Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, with an instruction to the committee to present its final report to the House by 15 March 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

The bill amends the Resource Management Act to deal with significant competing proposals seeking to use the limited water resources of the Waitaki catchment, and provides a process whereby the merits of the various applications can be considered. As it stands, there is no regional water plan to guide the allocation of water in this catchment. In the absence of such a plan, the Resource Management Act alone cannot provide a good mechanism for determining what is the best use for the water—irrigation, hydroelectricity, or enhanced in-stream protection. Without this bill and the statutory board it establishes, the consent authorities, in order to devise the water allocation plan for the catchment, would have been considering and making decisions on the large number of resource consent applications in a policy vacuum.

This bill, and the processes it establishes, will ensure that environmental, social, economic, and cultural issues are addressed. It will also ensure that local, regional, and national issues are appropriately considered. The bill’s aim is to achieve a fair, prompt, and transparent decision-making process.

This bill applies only to the Waitaki catchment. We are working at pace to address water allocation issues under the sustainable development programme of action. However, it was obvious to us that the work would not be completed in time to address the very pressing issues of the Waitaki catchment.

The bill provides for the strategic allocation of water in the Waitaki catchment by setting up a two-stage process. An independent body, the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board, will develop a water allocation framework. The policy document prepared by this board will then provide the basis for decisions under the second stage, when a panel of commissioners will make decisions on the significant applications to use water. Some applications will be processed by councils in light of the policy framework developed by the board.

To those who accuse the Government of introducing this bill in order to promote certain projects—for example, Meridian Energy’s product, Project Aqua—read my lips: Project Aqua, like all the applications for Waitaki water, will stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act. For those who seek to make comparisons between this bill and the National Development Act Repeal Act concerning the Clyde Dam, I point out that the Government of the time overrode the decision of the planning tribunal, by legislating to ensure the dam went ahead. That is very different from this Waitaki bill.

We need more energy, but whether Project Aqua will proceed must be considered in light of its environmental, social, and economic effects at local as well as national level. The objective is an improved process. The Ministry of Economic Development has commissioned work to look at our energy situation with and without Project Aqua. That information will be presented to the statutory body and be available for anyone to submit to the board on. In respect of membership of the statutory board and panel of commissioners, I will be calling for nominations, and seeking to appoint high-calibre people with the appropriate range of expertise who can make an independent assessment.

This bill is not about reinventing the Resource Management Act. Tools and processes already exist within that Act, and they are used for this bill. The Resource Management Act sets out the matters that should be included in a regional plan—for example, issues, policies, and rules. It also establishes principles for managing a public resource like water, by providing for individual domestic needs, for example. Techniques such as allowing for transfer of water permits and reviewing conditions of consent are already contained in the Resource Management Act. The public will have the opportunity to submit to the board on the water allocation framework, and to the panel on the competing applications. The Government has also put aside some funds to assist those wishing to make submissions.

I reiterate that the bill’s aim is to achieve a fair, prompt, and transparent decision-making process. To facilitate that, the board’s decision will be open to appeal to the High Court on points of law. Given its specific function and expertise, it would be unusual for such a board to have its factual findings challenged. Decisions by the panel of commissioners will be appealable to the Environment Court. However, appellants will not be able to introduce new evidence at that stage.

Collectively, these changes to the Resource Management Act set up an enhanced process for making decisions on applications for the use of water in the Waitaki catchment—both in current proposals and for future uses. The bill responds to circumstances in the Waitaki that require Government intervention. I commend the bill to the House.

This bill is an abuse of process and an abuse of power. It is the Government writing the rules to suit itself. It is offensive to all those New Zealanders who believe there should be one rule for all, including this Government. That is why members of this National Opposition will oppose this bill.

Let us not pretend that this bill is about anything other than a huge strategic decision for New Zealand. It is about a $1.2 billion development—a development a third bigger than the Clyde Dam. It is the biggest hydro development in 30 years in this country and will take 73 percent of the water out of the Waitaki River. There are so many similarities between this bill and the Clyde Dam empowering bill. The only significant difference is that today we live in the age of spin. Let me get a few things straight for the Minister in terms of her misleading New Zealanders. She said the bill is not fast-track legislation. That sounds like another great DB advertisement: “Yeah right”. The Minister’s own press releases say this bill is necessary to reduce time delays. They say it has to occur as quickly as possible to expedite decision making. If that is not fast tracking, what on earth is?

The bill enables the Government’s own company, Meridian Energy, to bypass key sections of the Resource Management Act. Why is the water plan for the Waitaki River not going to be appealable to the Environment Court? Every other river in the country will be. What is more, clause 32 severely limits any appeals to the Environment Court. It is a Clayton’s appeal process. Similarly, the bill severely limits the Environment Court appeals on hydro developments in terms of their consents. The powers to strike out appeals are a lot wider, evidence is strictly limited, and the bill fast tracks any hearings. We then heard the Minister’s claim that the board and the commission are independent. It is laughable. The Resource Management Act requires that decisions are made by locally elected regional and district councillors accountable to their own communities. This bill states that all the decisions will be made by the Minister’s own appointments. The Minister appoints the chair and the deputy chair; and, to quote the bill, they “hold office at the pleasure of the Minister”. How does that differ from the Environment Court. The Environment Court is judicially independent. This is all about sycophants appointed by this Government to rush through Project Aqua.

We then come to the draconian provisions, which give carte blanche powers for the Minister to override the Resource Management Act. The bill states that the Minister and any part of the board’s process, or any part of the panel’s process, can completely override the Resource Management Act. The Minister will be given the power to override completely any element of process in respect of the Resource Management Act. That is nothing less than draconian. I want an explanation from Government members, who have vigorously defended the Resource Management Act and all its bureaucracy, then suddenly when it comes to the Government’s own project, it wants those sorts of powers to change the rules. What about the other 50,000 consents a year by small businesses, other New Zealanders, and competing energies companies? Why are the rules different?

National has been arguing for the reform of the Resource Management Act for years. We went blue in the face over the resource management amendment bill introduced in 1998, with our own special policy statement, fixing the Resource Management Act in 2001. At the beginning of this year we had our own special select committee, which specially looked at the issues of the Resource Management Act. Marian Hobbs and Labour said the Act was fine and did not need change. She said it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced. It seems it is beautifully balanced, except when it relates to the Government’s own project.

The Minister claims that this amendment bill is needed because there is no regional water plan for the Waitaki River. But she could direct the regional council to provide one in terms of the Act. She could fund the council to do so. She has been Minister for the Environment for 4 years. She claimed there is a policy vacuum. If there is a policy vacuum, it is the Minster’s own fault. She should have changed the law to require every council to have a plan for all of our major rivers, but she has not done so, and this bill does not do so.

There is a huge conflict of interest, because if Meridian Energy makes a buck out of Project Aqua it goes straight into the coffers of this Government. Therefore, the Government has a conflict of interest that it is abusing in this Parliament this afternoon. There is a very close parallel between this bill and the Clyde Dam bill of 1982, and the Government has learnt nothing.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What rubbish!

Let me tell Mr Mallard that the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Conservation Authority. [Interruption] Well, the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Planning Tribunal in 1980. But with the appeal rights, it then went to the High Court and was reconsidered. The only thing that is different, I tell Mr Mallard, who is trying to interject, is that the teaching is at the beginning of the process, rather than at the end. The Government should reform the Resource Management Act for all. [Interruption] That member has changed his tune. That member is in a Government of Helen Clark, Pete Hodgson, and Marian Hobbs, who cut their political teeth on opposing Sir Robert Muldoon with the Clyde Dam empowering bill, and now they have introduced their own bill. If members opposite—like the talkative member from the South Island—push through this bill at the fast pace they are proposing they will throw away—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that Trevor Mallard does not want to debate the issues.

The member will be seated. The member will rise, withdraw, and apologise. That remark was not called for.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government will force this bill through on a fast-track timetable and report back in March. That is a dirty trick. The Government has brought this bill in just before Christmas, and thinks that the South Islanders are stupid and will let the Government get away with this. The arrogance of South Island members opposite will cost them support in the South Island. The people of the south will rise up against this bill and tell the Government that it should follow the rules that it sets for all. Members on this side of the House say the Resource Management Act should be reformed. We do need to have new energy generation, but whether it is the Dobson hydro scheme on the West Coast, the Pencarrow wind farm, or the new proposal on rivers and other parts of the country, there must be the same set of rules, whether or not they are Government companies or private companies. We are telling the Government not to screw the scrum to its own advantage and not to let its conflict of interest enable it to overrule good law and good process.

I want to point out that this bill changes Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. That perhaps is the most fascinating part of the bill. I have heard the Minister for the Environment vigorously defend Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. She says the criteria is appropriate for everywhere in the country, yet when it comes to Project Aqua it appears the Government will screw the position by suddenly saying that it has to take into account the national perspective of economic benefits. Why should the national perspective of economic benefits be considered for this project, but for no other? If the Government were bringing in a resource management amendment bill to change the rules for all rivers and for all consent applicants, that would be fair enough, but it should not do it exclusively to suit its own project.

The Government is getting our country into an awful mess in respect of both resource law and energy law. New Zealand does need new generation, but this sort of playing favourites and putting this bill alongside the resource management energy bill, will create a right mess. There should be a reform of the Resource Management Act for all, not just for some. The Government’s abuse of process, and rigging the rules to suit itself, will bring it down. New Zealanders stand very firmly of the view that there is one law for all. The Government has brought a bill into this House that provides for a different set of rules for the biggest dam scheme in this country in 30 years. That is nothing less than a constitutional outrage. National will fight this bill every step of the way.

The bill is very important and attempts to address a number of key issues. At the very least it deserves, and will get, very close scrutiny from this side of the House.

I am rather mystified that a member from Canterbury would make such an inadequate, almost stupid, statement in defence of what is a constitutional outrage, with regard to resource management, and then leave the House—and leave us behind. Why do we have the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill of last year alongside this bill, which both bypass the usual processes of the Resource Management Act of 1991? A common theme is starting to develop across the floor of the House with this minority Labour Government that is not acknowledged. The theme is that the Resource Management Act is not adequate to deal with the allocation issues that the Government sees with regard to the Waitaki River valley. It is not adequate to deal with the competitive commercial environment. That is the underlying statement of this bill. If that is so, why did we not avail ourselves, and why did that minority party not avail itself, of the opportunity when it picked up the Simon Upton bill of 1998? It had ample time—almost 4 years—to go through the main tenets, the underlying philosophy, of that bill, and how it operated in the practice and process and sought to implement the reforms that we on this side of the House know now that that Act needs.

This bill is no answer at all. It is nothing more than a pragmatic, ad hoc approach to what is a very, very serious issue in New Zealand. Why has it been introduced so soon after the Resource Management Amendment Act? The answer lies with the Government. At the start of the year we went through the whole process. We gave the Government ample opportunity to review the Act thoroughly. There was no willingness—perhaps there was no understanding. I am not sure which it was.

Today we come to another piece of piecemeal legislation, which is pragmatic in its supposed purpose. Let us be quite clear. It is another deliberate moving away from the thinking of the Resource Management Act. I go back to the Resource Management Bill as it came to the House, in the memory of some members on the Government side. The Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer said in August 1990—against the ghost of Clyde Dam: “In fact, in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However, those are not statements for particular projects; and they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” I repeat that they are not, in the mind of the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer, the National Development Act in disguise, and that refers to the Clyde Dam.

I am saying to the House that this is what we have today. We have the Clyde Dam revisited. There has been a slight change in the timing of where the bill and the Act appear, but it is the same disastrous process. It is the same lack of attention to what ought to have been the finer framework of the Clyde River and now the Waitaki River valley. Is this a sign of things to come? I hope not. Waitaki now—Auckland transport next week; climate change tomorrow—energy shortfalls next year; Kyoto obligations—probably in 2005: all to be solved by an ad hoc, pragmatic approach, with imprest Government proposals coming to the House, and with little wish for any proper purposeful thinking, but instead, imprest Government direction and imprest ministerial direction from Cabinet—from the Prime Minister herself, I have no doubt.

There is no overarching philosophy. Is that not clear in what the Minister herself has said in recent statements, which were aired again in the House this afternoon? The Minister said that this will reduce the time delays. “I wish to achieve expedient decisions, ensuring the process is as quick as possible.” The most important aspect, the Minister said, will be to “serve certain outcomes”.

The previous speaker has already raised the issue of conflict of interest, whereby this Government company, which annually gives dividends back to the New Zealand Government, is the subject of special legislation. We in New Zealand First say that that is not good enough. Why is it not good enough, in simple, practical terms? We believe earnestly that the process should apply to A J Brown, as to Meridian. It should apply to everyone. Here, for the first time, we have a major shift in resource management thinking, whereby the big guy gets his or her day in court, because it is an absolutely protected cocoon, and without any fear of Government or anybody else interfering with the ultimate outcome.

Why is it so important to Waitaki? I am very indebted, as other members will be, for the excellent work of the Otago Daily Times and to David Bruce, who have kept their minds on the matter right through, including in yesterday’s editorial.

In an earlier opinion in the Otago Daily Times, going back to Monday, 27 October, a very important comment was made—I think, unwisely, but that is a matter of opinion—by John Rice, consenting manager for Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua. This is not a debate about Project Aqua; it is a debate on the processes. But, just to see where he saw things going, so far as Project Aqua was concerned, he said: “The river will still be there with Project Aqua, albeit a smaller and different river,”. In other words, this process, in the minds of the major developer, would change the Waitaki River for ever, and there is no wonder that the issues down there are ones of distrust, of high stress and emotion, in which have developed the climate of uncertainty and anxiety, and the uncertainty of change.

The issue we have to consider, as we go through the various stages of the bill, is that we have a right in this country, and the people living in the Waitaki River catchment area have a right, to expect a certain process. The process is there in the Resource Management Act. It is one that empowers individuals and gives the community a minimal and maximum right, with regard to the impact of a decision that affected them, step by step.

So we come to this bill. The previous speaker has already outlined some of the issues, but the major point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that we are extremely concerned about this complete ministerial dictation and direction with regard to the total process, at each point. It is the Minister who appoints the board. It is the Minister who decides upon the calibre in terms of direction, and the choice this Minister and this Cabinet would make is a very big issue for members on this side of the House. What if the Minister, having made perhaps an ill choice—out of the four—finds that one of them is not to her choice? Instant dismissal!

This is a compliant Government imposing its direction upon the people of Waitaki—at every point. However, there was a choice to decide—in view of the known ingredient of a lack of a completed water allocation framework for Canterbury—to have a minor amendment to the resource management legislation, setting out the proposal with regard to water allocation, knowing that the Otago Regional Council has an excellent water plan; knowing that Environment Canterbury has a half-finished plan; and knowing that if the ministry had thought about this over the last year and a half, in the recesses of its mind, an amendment could have come to the House, been before the House, and have gone.

That allocated framework would have allowed the local councils to have directed the applications, after hearing the applications in the normal way. The advantages would have been to allow the Environment Court to be a court of appeal for all matters, not just for matters that were to be decided by those elsewhere. We would have gone through the proper process.

The issue for New Zealand First is that we oppose this bill at the present time. We oppose it because it is pragmatic. It is a very indifferent pragmatic approach to a major problem of water and water allocation. We oppose it because the processes that are set out in this bill are a denial of natural justice and equality for all applicants, no matter who they are. We look forward with great interest to the second reading and the discussion in the select committee. On that note I want to pause and say: “Why oh why is March the report date, when this matter is of such national importance?”. It is the largest dam to be built in recent history, and the legislation is going to be compressed and pushed through. That, in itself, is a very excellent example of this Government’s arrogant, unthinking, and not-listening attitude. It is prepared to push on and roll over things like a steamroller. May it reap the benefit of this ill-considered approach.

No one should be in any doubt at all that this bill is being introduced because the Government wants Project Aqua to proceed, and if applications for water rights are considered in the order they were received, there may not be enough water left in the river for the mega-electricity project. At the same time, this bill underlines serious failures in the way the Resource Management Act itself has worked and in the provisions that regional councils have made.

The Act provides for all applications to take or discharge into water to be heard in the order they are received, and focuses on considering the effects of each application. There is no provision for considering cumulative effects in this first-up, best-dressed process. The Act was passed at a time when there was a real prejudice against anything one could call “planning”. Some councils have taken the view that under the Resource Management Act councils are not supposed to plan for their communities, but just to consider the effects of each proposal on an ad hoc basis. The resulting mess in the Waitaki shows that this is a failed approach and that councils have got to be more proactive.

Regional councils have had 12 years to do something about this in their regional policy statements and plans, and the Ministry for the Environment has had 12 years to see that they did it. But they have not. It is not as though they have had no warning of the situation. The need to plan for cumulative effects was debated at the time the Act was passed, and it is not true that as recently as 12 years ago we thought there was all the water in the South Island rivers that we could possibly need. It was clear even then that there would be conflicts over water in drought-prone areas of the South Island before long, and the warnings about effects-based planning were sounded at the time. It was up to regional councils to plan for ways to consider cumulative effects and resource shortages. They could have developed water allocation policies, setting out the priorities in their region, and water management plans for each catchment against which to consider specific applications. But in most cases they have not. As a result, all local users of water fear that if Project Aqua is given consent there will be nothing left for anyone else or for the river itself.

The Greens oppose ad hoc project-based legislation, but we are in a mess here. The status quo cannot work. In that situation somebody needs to take action and set up a process for water allocation under the resource management criteria in the Act. Given that applications are already in the system, the only way to do this is for the Government to use its call-in powers. It has not done that for Project Aqua alone, but it has done it for all competing applications, and prior to that for the allocation process itself. This is actually not like the Clyde Dam. In that situation the National Government used Parliament to overturn a High Court decision and approve a single project. The project had been through its planning process. It had, in the final appeal, been turned down, and Parliament and the National Government overturned that legal decision for a single project. That was real “picking winners”. This bill is not as bad as that.

The Greens are cautiously supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee, because, frankly, we do not see what other course of action is available. Given time, it could have been done with a national policy statement, but a national policy statement would take too long to resolve the current impasse. It should, however, still happen. A national policy statement under the Act for the protection and allocation of fresh waters would help regional councils everywhere to do their job better. That would not take away their power to determine local priorities, but it would offer guidance at a higher level. Instead this legislation leads to us saying, and here I do agree with Nick Smith: “Why only the Waitaki?”. Do other rivers not also need catchment plans and water allocation policies? Other rivers are certainly at risk of over-allocation, and some believe they are already over-allocated. Are we going to wait until there is another Government-favoured project that needs water, before we address the generic issues? I believe we should look seriously at amending the Resource Management Act to require regional councils to establish catchment management plans for each river system and water allocation plans for the water resources they control, so that this situation will not arise again.

Having said that, I note that there are some reassuring things about this bill. It is reasonably faithful to the principles of the Resource Management Act. It says that in-stream values must be considered first, then water for stock and domestic use, and, finally, some division of the remainder between industrial uses, such as irrigation and hydro-power. But the devil is in the detail, and the select committee will be considering the submissions carefully and looking for amendments to make sure this is the best process that can possibly be established in the circumstances.

In particular, the Greens are concerned at the composition of the board, which will allocate water among different uses with no right of appeal except on matters of law. The Bill provides for that board to be appointed solely by the Minister, and raises the concern that it will be there just to serve the Minister’s interests. There is a balancing of local and national interests that must be served here, and the very least we might expect is for the Minister to give some power of appointment of at least a minority of the positions to local government in the region. Another option would be to invite an independent and expert authority, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to appoint one of the members. The possibility that the board may comprise as few as two people is a serious worry. Two people, between them, could not possibly have the mix of expertise that is needed to properly consider all the complex and technical issues that will arise here. It is vital that the board has within it some expertise in in-stream river values. Otherwise board members will be captive to whatever line the best-paid lawyers and consultants can sell them. Make no mistake, all the pressure from all the applicants here will be to take as much water as possible, and leave as little as possible for the river itself. So the upper limit of five members seems to us much more appropriate than the lower limit of two. There is no appeal against the decision of this board, so it must be given the resources and the time to get it right first off. The time it is given must respect what is possible for the local people, volunteering their free time and without much money. It must not be a process designed only for those who are full time and well resourced. That means the select committee should set a longer time than normal for submissions, particularly as it is over the Christmas period, and be prepared to work the extra hours that the Minister has made possible in order to still progress the bill rapidly.

The outcome of the process will set precedents for water allocation plans on other rivers, too. It must have regard to principle at every step, and not just be a shortcut to a project that the Crown wants. Under this bill the consent-hearing process will be taken out of the hands of local councils. Instead of arguing their case in front of their elected representatives, local people will have to front up to a more formal and unfamiliar process, dominated by big players with highly paid lawyers and consultants. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure the balance is as fair as it can be made, both in terms of the process followed and of the resources made available.

Finally, I want to say a word about Project Aqua itself—the immediate trigger for this bill. Nick Smith managed to say a lot about how terrible the process was and avoid telling us anything about where National stands on Project Aqua. It would be nice to know. I will tell members where the Greens stand. The Greens oppose it. It is being touted as part of the answer to our dry-winter electricity shortages. New Zealanders need to know that if we sacrifice our largest braided river by diverting three-quarters of it out of the riverbed to a canal, it will actually make dry-winter shortages worse. Project Aqua will generate most power when there is most water in the river. That will be in summer. The lower demand in summer and the greater supply will lower prices in summer, making investment in wind power less likely, yet wind power is not subject to dry-year shortages and provides the balance we need to having all our eggs in the hydro basket. In the driest winter months Project Aqua may generate nothing at all, because the flow will not exceed the minimum required for the river itself. The company has disguised that, with figures given for the annual generation in a dry year. But most of that annual generation will be in summer when power is not short. Looking at the figures for last June, we see that the water available above the minimum flow Meridian Energy proposes was a quarter of the 340 cumecs that represents full capacity for Project Aqua. Last winter was by no means the driest we should plan for. So in our time of greatest need we can expect Project Aqua to hardly be there. At the very least we owe these people a fair and inclusive process for putting their case for local values against a Crown-owned corporation.

In addressing this bill, I have to make the observation that we have heard it all now. We have had an extraordinary speech from the co-leader of the Greens, saying that they are opposed to Project Aqua, yet they come to Parliament and want to pass legislation that fast tracks it. They want to fast track something that they are opposed to. I cannot see a lot of logic in that. The ACT party has a much clearer position. We recognise the need for Project Aqua—the energy supply for this country is in a looming crisis situation, and getting worse by the week—but we oppose this appalling process. This is a national development Act equivalent. Moreover, it is an admission by this Government that the Resource Management Act has failed. What did the Minister say? She said that the Resource Management Act is beautifully written and beautifully balanced. I put it to the House it is about as beautifully balanced as that member, the Minister for the Environment. [Interruption] Some may regard her as Tinkerbell but I personally think that would be stretching it a bit far.

The Government is saying that the Resource Management Act is fine, it is not holding up investment in this country, and it is beautifully balanced and beautifully written, yet when its State-owned enterprise comes up against it, potentially—this Project Aqua in the Waitaki—what does it do? It rams through a Clyde Dam equivalent to fast track it. Is that not an admission that the Resource Management Act does not work? The Government says: “Oh, one can tender for the private sector, and others; the Act is balanced and beautifully written.” But instead of being balanced and neutral, and fixing it for the whole of the country, so that all development projects can compete on equal terms, the Government, when it has to confront the Act and run the gauntlet—knowing that it would take 10 years to get its resource consents through—brings this legislation to the House. It is an outrage of process. That is very arrogant of this Government.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Could we add the Auckland motorway completion as an appendix?

My colleague Richard Prebble suggests that if the Government is of this frame of mind, it could make a full list and add the Auckland motorway projects to get them through the Resource Management Act. And it could add all those other things that are held up and are costing jobs, costing potential investment in this country, and leading to our people—our best and our brightest—leaving through lack of opportunities. But the situation is actually worse than that because the Government is turning the clock back about 15 years. It is effectively setting up a Waitaki catchment commission. Until the Resource Management Act came in, and local government reforms, we had 18 catchment boards and water resource boards around this country to do the very job that has been proposed here—that is, allocate water in an administrative local government “picking-winners” type model. What has the Government done? It has set up another Waitaki catchment commission. This one is a bit different. The old Waitaki catchment commission was elected by local people with local interest. Not any more! There will be ministerial appointment of the chairman, the deputy chairman, and the whole board. Those board members hold their position at the pleasure of—guess who—the Minister for the Environment.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Labour Party hacks.

Labour Party hacks, held there at the pleasure of the Minister for the Environment. It is an outrage, as other speakers have observed. The other interesting aspect is that one cannot take appeal. The decision of this new catchment commission cannot be appealed to the Environment Court—only on very narrow points of law. So all other investment and all other potential developers in the country who want to create wealth and prosperity will run the gauntlet of the application process, and they are inevitably confronted with an appeal to the Environment Court. That takes a lot of time and money and delays investment in this country. The Government has fast tracked it in the process initially, but also precluded it from going to the Environment Court on appeal on anything other than narrow points of law. The issue is to go back to that administrative public sector “picking winners” in the allocation of any resource. The allocation of water is very important, but we gave up on the administrative allocation decades ago, and pricing mechanisms is the only way to allocate a resource like water. But because of the philosophy of this socialist Government, it is not prepared to consider pricing mechanisms to ensure the proper use of what are scarce resources like water.

This situation is not unique to Waitaki—the same is true of Nelson, Hawke’s Bay, Canterbury, or Auckland. Water will be in increasingly tight supply at various times throughout the country, so why specific legislation for Waitaki only? The only reason can be that it is the Government’s pet project to buy it time in the energy sector. Project Aqua is major. It is a $1.2 billion development, which is very significant, and ACT observes that it is actually needed. We have had a fourfold increase in our electricity demand over the last 40 years, and our demand is continuing to expand at 800 gigawatt hours per year. Project Aqua would deliver 3,000 gigawatt hours, so we actually need a Project Aqua equivalent every 4 years. Every 4 years we should be thinking of a Project Aqua equivalent. What is this Government doing? It has locked up our coal reserves. Most energy planners recognise that the only realistic option for us in the medium term—the next 20 years—is coal, but oh no, we have signed up to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol, so we have to pretend that our coal is not in the ground.

We have at least 1,000 years of coal in the ground in this country, but this Government, because of its political arrogance and ignorance, says that we cannot use it. It will not consider the nuclear option, because that is against Labour Party mantras. It will not allow smaller hydro schemes on the West Coast, like the Dobson dam, which is a very sensible scheme. It would deliver 65 megawatts in a water-rich area. But oh no, that would have created a little lake on Department of Conservation land, so we could not have that. The Minister of Conservation turned it down, and now the Government is having to bite the hard choice, which is the modification of the lower Waitaki flow below Kurow, with a channel taking about 70 percent of the low flow and passing it through some six power generation stations. It is little wonder that the Government will have a huge problem on its hands. Potentially, it will be another Manapouri, which is what the Government is desperately trying to avoid by this grubby little bill that it has brought to the House. The Otago Daily Times editor summed it up rather well this week in some rather harsh words against the Government when he said: “This is an outrageous piece of legislation. It cannot be condoned. The Government is on notice that any attempt to fast-track the draining of the Waitaki River will not be tolerated.” Those are the sentiments of the editor of the Otago Daily Times. The Government knows that, but it is not prepared to subject itself to the gauntlet of our appalling planning procedures in this country, which have remained unmodified for far too long, and, instead, has the temerity and the gall to bring fast-track legislation to this House with the sole purpose of easing the way for its own State-owned enterprise, Meridian Energy. Who gets all the profits from Meridian Energy? Guess who gets all the dividend payments from Meridian Energy!

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Dr Cullen.

Dr Cullen brings in all those dividends. The Government is completely dominating the energy sector, both generation and transmission, and now it wants to bring all those dividends back in. It is just another form of taxation so that the Government can spend—and waste—the money in the unproductive sector of this country. ACT will be opposing this bill through all its stages. We recognise the need for Project Aqua, but we say to this Government that if it is to bring in fast-track legislation like this, it should do it on a neutral basis across the economy so that we can start to generate wealth and create some prosperity for this country.

I am pleased to support this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I call the Hon Mark Burton.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sought the call. You heard me—because you looked at me. You then looked across and called Ms Pettis. I was aware that Labour members were giving one-sentence speeches and not speaking on this legislation. I remained standing and sought the call again, and I believe that I should now have the call, because they should alternate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry. I call the Hon Roger Sowry.

I start by saying that it is extraordinary that the member for Otago, whose electorate this project runs right through, has chosen not to stand in this House and speak on this legislation. I do not know whether Mr Parker—who, they say, is Otago’s MP—is allowed to speak on the legislation or whether he has been sent away so that he cannot speak on it, but have never seen a member of Parliament refuse to speak on a bill that is so major and concerns a project that runs right through his constituency. Mr Parker is trying to pretend that there is no view on that, at all. It is extraordinary that, on a bill that does for Project Aqua much the same as previous legislation did for the Clyde Dam—which the Labour Party fought tooth and nail—and that gives a whole new process to the consenting of the water usage rights of the Waitaki, Labour is putting up North Island Labour members to say: “This is a good bill” and sit down. Why are they so scared to stand up in the House and fight for the bill? Why is no Māori member prepared to stand up and talk about Ngāi Tahu’s view on water usage? Where is Mr Parker? Why is David Parker—the elected member for the area—not prepared to get on his hind legs in the House and speak on this bill?

Equally extraordinary in this debate has been the behaviour of the Greens, who, we know, oppose Project Aqua. Indeed, Jeanette Fitzsimons just told us that a few moments ago. We know that the Greens, a week or two ago, were opposing this bill. The Greens toddled along to us and said that the bill will not be going to Jeanette Fitzsimon’s select committee. The Government is sending it to the Education and Science Committee, rather than the Local Government and Environment Committee, which usually deals with this sort of legislation. That is what the Government is going to do. So the Greens cut a deal, which was that they would vote for the first reading of the bill if the Government sent it to their select committee, which Ms Fitzsimons chairs. They cut a deal. What an extraordinary party of principle the Greens are, to be able cut a deal like that! Then we listened to the speech made by Ms Fitzsimons, in which she said that the Greens oppose Project Aqua but that they will vote for the bill—which will assess whether Project Aqua will get the water—because it will come to the committee that she chairs, and that if she had not done that, the bill would not be going to her committee.

Then there is the United Future party. Well! Just 4 weeks ago, that party did a different deal. It did a deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. That is a loose-knit political organisation that totally opposes 75 percent of the water being taken out of the Waitaki river and used in that project. Peter Dunne stitched up a political deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. He went to the country and said: “Look—I’ve got another party that has joined the great Christian coalition. It’s made us a bit less Christian, but we’re OK.” Now, on the first bit of legislation that Outdoor Recreation NZ has a stated, public view on, United Future will vote the other way. It will vote for the first reading of the bill, to allow the water to be used, even though Outdoor Recreation NZ has a different view. How long will that deal last? I do not think it will last very long, at all, although I am sure that United Future will go back to outdoor recreation groups and say: “No, no. We just voted for the introduction. We’re really with you. We won’t vote for it any more. We will get some concessions.” La-di-da—it is the normal sort of stuff we have heard from them over a period of time. They are the sorts of good weasel words that have got them through another year.

Quite clearly, the National Party opposes this bill. National is opposed to doing little deals for one State-owned enterprise to bypass the Resource Management Act. National believes that if the Resource Management Act is right, then we should let it work for everything; if it is wrong—and the Government clearly believes that it is wrong—then the Government should come and fix it for everyone. I was with representatives of Mighty River Power, another State-owned enterprise, the other day, and they are just watching this so closely because—guess what? They have projects they want to do around the country, and what do they need to get them done? Oh, they need just a little bit of special legislation, just a one-off bill to bypass the Resource Management Act—just the same sort of principle we are seeing here applied to them. So how will the Government say no to Mighty River Power, Genesis, or Contact Energy, and say yes to Meridian Energy? That will be an interesting dilemma for this Government.

I also want to say, with regard to Project Aqua, that National is not in this House supporting or opposing that project. It is not the job of political parties to sit here at this stage and say that that is the project we should go with. What this nation needs is a decent energy plan, and that is just an example of the leadership that this Government is not giving. There is no energy plan. There is no plan about how we will overcome energy shortages. All we have from the Government is a mishmash of environmental ideals and sustainability statements, with no plan at all. Now, there will be a commission set up, and it will be able to regulate, impose costs, and do a whole lot of other things—and that is another story, because that will not work, at all.

The Minister, in her speech, was extraordinary. Here we have, for the first time since 1990—the first time in 13 years—a situation when the Minister has had to come into the House and say: “I have got a project and the Resource Management Act simply won’t meet it, and I want to pass legislation similar to what happened with the Clyde Dam. Labour opposed it then, but now we want to pass legislation to support getting this project through.” Well, I say to the Minister that if the legislation does not work for this project, or for the Dobson dam, then why not change it for all projects? Why is the Minister going through this charade? Why is she saying in the House that the Resource Management Act is beautifully balanced legislation when she knows it does not work?

I look forward to the Minister appearing before the select committee to explain why she is supporting this piecemeal and haphazard legislation. I look forward to her explaining that—and she will be invited. National signals right now that we will want the Minister to appear before the select committee to explain the policy principles behind the bill. I wager any member on the Government side that the Minister will not front. She will be as conspicuous by her absence as the member for Otago is today by his. He just will not front. It is no wonder that down in Otago they ask: “Who is he?” He has been here during the week, but when the one major bill, the only bill that will directly affect his electorate in the whole 3 years of his short political life, is introduced, my gosh, he has suddenly got a haircut in Oamaru and he cannot be here today. Well, that member will be judged on that, because he will not be able to fool the people of Otago—just as this Government and Minister will not be able to fool the people of Otago on this legislation. If the Resource Management Act is working, then the bill is not needed; if it is not working, the whole Act should be changed.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this bill. The first point I want to make in this debate is that United Future supports this first reading because, unlike the honourable member Dr Nick Smith, we understand the difference between fast tracking the process and fast tracking a project. It was clearly evidenced by the member’s questions in question time today that he was struggling to understand the difference between fast tracking a project and fast tracking the process, which is something people all over this country have been asking for, for years—that the Resource Management Act processes be speeded up in order to give greater certainty to business and communities in terms of the outcomes. We are able to do that, through this legislation, without giving any certainty to any particular project. It must go through its process and be subject to the community’s input, but the process will be speeded up considerably. That is important for the people of New Zealand, because we need to know whether projects such as this—energy projects that will deliver for the country—will be able to go forward. That is why United Future is keen to support the first reading of this legislation.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it fast-track?

It does not surprise me that Nick Smith has difficulty understanding that difference, though, because I have sat with him through most of this year on the “corngate” inquiry, and he has had considerable difficulty all year in understanding the word “tolerance”, although it has been explained to him on many, many occasions by some of the best experts we have. He has still been unable to understand the difference there.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know the member is a new member, but I understand we are debating the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, but the member is debating the “corngate” inquiry. I would welcome the opportunity to debate that inquiry in Parliament, and would be happy to seek leave to do so, but I suggest he keeps to the topic of the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for pointing that out. I invite the member to come to the matter at hand.

I am happy to debate this legislation, and I am also happy to mention that the Minister for the Environment announced in question time today significant reductions in the backlog of cases in the Environment Court, and a great deal of improvement in the efficiency of cases being heard by the court and being processed. That is extremely good news for our country. It is good news for all of those who queue up to have their time in that court, because they will get greater certainty as a result. But what is good news for us and good news for the people of New Zealand is, clearly, bad news for National members, who have constantly harped on about the difficulties with the Resource Management Act. Once that issue is taken away from them, I wonder what on earth they will find to complain about.

United Future has continued to work with the Government to improve the Resource Management Act process, and since we ensured the passage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill, which had been stalled for 4 years in this House, we have continued to discuss proposals and ideas to further improve and streamline the Resource Management Act consent process. We have constantly raised the need for a better process to enable projects of significant benefit to the nation and to regional economies to be given greater clarity and certainty regarding their outcomes. That is what this legislation is about. This bill will be somewhat of a test case for those proposals, and United Future supports its first reading and referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee, for that reason.

I say again that this bill is not about fast tracking a particular proposal; it is about fast tracking a process. We expect to hear many submissions on this bill, with a wide range of views. That will enable the committee to examine the benefits of this legislation and the process it seeks to put into place, as well as to hear a balance of views from those who have raised potential concerns. United Future looks forward to that process in the select committee, and we commend this bill to the House.

I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I want to make my position abundantly clear right from the outset. Despite the Minister for the Environment’s rhetoric to the contrary, this legislation is specifically designed to fast track Project Aqua. I cannot help but wonder whether this legislation would be happening at all—let alone being rushed through the House with indecent haste—if Meridian Energy was not a wholly owned Government business. That this country needs more electricity generation is not disputed, but in addressing the issue the Government is cherry-picking the Resource Management Act in the most cynical way possible to suit its own purposes.

Back in 1990, none other than the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer, in the second reading of the Resource Management Bill, said: “… in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However, those are not statements for particular projects; they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” Clearly, the then Government was keen to distance the Resource Management Act from the former National Development Act, and to make sure that the Government would not be making policy in respect of particular projects. The hypocrisy of that argument is not lost on me. This is special legislation designed to fast track Project Aqua, and to skew decision making in favour of development.

I do not have a problem with the change of emphasis per se. In fact, I would argue that it is long overdue. The level of frustration felt by New Zealanders when they brush up against the Resource Management Act is at boiling point. My problem, though, is that the Resource Management Act needs a radical overhaul, but, rather than fix it, the Government is amending it for its very selective purpose, to suit its own needs. It seems incomprehensible that generic legislation has been drafted to cover the processing of consents for major infrastructure projects generally, yet the Waitaki consent process will be dealt with by the expedience of one-off legislation. It smacks of legislation that is politically expedient being promoted for a single State-owned enterprise project. It smacks of a Government picking winners, as happened in the Muldoon era—and some present members of this Government screamed the loudest about that process.

The powers vested in the Minister under this legislation should concern the wider community. A Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board will be established, and the board will be totally appointed and maintained by the Minister. I have heard others in the National Party refer to this, and I totally concur with them: members will serve at the Minister’s pleasure and they will take her advice. This is a Clayton’s board, and I essentially believe that it is the Minister in drag.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: It’s not a pleasant thought.

Mr Sowry is quite right; it is not a pleasant thought. Furthermore, a decision of the board, unlike the current Resource Management Act practice, cannot be appealed to the Environment Court; it can be appealed only to the High Court on points of law.

So what underpins Project Aqua? The answer is electricity shortages, but I have reservations that Project Aqua will actually be the panacea this Government wants us to swallow. It comes with significant risk. It comes with a price tag estimated at $1.25 billion—and I have reservations about the accuracy of that costing—and a pricing model that I believe needs closer scrutiny. Much has been said about a fairer allocation model, but in reality 95 percent of the water that will be used will go to Project Aqua. Seventy-three percent of the water from our last great braided river will be channelled for 60 kilometres down canals that will dissect some of our best and most productive farmland. So that there is no mistake as to the size of these canals, I point out that they will be large enough to sail two Cook Strait ferries side by side at any one time.

The Government’s company, Meridian Energy, has adopted a bull in a china shop negotiating style and ridden roughshod over the concerns of local communities. The people of Kurow will have to put up with 70-tonne dump trucks running up their main street every 2 minutes, yet Meridian Energy has not even had the decency to commission a social impact study. Despite local concerns, this Government wants to accelerate this process.

Will Project Aqua solve our electricity crisis? At best, it is problematic. It will certainly destroy one of our great rivers—there is no doubt about that. It is difficult to see the proposal, in one of New Zealand’s most drought-prone areas, assisting electricity generation in low-flow dry years. At times of critical low inflow, Project Aqua is unlikely to deliver anything, yet it is promoted as an essential contributor to our baseload supply. I can only shudder at what future generations might think of us if it comes to pass. I have no doubt that we must solve our generation problems if we are to develop as a nation, but I have severe reservations about whether this project is the way to do it. I would expect this Government right now to be standing up and putting in place a strategy that dealt with that issue, not cherry-picking the Resource Management Act, and not trying to pick winners. That is what it is doing.

I have to echo the question that has been asked by some other members of this House: where is Mr Parker today? Where is Mr Parker when one of the most critical things that New Zealand will face—and certainly the most critical thing that he will face in his electorate—is being discussed? Why is he not taking a call? Why has the whip not demanded that he take a call on an issue that is so critical, rather than the whip trying to protect him? This will come back and bite him, mark my words.

💬 Jill Pettis: He’s in his electorate.

He is making a guest appearance, is he? He should be here today because this is where he is needed.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: He’s paid to be here.

Mr Sowry is dead right and I thank him for his contribution. Finally, I want to express National’s strong opposition to this bill. This Government is applying the rules only as it sees fit, to support a project that will be undertaken by its own company. This is not democratic, nor is it in the best long-term interests of this country.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise in support of this excellent and timely legislation.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

As the only member from Otago who is prepared to speak on this bill, I seek leave of the House to take just a 5-minute call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought by the member. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be.

, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 15 March 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): There is an amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to the motion, to omit the words “15 March 2004” and to substitute the words “30 June 2004”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there may have been a misreporting here. You will recall the speech from the co-leader of the Greens, who gave a passionate plea for an extended reporting date. I notice that she is not in the House now. Perhaps Mr Locke has not received the right instructions from his party leader. The party leader clearly said her party wanted a later reporting date, and now it is abstaining on that issue.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising the issue, but the party concerned has a representative in the House and I have no doubt he has been fully briefed; otherwise, he would have jumped to his feet and changed the vote himself.