West Coasters have their limits, and the Government should not push those limits too far. I think the Government will find shortly that the West Coasters will decide that for once they will put their own interests ahead of their traditional allegiance to the Labour Party.

I want to deal also with a couple of points raised by Ian Ewen-Street. He said that this Dobson dam did not matter, because it was going to produce electricity only for Auckland. Well, I want to tell members that some time ago—and Ian Ewen-Street was not there—Carter Holt Harvey came to this Parliament and gave a briefing to the Labour and United Future caucuses. That company is on a knife-edge right now about whether it even stays in this nation. One of its problems is the price of electricity. Any way this country can generate electricity to industries like Carter Holt Harvey means jobs. We are risking losing thousands of jobs because we are stupidly locking up renewable resources that can generate electricity, in favour—and this is the thing that I cannot understand—of using fossil fuels to generate electricity. How the heck that can be consistent with a conservation ethic, I am blowed if I know. It is exactly the opposite. It really does lack common sense.

The West Coast has some things going for it at the moment. It has dairying growing very quickly. The Minister was just telling me that the unemployment rate down there is very low. The West Coast is booming. But what will bring it to a halt pretty quickly is that it has to import electricity. The dairying industry alone has a great growth in electricity. The the Pike River coal mine, which I hope goes ahead, needs electricity. There is Macrae’s gold mine, which after years, and millions of dollars, actually got consent to go ahead; that needs electricity. It has to import the blinking stuff across the main divide, even though it is in the highest-rainfall area in the country. That gold mine has a perfectly ecologically sound project ready to go ahead, which it wants, and we are busy denying it electricity.

I want to make one other point, and that is that the Minister said, when he took the call, that one can only use amendments to correct oversights. Well, I tell the Minister that this matter was not overlooked. The very fact that there is an amendment before this Committee indicates that this matter was not overlooked—it is in the report. I was not aware of that until Ken Shirley mentioned it. The issue is that they were out-voted on the select committee in relation to this matter. So therefore it is perfectly appropriate, in my view, and I hope this amendment will be ruled in, because it does relate to the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. It is a perfectly legitimate place to try to address an issue of national importance, and therefore I hope that the amendment will be put. If it is, United Future will certainly be supporting it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We have an amendment. The amendment is in order. While technically it may be desirable for an amendment to be non-controversial and have the support of all parties, there is no requirement that it be so—and this is not the Statutes Amendment Bill.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 3 and to insert new clauses 12A and 12B be agreed to:

to insert in clause 3 the following definition:

Card Creek land means the 500 hectares of land required for the Dobson Hydro Development in the Card Creek Ecological Area as specified in Schedule 1 of this Act and amounts to 9.6% of the area of the Card Creek Ecological Area; and

to insert the following new clauses:

12A Background to Card Creek land

(1) A hydro development has been proposed for the Arnold River to expand the existing small 12 MW scheme to 62 MW to alleviate the nationwide and more particularly the Top of the South shortfall in electricity supply.

(2) The Grey District Council proposed a land swap whereby 720 hectares of Council land known as the Mt Buckley Block will be added to the Card Creek Ecological Reserve in exchange for 500 hectares being taken out of reserve status for the purposes of the scheme.

(3) The uplifting of the reserve status over 500 hectares of the Card Creek Ecological Area will allow the Dobson Hydro Proposal to be considered under the Resource Management Act.

12B Reserve status of Card Creek land revoked

The reservation of the Card Creek land as a reserve under the Reserves Act is revoked.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not hear the call for the Progressive Party. Jim Anderton has spoken emphatically in support of this.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

I did not hear the vote. Was it cast?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is not a point of order. The Clerk called the votes correctly.

It is a point of order. I am seeking clarification of whether a particular vote was called and given.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It was called, and no vote was given. It was correctly called.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading