Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 10 December 2003. The select committee received over 100 submissions, and undertook a very thorough consideration of the bill. It reported back to the House on 22 March, recommending that the bill be passed with the amendments shown. I thank the select committee for its timely work on these complex matters. The Government accepts the committee’s amendments, although I am looking at some technical issues that may result in Supplementary Order Papers at the Committee stage.

It is essential that the legislation be passed as soon as possible so that the water allocation framework for the Waitaki River can be developed and so that the consents, currently on hold and awaiting determination, can be processed.

The bill comprises four parts and two schedules to amend the Resource Management Act. It aims to improve decision-making powers for allocating water in that catchment. A large number of competing applicants want to take water from the Waitaki, but there is no regional plan to guide the allocation of that water. The bill proposes to establish a water allocation board to develop a water allocation framework for the catchment, followed by a panel of commissioners to decide the significant resource consent applications. The bill enables the board to compare and assess the merits of competing categories of water use, and the panel to do a similar job on competing applications for the use of water.

The select committee was concerned to underline the independence of the water allocation board and panel of commissioners and has recommended the removal of the Minister’s power to issue procedural directions to those bodies. The committee has recommended that the board and panel have between three and seven members each, and that there be appointment criteria for both. It also recommends that specific grounds for dismissing members be included. The select committee has recommended that the panel of commissioners comprise members appointed by the five local authorities of the Waitaki region.

Other proposed changes to the bill include increasing the time for the board to draft the water allocation framework from 8 months to 9 months, with the Minister for the Environment able to grant a 3-month extension; clarification that competing activities are compared at the local, regional, and national levels; and removal of the term “national perspective” and clauses 27 and 31. Other technical changes were made, to make clear that Resource Management Act principles and procedures generally apply to the development of the framework and consideration of the applications and to clarify the relationship between the framework, which becomes a regional plan, and other Resource Management Act planning documents.

I want to comment briefly on key elements of the changes recommended by the select committee. There was never any intention that either the board or the panel be subject to political interference. The power to issue procedural directions was intended to cover matters of administrative business. However, I consider that the board and panel can deal with these matters through their power to regulate their own procedures. I am therefore comfortable about the proposed deletion of clauses 9 and 37. I welcome the proposal that the legislation set out criteria for appointing board and panel members. These criteria would have been developed in the course of considering nominations and seeking Cabinet approval for members, and I have no objection to their being spelt out in the legislation. Similarly, I am happy for dismissal grounds to be set out in the legislation. This simply codifies standard practice.

I also support the recommendation that the term “national perspective” be deleted. Although it is important that the legislation explicitly require decision makers to consider costs and benefits at the national as well as the regional and local levels, the words “national perspective” are not already used in the Resource Management Act and they carried some risk. I am satisfied that the new tests set out in clauses 20 and 42 will achieve the intended outcome.

I would like to comment on the effect of this legislation on existing consents and to respond to concerns that have been expressed about this. Nothing in this bill is intended to alter the rights of existing consent holders to operate their existing consents. The water allocation framework, once operative, is simply a regional plan, and as such is forward looking. In allocating water under the framework, the board must consider any de facto allocation created by existing consents but is not bound by that de facto allocation, and it may allocate water to whatever uses it considers most beneficial. However, as with the development of any other regional plan, where the water may be currently allocated by consents, the allocation will not be able to override existing consents and will therefore not have effect until those consents expire, except through any review of consent conditions. Any such review is to be conducted under the existing provisions of the Resource Management Act and will be a review of conditions for environmental matters only. If necessary, I will consider introducing Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage to clarify this.

The technical changes to the bill simply clarify the intention that the Resource Management Act principles and procedures will apply.

I look forward to this bill receiving wide-ranging support in the House this afternoon. Although I think some of the parties that will support this legislation today do not agree with every aspect of the bill, they know it offers a better solution for the applicants and for the community. Like the Government, they are concerned to secure an improved process for deciding between the applications. This is in stark contrast to the National Party and the ACT party, which would sooner put party politics ahead of any improved process. It is their strategy to whip up discontent with anything associated with the Resource Management Act, even to the detriment of the people on the ground.

Some weeks ago in this House I spoke about the Government’s approach towards the environment, which is to engage with individuals, communities, and businesses to work through problems and find solutions. I contrasted that with the National Party’s desire to create division between environmental and business interests, to pitch business against the environment. The Resource Management Act (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill is a perfect example of these two approaches. The Government introduced this bill to improve the process for decision making down in the Waitaki, and as we shall see this afternoon, there are others in this House who agree with our approach. Right through the process, the National Party has screamed that we are fast tracking Project Aqua as the Government’s pet project, while making other businesses use normal Resource Management Act procedures. The truth—and the National Party knows it—is that this process comes out of a special set of circumstances and treats all applicants, publicly and privately owned, equally. Yet National insists on trying to stir up this division for its own political ends. But National is isolated and will just look foolish. Other parties in the House would not vote for the bill if it favoured Project Aqua or any other application.

This bill is about solutions and an improved decision-making process for the people in the Waitaki and those with applications to take water from the river. I am pleased it will receive widespread support in the House, and I look forward to the bill passing through its remaining stages.

The Minister was right. National does not support this legislation. We strongly oppose it because it is some of the most appalling legislation that has been written since I have been in this House. Let us be absolutely clear about it—this legislation is being designed essentially to fast track Project Aqua. We agree with the Minister on that; that is what it is about. And she is right—we are going to scream about it, because it is absolutely wrong. This legislation would not be happening if Meridian Energy, the architect of Project Aqua, were not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Government. What is happening is deplorable, and it needs to be exposed for what it is. It is a sham; an absolute sham.

Rather than rewrite the rules for its own narrow purposes, the Government should take heed of what most New Zealanders are telling it. They are telling the Government that the Resource Management Act is appalling legislation. Yes, it is well intended. I accept that its authors set out with good intentions, but the actuality is that the Resource Management Act is the biggest handbrake on growth in living memory. So instead of fast tracking legislation for its own company, the Government should be doing what most New Zealanders want, and that is a total rewrite of the Resource Management Act, instead of cherry-picking it.In fact, it should take an axe to it. That is what the next National Government will do. We will fix it, once and for all.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: That’s for sure.

Absolutely, that is for sure, because that is exactly what we intend. There is no doubt that this country needs more electricity generation. That is not in dispute. But we are dealing with a complex issue, and this Government cherry-picking the Resource Management Act is not the way to deal with it.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s not cherry picking. It’s more like rotten-fruit picking.

Rotten-fruit picking—I will take that. It is probably just as good an example.

Back in 1990 Geoffrey Palmer sounded this warning when he was talking about the Resource Management Act: “In Part 5 there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However, these are not statements for particular projects, and they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” Clearly, the Government was keen to distance the Resource Management Act from policy making in respect of particular projects then, but the inherent contradiction in what is happening now is not lost on me. The special legislation, as I have said, is to fast track Project Aqua, and skew decision making in favour of that particular development.

This is the worst kind of political expediency. I favour development—yes—but that development smacks of a Government picking winners, just as the Government of the Muldoon era did. Some members of the Government who are in the House now were around in that era, and they were the ones who cried “Foul!” the loudest. Where are they now? Why do they not get up now and say: “If it was wrong then, it is wrong now.”? In fact, I am looking forward to the mystery man, Mr Parker, getting up and taking a call to explain his position on this issue as it relates to Otago, because down in Otago they wonder where he is. They can never find him when they want him. In fact, I do not think he even lives in that electorate, does he? This will be the real test of whether he will show some leadership around this issue, or whether he will just do the Government’s bidding. He knows that what is being proposed is wrong.

The next question I pose is: why are appeal rights to the Environment Court on Project Aqua not the same as they are for other resource consents? We are told that this special legislation will truncate appeal rights, on the basis of saving time. Who believes that garbage? Who believes, when one is dealing with the Resource Management Act, that whatever one does will save time? That Act is the biggest handbrake on growth. Mr Parker should stand and take a call, and tell the House exactly what the Government is going to do about it.

This would not be happening if Meridian Energy were not the Government’s pet. Let us be absolutely clear about that. Farmers and small-business people have to comply with every step of the Resource Management Act, but not the Government’s favourite State-owned enterprise. The Government is prepared to make exemptions and exceptions for that enterprise.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member appears to be alleging an inappropriate conflict of interest on behalf of the Government and, implicitly, of shareholding Ministers. He will be aware that the Cabinet Manual provides appropriate processes for dealing with those matters. If he has a privilege matter to raise he can raise it in the normal way, but it is absolutely inappropriate during debate in the House.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that that is clearly a debating issue, and the member knows it.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree with the member that it is a debating matter.

Meridian Energy is sounding all sorts of warnings. It tells us: “We have consents on the Waitaki River, and we are concerned for our rights.”—but how easily the company has forgotten about the rights of some of the local farmers. Meridian has objected to small applications for water rights in the Upper Waitaki Valley, and that reflects poorly on the company, and on a Government that allows it to happen, time and time again.

I can tell this House that I have seen a legal opinion from one of New Zealand’s leading legal firms that says the Upper Waitaki farmers are entitled to 15 cumecs of water—as guaranteed and protected by Order in Council in 1969. What is more, the same Order in Council provided for more water as irrigation development in the area was warranted. The Electricity Corporation, as it was called at the time, in 1990, chose another route. Although I am not suggesting that it acted illegally, I am saying that it acted immorally when it ignored the Order in Council and, in doing so, defeated the clear intention of the Parliament at the time.

I have seen headlines from the time when the Minister—and I cannot recall his or her name—said there would be water available for everyone, including water for irrigation. The person in charge of the Electricity Corporation at the time—the person who defeated the intention of Parliament—was Keith Turner. He knows he deliberately disenfranchised farmers—and they have long memories. They also now have a quality legal opinion to back that up. They will not be steamrolled twice.

This Government is under pressure, and when it is, it reverts to type. Government members just could not help themselves. Inserted in this bill is a provision for special treatment of Māori. Clauses 8(1A)(d) and 36(2A)(d) deal with that. They state that in appointing the board, the Minister must give special consideration to members who understand Māori customary values and practice. No other ethnic group gets that type of special consideration. I can tell this House that when we have a new National-led Government, this crowd will not get that type of preferential treatment, either.

There is no doubt in my mind that we have to solve our electricity generation problems if we are to develop as a nation. In my opinion, the use of coal, of which we have nearly unlimited resources, is just a matter of time. Burning brown coal, using new technologies, is effective and environmentally acceptable. And, of course, it is sustainable.

We need to think longer term about how we can generate electricity, rather than the short-term projects that are on offer at the moment. The argument that will be offered by some is that coal is too expensive vis-à-vis water. Of course all that does is underline the Government’s stupidity in rushing to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because if we do not have a carbon tax it is pretty much a line ball—a National Government will fix that.

I will finish by inviting Mr Parker to get on his feet, take a call, and explain exactly how he will position what the Government is trying to ram through this Parliament with undue haste, with the wishes and concerns of the people living in the Waitaki valley. He knows—or he should know—that there are people there who are deeply concerned about the use of water and all they are asking from this Government is to get a fair shake. At the moment it is clearly not happening. This legislation—it does not matter what the Minister says—will simply drive this matter through the House with undue haste. I say to Mr Parker that this is the real hallmark of whether he has 60 more flights coming back to this place, or whether he may be coming back longer term. This is his moment of glory because it is now his opportunity to stand up and take a leadership role.

Responding to Mr Connell’s remarks is always a bit of fun. The last press release he put out concerning this issue about a month ago accused me of not paying attention to meetings that were being held in my electorate at which Ministers were present. Mr Connell obviously was not there, because I was chairing the meetings.

💬 Darren Hughes: He’s their rocket scientist.

DAVID PARKER He is. The lack of ability shown by that member really defies belief. How he got here I do not know, but he is here, so I will respond to some of the suggestions he made. First of all, the suggestion that this bill empowers or speeds up Project Aqua is arrant nonsense. Were this legislation not before the House, and had the consent applications not been called in by the Minister, the applications for Project Aqua would be under consideration now and finished within the next few months. The single and only appeal to the Environment Court would probably have taken place later this year and be finished towards the end of this year or at the start of next year. This process is far slower and has far more protections for those who are either in favour of, or opposed to, Project Aqua.

I thank the members of the committee who worked very hard over a short time frame to turn this legislation into better legislation. I include in my thanks the National members Sandra Goudie and Nick Smith, the New Zealand First member Jim Peters, Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens, Larry Baldock from United Future, and my own colleagues from the Labour team. I think we all worked very constructively to produce what is high-quality legislation.

The legislation does not change underlying Resource Management Act principles—it changes processes. It is necessary to do that because there are at present around 60 applications to take water from the Waitaki River. If they were all granted, the Waitaki River—one of New Zealand’s biggest rivers—would virtually run dry. There is no water plan for the Waitaki River, despite the fact that it is one of New Zealand’s largest rivers. About now, those planning decisions would have been taken by a planning authority in the absence of the guidance that ought to be provided by a water plan. Both of the regional councils agree that some statutory intervention is necessary. So do many of the submitters, and it is interesting that since this legislation has been reported back to the House, even some of the vehemently opposed interest groups, like Waitaki First, have come out and said that they approve of this legislation.

I also think that people should judge the cries that this is empowering Project Aqua against the position that the Green Party has taken on the legislation. The Green Party has been very clear that it is absolutely opposed to Project Aqua, and that is its right. Yet despite the Green members’ strident opposition to Project Aqua, they agree that the legislation is appropriate. They would not be agreeing if they thought that the effect of this legislation was to fast track or empower Project Aqua.

In terms of the rights of Meridian Energy Ltd, the suggestion that this bill somehow favours Meridian Energy should be judged against the criticisms that that company has made of the legislation, which, it says, does not adequately protect its existing rights—including its rights in the upper catchment. One of the recommendations of the select committee, which the Government is adopting, is that clause 31 in the original form of the bill be deleted. Arguably, that clause did, in a minor way, further entrench the rights Meridian Energy already holds concerning power stations in the upper catchment at Benmore, Aviemore, Waitaki, Ohau, etc. The committee recommended the deletion of that clause so that the underlying Resource Management Act principle applied without any modification.

As the local member, I am absolutely satisfied that I have protected the local interest well, against being overridden by the national interest. There were a couple of words in the purpose section, and also in clauses 20 and 42, that caused submitters concern. Those words have been removed. The purpose clause concerned the strategic allocation of water, and clause 42 dealt with the national perspective. Submitters had concerns that the effect of those words was to give some hierarchy to economic outcomes that might flow from Project Aqua, to the detriment of environmental values or, indeed, other irrigators. Those concerns have been addressed by the removal of those words.

The select committee has also limited the powers of the Minister to give directions to the boards that hear these planning issues, so that there can be confidence that these Environment Court - like panels are not subject to political influence. I am absolutely satisfied that this is appropriate legislation that protects my electorate, and is far better than the status quo that existed before it.

This bill has been substantially rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I want to thank all the members for their work towards a much-improved bill. I think it is significant that when we came to deliberation, all of the members of the committee voted for all of the amendments, even though some of them still voted against the bill itself. We have worked cooperatively, I believe, in order to get the best possible outcome.

The primary issue the committee had to consider was whether there was justification for setting up a new process to deal with water allocation in the Waitaki River, which would amend the Resource Management Act yet again. The Resource Management Act is supposed to deal with those issues. The answer to that question has to be a very limited yes, but not to the extent the bill provided when it was introduced. At present no one has set an environmental flow regime for the Lower Waitaki. No one has decided how much water is needed to provide for the habitat of wading birds, the integrity of the wetlands, the trout and salmon fishery, the recreational opportunities, the landscape, and scenic values. These are broadly summed up in the Resource Management Act as intrinsic values of ecosystems and amenity values appreciated by humans. Data exists on those values, but they have not been assessed and provided for. Now we have applications for the right to take water for irrigation and hydro, which together total more than the water in the river.

It is true that this bill would not have been put forward if Project Aqua had not applied—not, I believe, because there is some way that this bill favours Project Aqua, but because if Project Aqua were not there, we would be able to continue allocating some water without getting anywhere near the levels that would threaten those in-stream values that have not yet been provided for. That is why we need the bill.

How can those applications be assessed without first setting an environmental flow regime? If the argument were only between farming and electricity at the resource consent stage, the easy solution would be to partition the river between them and leave the river itself out of the calculation. But the Resource Management Act makes it clear that ecological integrity is paramount. No decision maker could do a good job of providing for that in the time frame allowed to issue resource consents.

The Act assumes that a fundamental basis of the legislation is that applications for consent are assessed against a pre-agreed plan. There is no plan, so the Greens strongly support the need for a delay while a plan is put in place—both to provide properly for the river itself, and then to allocate between the end uses of electricity and farming. If this bill does not proceed, that cannot happen. Without this bill, the process would be that these applications, which have been called in under the normal process of the Resource Management Act, would be assessed by a board of inquiry appointed by the Minister. The board would make recommendations to the Minister, who would make the decision. This board would not have the independence from the Minister that we have recommended here, nor the powers, status, and expertise that we recommend be given to the board setting the framework.

So a process for producing a water plan for the river is essential. But that is the only way in which this bill should derogate from the principal Act. This should not be a place for trying out the ministry’s new ideas for future amendments to the Resource Management Act. The bill should not be a Trojan Horse for that. It should not truncate the process just because the Minister wants a fast decision.

There are many provisions in this bill that are about speed, rather than quality, and we have changed them. For example, we were advised by everyone who commented on the issue that 8 months is far too short a time for the board to develop the framework for water allocation. Confining it to 8 months risks sacrificing quality for speed, and would not allow time for all the relevant data on the river—and its flows, habitats, and uses—to be collected, analysed, and incorporated. So we recommend up to a 50 percent increase in this time frame—a 1-month increase as of right, and a further extension of 3 months if it is needed, which I am sure it will be.

The committee took the view that we would remove all the derogations from the principal Act that were not essential, and that wherever possible the issue should proceed under the normal Resource Management Act process. This has involved a lot of changes, and we will revisit those in greater detail at the Committee stage. Of particular importance is the requirement in clauses 20 and 42 that the plan and consent applications be considered from a national perspective. This raised an outcry from the local community, which considered, quite fairly, that as the national perspective can already be considered under Part 2 of the Act, this must be giving it particular weight over and against their local needs. That is not what sustainable management of resources is about.

We also received evidence that national perspective does not occur elsewhere in relevant legislation, and would result in a challenge to its meaning in the higher courts. That is perhaps why the Government has agreed to our recommendation to take it out. The weighting of national and local interests must still be done, but done according to the principal Act, unchanged by this amendment. For the same reason, we have removed the word “strategic” from clause 3. We could see no good reason why the section 32 test in the principal Act, which requires decision makers to justify their plans and rules as the most appropriate, should be weakened in this case.

Clause 21 introduced a watered-down requirement for accountability. We have removed it, and ensured that section 32 applies to the extent relevant to the matters being considered here. We also could not see any good reason for the Minister to appoint the panel of commissioners who will hear the consent applications. This is a routine function of regional and district councils, and they often have joint hearings now. All that was needed to ensure that time was not wasted was to require them to appoint a joint panel and to give it the power to consider all the applications together and comparatively, so that is what the bill now provides.

We have clarified that other relevant planning instruments, such as the coastal plan, still apply. We have removed clause 31, which would have given a higher degree of protection to existing water rights than would be the case under the Act. We have brought the requirements for public information and provision of documents into line with the Resource Management Act. We were determined that the board and the panel would have no special privileges or exemptions, other than those necessary to do their job of getting the plan out.

There remains one serious departure from the Resource Management Act, and that is the question of appeal rights. Normally, references on a regional plan would go to the Environment Court, but the bill provides for no appeal to the Environment Court on the framework, which has the status of a regional plan. I can understand the Government’s reasons. Sixty-odd applications have been held up for some months under call-in, and will be held up another year before a hearing can begin, and many of them will be quite small applications to take water for farming. These people have been denied the normal pace of a hearing, and the Government does not want them to be further delayed by appeals that could in some circumstances take another couple of years.

But taking away rights of appeal is a serious matter, and four of the parties in the select committee noted that they did not believe that there was adequate reason for it. I will be moving an amendment to restore those appeal rights. However, in the knowledge that the Government has the numbers on this issue, we proceeded to ensure that if there were to be only one hearing, it would be of the highest quality. We have therefore recommended that the board be given all the powers, status, and expertise of the Environment Court so that the job is done right, from the start.

First, we have distanced it from the Minister by removing her right to sack its members and give them directions. We have set criteria on which she must appoint, to ensure all the necessary skills are covered. We have increased its membership to between three and seven, because two is clearly not enough. The board will have the powers of inquiry, cross-examination, and taking evidence on oath. While there is still one hearing rather than two, we believe it combines the best features of both parts of the normal process.

The bill provides for an Environment Court appeal from consent decisions, but to a limited extent. Such appeals will be given priority in the court’s timetable, and I have to say that I do not think that that is a problem. If they had proceeded without the delay of the board process to set the framework, they would have entered the appeal stage earlier, anyway, so they are not really leapfrogging other cases. The bill also provides though that new evidence cannot be given except by leave of the court, which is likely to be given if it could not reasonably have been presented to the first hearing, but probably not otherwise. The evidence already given at the first stage will not be re-heard unless it is challenged.

I see a problem with this as a very truncated process is being adopted only for these projects. Therefore, I will move an amendment on that as well. National is declaiming about process and departure from the Resource Management Act, but it is clear that its only concern is that it wants a truncated process like this all the time for everyone.

So I turn to Project Aqua. To claim that this is a fast track is wrong. Compared with the normal process, it is a slow track. National knows that without this bill the hearings would already be under way—that Project Aqua would be more likely to proceed because there would be no minimum flow. The Greens are totally opposed to Project Aqua, which wrecks our largest braided river in order to perpetuate our energy waste.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. As a former teacher of history, I think a very recent glimpse of the bill’s history may be of some value to us in this debate.

In mid-August last year the Government announced its intention to decide the resource consent applications for the Waitaki River, in order to reduce costs and uncertainty and to address conflicts between competing users. The Government was concerned, as were the people of the Waitaki Valley, about the applications by Project Aqua 7; by Irrigation North Otago, which would take up to 27.5 cumecs to expand irrigation in North Otago; and by the Aoraki Water Trust, which would increase irrigation in South Canterbury by using 15 cumecs from Lake Tekapo. However, in addition to those applications for substantial water takes, there were 51 other resource consent applications to abstract water or to use water being processed by Environment Canterbury. Nine of those applications were from Meridian Energy Ltd, to roll over its existing water permits for its hydroelectricity system in the Waitaki River catchment, which had been granted under the former Water and Soil Conservation Act of 1967.

The Government announced that it had decided in principle to allow changes to the Resource Management Act to enable all potential and expected users of Waitaki River water to be considered together, and that allocations were to be made on what was considered best for the region and for New Zealand. It also indicated that that would occur in a submission process for those parties interested in having their say.

On 2 September last year the Minister for the Environment announced there would be an amendment to the Resource Management Act to provide for a statutory body to determine a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River catchment. That body would consider and hear submissions, and could undertake its own inquiries and make its own final decisions. There would be no appeals to the Environment Court on that body’s final decisions on the water allocation framework, but there could be appeals on points of law. So late last year we had brought before us the bill we are debating today. In the process, the Minister formally called in 60 applications, including the nine from Meridian Energy to roll over its water permits.

What are the substantial issues that are the background to this bill? There are two issues: above the Waitaki dam, the amount of water that should be allocated out of stream for non-hydroelectricity purposes needs to be determined, and, below the Waitaki dam, many additional decisions are required about what the appropriate amount is to leave in-stream, what can be taken from river and tributaries, and what use should be allowed for the Project Aqua canal system to convey water for other purposes. In other words, there are competing demands and major water allocation issues and options, with regard to the Waitaki River catchment. There are abstractors, including Meridian Energy, that would divert water to another catchment or into storage, and there are those who value the water in-stream. If there were sufficient water in the Waitaki River to satisfy all applicants, there would be no significant water allocation issue.

In that regard, the demands for ground water are also relevant, because of the hydraulic connections to surface water. There are a number of areas where the surface water flows to ground water, and vice versa. There is also the exclusive use of water, where permits are able to be used to abstract or use water, and they are protected, with regard to the right to take water, from any other such permits. Those would normally form the body of content of a regional water plan.

I want to pause for a minute so that we are fully aware of what a normal regional water plan is, and, with regard to Environment Canterbury, where such a plan would be at, in time. The plan would include such matters as the regulated minimum flow or flows, or lake levels, under which no abstractions can take place or where abstractions are restricted; the restrictions on the rates of use of water; the sharing or leaving of blocks of water in the stream above the regulated minimum flow—and that issue is before the courts in another place now—restrictions on the damming or diversion of water; caps on the amount that can be abstracted from the river, including the allocation of limits to ensure reliability of supply for those consented abstractors; the freshes; abstractions of flood or high flows; the important matter of the reservation of water for particular users; public water supply; industrial supply; stock supply for farmers and other group members who have some rights of augmentation of their water supplies; the priority to, or reservation for, existing abstractors or users by defining the conditions of their water permits; the provision for water storage schemes; the renewal of existing resource consents, including the amounts required, as well as compliance with minimum flows and other restrictions; and, lastly, the reservation—or the priority of allocation, perhaps—of water for hydroelectricity purposes. However, it should be known that apart from giving security with regard to the granting of consents and setting an allocation limit, there are no regional plans, that I know of, that give special reservation, or priority of allocation, of water for hydroelectricity purposes—and that includes the neighbouring Otago regional water plan. So those are the substantive issues, major and minor, that are before those who adjudicate upon the consents.

What was in the minds of those who came to us? I will speak of their concerns very, very quickly because of limited time. Keith Turner of Meridian Energy said that the bill did not protect existing water consent holders. He said that the problems this bill is intended to address exist only below the Waitaki dam, and not above it. Business New Zealand and the Major Electricity Users Group contend that the prime aspect of the legislation should be existing property-use rights. They talked about the selective amendment of the Resource Management Act, and in actual fact asked to wait until the Government, some time in the future—and when that will be is a great uncertainty—had an overall Water Programme of Action.

My old professor, Ken Palmer of the Save the Waitaki group, said that the omission of the appeals process represented a “major departure from principle”. He said that the policy of the bill we saw first was to outweigh the normal, sustainable management purpose of the Resource Management Act. Last of all, he said that the bill has an agenda that effectively endorses the development of hydroelectricity activities.

David Henshaw, on behalf of the Aoraki Water Trust, said in contrast: “The allocation of water should involve balancing environmental, national, regional, and local interests”. Those members who arrived from the trust called for a total catchment approach and called, last of all, for the honouring of the expectations raised in the 1969 Order in Council. The chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee has already mentioned what I believe was the excellent work of the committee in making a day-by-day, intelligent response to the issues raised by submitters.

New Zealand First was conscious of the following issues in the bill. The Resource Management Act meant that applications were considered on a “first come, first served” basis. Although Mr Palmer said otherwise, in actual fact that is so, unless there is a call for further information. This bill, in the final report-back to this House, provided for a water allocation board that is not at ministerial direction, apart from its initial selection. It provides for a water allocation framework to be developed after public hearings, with a very robust system of hearing submissions.

New Zealand First gives support for this bill to pass on to the Committee of the whole House. We believe that this bill is much changed from the previous bill that came to the House for the first reading, because of the excellent work of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

We seek two changes to the bill. I said at the committee, and I will say again, that I am not happy with the whole selection process for the panel of commissioners. I also concur with the last speaker—the chairperson of the select committee—about the appeal process, and that principle should be revisited in the Committee of the whole House. Our position is that the bill has always been about water allocation, not about Project Aqua, and that the panel of commissioners will hear submissions based upon the water allocation issues, and will decide how that should be made.

We agree that Mackenzie Country farmers do have rights. They had reasonable expectations in 1969, and those expectations have not yet been realised, so they have a case. We believe that this bill provides for an independent group to devise an equitable water allocation framework for the Waitaki catchment. Utmost in that must be the future life of the river, and the health of the river, for this and future generations. We support the bill at this stage.

The ACT party opposes this legislation in its entirety, and I will come to the reasons for that later in my speech. At the outset I would like to comment on some of the Local Government and Environment Committee’s considerations, and on its processes. The Minister, Marian Hobbs, made a plea in her speech for this bill to be passed as soon as possible, and said that that was essential. That is really what this legislation is all about. Her own words confirm what we have always suspected—that this is the Government’s new “National Development Act” to streamline the passage of its pet project—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Wash your mouth out with soap.

That was Mr Cunliffe, the commercial genius of the alliance!

This legislation is appalling. It was rammed into the House shortly before we rose for the Christmas period. The expectation was that the select committee would report it back at very short notice. I was ashamed and embarrassed during the select committee process, and I do not blame the chairperson, Jeanette Fitzsimons, who did a particularly good job in chairing the committee, unlike Mr Cunliffe, whose chairing of select committees is pathetic and hopeless. The chair was as considerate as she could be, but the constraints put on her by this Government were very unreasonable. Submitters who had travelled long distances from remote valleys—I am thinking of our hearings in Kurow—were not even given the courtesy of being able to tell us what they wanted to tell us. They had very truncated time frames—5 minutes—to try to explain what their concerns were. That is a very unsatisfactory process.

However, the real issue is the question of why special legislation outside the Resource Management Act is needed, when the Act was set up specifically for that form of allocation. Environment Canterbury has been in existence for 14 years. It was set up with that specific function, with a statutory requirement to produce regional plans for things like allocating water; yet in the 14 years of its existence Environment Canterbury has failed to produce a water allocation plan. We all know that for much of the time water is scarce in the Canterbury Plains, including the Waitaki catchment, yet that statutory body, having existed for 14 years, has never brought down a water allocation plan.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Government panicked. It knows it has a looming energy crisis on its hands. It has a fixation with renewables. That is why it is not looking at other options, like coal, to the extent it should be, even though we know we have 1,000 years of electricity generation in our coal reserves, at competitive prices. But, having signed on to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol, this Government does not want to look at the coal option to any large extent. It would rather rush through a proposal that involves taking 75 percent of the low flow of the Waitaki River at Kurow and placing it in a canal for a distance of some 65 kilometres, dropping through six power stations and generating some 455 megawatts of power. We certainly need that power, but it will meet only 2 to 3 years of our expanding electricity demand. Project Aqua will not be coming on stream until 2008. By then we will already have expanded our demand way above what the plant will deliver.

If we were serious about our looming energy crisis, we would be looking at alternatives such as coal. With the Kyoto Protocol, if the Government were serious, it would leave the incentives as market instruments, as proposed with the carbon credit trading system. But what did the Government do? Instead of leaving the incentive to plant more forest, it nationalised the carbon credits of forest sequestration and is handing them out to its pet projects. It has given them to Meridian for its Te Apiti wind farm. And what has Meridian done? It has on-sold them to the Dutch Government. So the Government gets back the money as a dividend payment from a State-owned enterprise, a Government-owned company.

I tell the House now that the same is intended for Project Aqua. The Government will dish out a whole lot of the carbon credits it stole off the forestry sector, destroying the economic instrument of a carbon trading system. Project Aqua will flog them off in a world market, and the Government will get that money back. That is what is behind the Government’s intention to rush through that project. It is rushing it through with special empowering legislation—and it is thoroughly bad legislation; there is no question about that

The select committee was quite concerned about a number of aspects. One was the Minister’s own behaviour. At the meeting in Kurow, we were handed the Minister for the Environment’s newsletter. In it we read that the Minister had called for nominations to the allocation board under this legislation—even though the legislation has not been passed—trying to pre-empt the committee’s right to change it. We decided there should not be ministerial appointments, yet the Minister pre-empted that and was out there calling for nominations. That shows the arrogance of that Minister.

However, my real concern about the bill—and the reason I say that this bill is fundamentally flawed and why ACT opposes it in its entirety—is that it is based on more bureaucracy and more central regulation and control. When it comes to allocating a scarce resource, particularly water, that has never worked. The mechanisms in the bill are not best world practice. Water scarcity is not new. It is increasingly new for many New Zealanders, but around the world, water is a very precious resource, and there have been many, many years of hard experience. Central government, big government, and administration schemes such as Mr Cunliffe advocates have never worked. In fact, Mr Cunliffe attended a function in Adelaide with me last year, where we had a graphic example of how to allocate water in a situation where it was scarce. It was in the Murray River.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Where’s the report?

Madam Speaker, would you please ask Mr Cunliffe to stop interjecting from the cross benches.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member not interrupt across the cross benches. It is very disconcerting to the speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He continued to do so during my point of order.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will desist.

It was quite clear in the Murray River case in Australia, where, with a known water crisis, there has been a move to an allocation system based on clear tradable property rights and pricing mechanisms. The same applies in the UK now, and in many other places around the world, such as South Africa and various counties of California, because it works. They get a better result. Rather, this bill proposes to set up a politicised, bureaucratic, monstrous committee that will never get it right. Under that type of scheme, one cannot get efficient water use, because the allocation is decided by a bureaucrat through a politicised process—and it is “Use it or lose it.”

If people had tradable water rights, they would use the water efficiently in order to optimise its use and to make the best use of it. Irrigators told us that they could earn $50 billion for the country if they were given the water, rather than it being used for electricity generation. How do we test that? There is only one way, and that is through a pricing mechanism. Sure, it can be complicated, in that there are storage header tanks in the Pukaki, Ohau, and Tekapo lakes. Essentially, they are just storage header tanks. But those provisions can be provided. For much of the year the price would be negligible, because there is no scarcity. Often the river is in flood, when there is any amount of water. For much of the year the irrigators are not interested in the water. The only times being talked about are those variable times that are very seasonal when there is a shortage, and the only way to satisfactorily allocate a scarce resource is by introducing a property right that is tradable and has some value. This bill fails totally to do that. It is doomed to failure.

This bill is of fundamental importance to New Zealand’s electricity supply future. Contact Energy presented to me last year a graph indicating that New Zealand could face a significant primary energy gap from around 2007—now just 3 years away—because of the rundown in gas from Maui, and problems associated with the use of Waikato coal for electricity generation. The graph that was presented to me is truly frightening. It illustrates that without Project Aqua, there may be a gap between electricity supply and demand beginning in 2007, and rising to a massive 11,000 gigawatts by 2017, just 10 years later. Those forecasts should be of concern to all New Zealanders, since they clearly indicate that unless we can bring additional generating capacity on stream within the next 3 years we will be facing an electricity shortage. Simply stated, this is an issue of critical importance to the future success of the New Zealand economy. The mere existence of the graphs themselves is already putting upward pressure on electricity prices. As we get nearer to the beginning of the shortage itself, prices will go yet higher, so that as the shortages loom the ongoing viability of many New Zealand businesses will be threatened. At the same time residential customers will face increased costs, and perhaps even shortages, as they endeavour to heat their homes, heat their water, cook their meals, and use their computers, cellphones, etc.

Meridian Energy, with its Project Aqua on the Waitaki River in the South Island, has appeared as a kind of white knight to avoid this catastrophe. Its environmentally sustainable hydroelectricity scheme has the potential to reduce the gap I have outlined by a significant extent, and at a price of around 4.5c to 5c per kilowatt-hour, which is significantly cheaper than the known alternatives. It is clear to me, therefore, viewed against the background of the nation’s acute need for new electricity-generating capacity, that Project Aqua is a scheme that should proceed in the national interest. I say “the national interest” because all New Zealand businesses and households will be beneficiaries. To me, those realities are clear-cut.

However, as is frequently the case in the real world, life is not as straightforward as that. Indeed, in relation to water from the Waitaki River, it could hardly be more complex. When it comes to water allocation consents, Meridian Energy and Project Aqua are in direct head-to-head competition with a number of farming groups, who are desperate for water consents so that they can irrigate farms. Taken together, the potential of the irrigation schemes is in the hundreds of thousands of hectares. They, therefore, also have the potential to greatly boost—or make a significant contribution to—New Zealand’s agricultural exports. Accordingly, the irrigation schemes are also of critical importance. To make life really complex, the total volume of water sought from the Waitaki catchment by the applicants exceeds the quantity of water available, even if we used all the water in the river—something, by the way, that is not intended. A minimum irreducible level of water must be maintained in the river so that its botanical, fish, and bird life can flourish. The environment comes first, and only when all are satisfied in that regard can we move on to human recreational and commercial considerations—in that order. Therefore, the second priority use of the river, which is for human recreation in terms of fishing and jet boating, etc., must always be assured.

It is only after we have cleared those two hurdles that we come to the subject of this bill, which is sorting out a means whereby the competing commercial interests can then be taken into account and decisions concerning water allocation made. It establishes a process specifically to determine, and then to allocate, water usage. It appoints both a board to develop a water-allocation framework, and a panel of commissioners to consider consent applications within that framework, and most important, to allocate the water. In terms of the water allocation, time is of the essence. The bill provides, therefore, for the framework to be completed within 9 months, so that the allocation process can then proceed. Should Meridian Energy successfully gain consents for the water required for Project Aqua, it will then be able to proceed with its scheme. If not, it will be necessary for it to rework and downscale, or possibly even to abandon, the project.

I fervently hope, for the sake of New Zealand’s electricity supply, that Project Aqua, or, at the very least, a modified form of the scheme, will go ahead. However, if Project Aqua cannot proceed we need to know that quickly, so that other probably higher-cost, less sustainable, and less environmentally friendly electricity-generation alternatives, such as coal, can then be speedily advanced. We are in a race against time. The clock will not stop, and I have seen nothing yet to indicate that the graph is wrong that indicates clearly a gap in our electricity supply from 2007.

United Future’s concern has been to ensure that the processes outlined in this bill will do a number of things, including providing a level playing field on which the competing commercial consent applications can be fairly and objectively assessed. I say at this point that I agree with some of the points that Ken Shirley has made about moving to a market allocation system. However, given the time frame we have had in front of us, I believe that a lot of further work needs to be done on that, perhaps tapping into the international models he mentioned, before New Zealand is in a position to move to such an alternative. I think we should be open to it for the future, but on this occasion, sadly, time is not on our side. This bill is also intended to ensure that the people appointed to the board and the panel have the requisite expertise, and that the system of appointments is clear, transparent, and non-politicised. It is also intended to ensure that the end point, the all-important allocation of the water between the various parties, is reached as speedily as possible.

It is United Future’s view that the provisions of this bill will meet those criteria, and on that basis we give it our support and commend it to the House.

In speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill I, too, would like to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. [Interruption] It is all right. I should just stay on message, and ignore that. I would like to acknowledge the efforts and considerable work the select committee did, and I would particularly like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. His contribution at the select committee was magnificent, and I think that has been—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The Hon Dr Smith.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith—yes, I said that, did I not? He did make a considerable contribution, and he worked diligently to ensure that we made the changes we have made—but not all the changes that we would have liked to see happen.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the chair, because I think her contribution in managing the whole process under such pressure, with the time constraints we were under and the pressure we had to get this bill through, was excellent. It could not be faulted, given we could not extend the time frame any further. We were being pressured to report this bill back to the House, and it was disappointing to us that this whole process has been fast-tracked for the reason enunciated in this House: the Meridian Energy project. Environment Canterbury has not had a water allocation model in the last 14 years. There was no pressure for that to come about, because there was ample water in the river. It was not until Meridian Energy came forward with Project Aqua that there was suddenly a need to have this bill, because we needed a water allocation plan. So the Minister, in bringing this bill to the select committee and requiring us to put it through the process, therefore put us in that position. I think it is to the credit of the committee that we worked so well on this bill, because the changes had been incredibly substantial. One only has to look at the bill that came before the select committee and then look at it now, to see the number of changes that have taken place.

National welcomes the reduction in the powers of the Minister to sack members of the water allocation board. We also welcome the removal of the Minister’s power to direct the board on the process and to override the Resource Management Act. National also welcomes removing the clauses that would have enabled the normal and thorough analysis under section 32 of the Act to be bypassed when developing the water allocation plan. In addition we welcome removing the national perspective test for Project Aqua, and also the transfer of the consent processing for Project Aqua from the Ministry for the Environment to Environment Canterbury.

However, in spite of the many changes that we have been able to make to the bill, we still oppose it. We have consistently argued for reform of the Resource Management Act, and we find it objectionable that the rules are being rewritten specifically for a State-owned enterprise project. We support many of the amendments to the bill that reduce the number of exemptions from the Act and the powers of the Minister to intervene in the process. However, we still have significant concerns about key provisions. The first one is this: the board should have the same level of independence from the Government as the Environment Court, and there remain in the bill conflicts of interest on the part of the Government as the owner of Meridian Energy.

I refer to some of the specific provisions of the bill. Clause 8 provides that the Minister appoints the members of the board. The issue was raised earlier that one of the requirements for a member of the board is for that person to have knowledge of tikanga Māori, and that Ngāi Tahu customary values and practice are a part of that knowledge. It is interesting to note that Meridian Energy already has that knowledge on its board of directors. Sir Tipene O’Regan is, I understand, a descendant of Ngāi Tahu, and he is on the board of directors for Meridian Energy, so Meridian Energy certainly has that knowledge available to it. Does that mean that while the Minister must have regard to the need for that knowledge, she does not necessarily have to have someone on the board who has that knowledge? Or does it mean that another Ngāi Tahu person will possibly be appointed to the board? There could be the interesting position of having a Ngāi Tahu director on Meridian Energy, and then perhaps a Ngāi Tahu member on the board. So I find that could be an interesting outcome. The chairperson of the board will also be appointed by the Minister, as will be the deputy chairperson. I see no reason why the board could not make those appointments itself.

Turning to the rest of our concerns, we believe that the principles under which Project Aqua and the other consents are to be considered are being skewed. Those consents should be considered against the unaltered provisions of Part 2 of the Act. Although those provisions are taken into account, they are then extended in the bill in clause 42. So first, one applies the principles and purposes of Part 2 of the Act, and then one has regard, in respect of each application, to the economic and social benefits and costs of each taking, use, damming, discharge, etc. So there are some extended qualifiers that change the emphasis of Part 2 of the Act, and National members have concerns about that. We believe that the Waitaki River will have a lower level of environmental protection than any other river in New Zealand, and there is no justification for that. We were led to believe that not only by the qualifiers of Part 2 of the Act but also by the substantial changes that we had to address through the select committee process. There were changes with regard to section 32 and section 68(3), which is about taking environmental effects into account. That was excluded from the bill. The whole premise of the Act is to take into account, and look after, the environment, yet section 68(3) of the Act is to be excluded from consideration in the formulation of the water allocation framework.

Those are just some of the concerns that are part of National’s objection to this bill. We will be raising those matters through the Committee stage, and I am sure that we will come up with some Supplementary Order Papers. I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very disappointed that he is unable to be with us today. He had a particular concern over the 1969 agreement, and National members share that concern. We believe that the Waitaki catchment as defined in clause 4(1) of the bill does not fully take into account the upper catchment of the Waitaki, because it is not a part of the Lower Waitaki water allocation process. We have major concerns around that. National would like to see that the water rights of those people above the Waitaki dam are taken fully into account, and that the previous agreements made with the Government are honoured. We would definitely like to see that take place, and we are hopeful that, through the process of debating this bill, we can reinforce that concern and bring about some change. Farmers and residents of the Mackenzie District have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way the promises made to them in the past have been dishonoured, and they would like to see their water rights reinstated.

Finally, I would like to mention the hasty process on this bill. I quote the Minister: “…meaningful democratic participation at the local level is a principle embedded in the Resource Management Act.” Yet she has taken away the appeal provisions within this bill. Two speakers have already commented on that, and National absolutely deplores that that provision has been denied to submitters in the water allocation process.

We have had a couple of interesting contributions from members opposite, and I would like to turn first to that of Ken Shirley. His clarion call for tradable property rights seemed, at the very least, to be swimming upstream in the Waitaki, if not flying in the face of the wind, as well. When we reflect on it, what is wrong with the idea of tradable rights that guarantee the highest social value by virtue of the highest bidder? I say to Mr Shirley that the first thing we get is an upstream/downstream problem, and that is typified by the Murray-Darling River system in Australia. If the water is used upstream—say, for irrigation—and not returned, then those downstream might not have access to it, no matter how much they were prepared to bid. There are externalities for the community and the environment that are not priced in a tradable property rights regime. And there are all of those other problems of the “commons”, all of which add up to a big, fat market failure.

That is why we have a Resource Management Act, and, in this case, is why we have needed to work within its principles to adopt processes that are appropriate to the particular needs of the Waitaki Valley. Labour commends the work put in by the select committee, which made a number of quite extensive amendments to the legislation, in line with the principles that have been expressed.

Finally, let us turn to the contribution made a little earlier by Mr Connell for the National Party. As my point of order reflected, I was disturbed that he alleged that Meridian Energy was getting special treatment from the Government because it was a State-owned enterprise. Were that true, it would indeed impugn the office of shareholding Ministers, and would amount to a breach of privilege claim. I suspect that Mr Connell should either put up or shut up. That is a completely inappropriate thing for him to allege. It demeans the excellent management team at Meridian Energy, and it certainly demeans this Parliament.

Let us be clear: this bill provides a non-discriminatory, fair framework for all parties that have an interest in the water of the Waitaki system—for recreation, fishing, irrigation, and electricity generation. It is because those interests are being appropriately balanced that Meridian Energy itself has concerns about the viability of its future rights. The National Party cannot have its cake and eat it too. It is either a sweetheart deal, or it is an excessively punitive deal for Meridian Energy—it cannot be both.

This is an excellent bill. It strikes a fair balance, and it protects the waters of the Waitaki for both current and future generations. The Labour Party urges its passage forthwith.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. It was quite fascinating to hear the Hon David Cunliffe say that this is a non-discriminatory, fair, framework bill, when it clearly transgresses the resource management process, and clearly makes changes to the normal process that one would go through at the Environment Court. The stated purpose of this bill is to amend the Resource Management Act, to enable the merits of competing water users of the Waitaki catchment to be considered, and to establish a framework for the allocation of the water that will allow for sustainable development.

There is no doubt that this area is hugely important for New Zealand. On the one hand, we have enormous energy requirements, and it is somewhat sad that the Labour Government has chosen to manipulate the normal processes in order to get its version of how the energy requirements of New Zealand should be settled. The other aspect, of course, is that there is huge potential for the use of irrigation in the Waitaki and the Waikeria valley areas, yet we have a Government that is outstanding, in this case, for deciding that it is going to ram through a specific course of action against its track record in both the Resource Management Act and the Environment Court.

I want to quote my colleague, the Hon Nick Smith, a very good member who is responsive to his constituents and who has listened to the people at the grass roots. What did he say in the first reading of this bill? He said: “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.”

I must accept that I was not a member of the select committee, and I understand that some improvements have been made during the select committee process. The specific improvements that National welcomes are, firstly, those of reducing the powers of the Minister to sack members of the water allocation board. Surely, this has to be one of the things that a Labour Government so intent on central control, and so intent on manipulating the processes of well-established Resource Management Act consents, needs to be curtailed on.

We welcome, secondly, removing the Minister’s power to direct the board on process and to override the Resource Management Act; thirdly, removing clauses enabling a normal and thorough section 32 analysis to be bypassed when developing the water allocation plan; and, fourthly, removing the “national perspective” test for Project Aqua.

When we look at the bill, a myriad of concerns remain. The very heart of our concern resides in the fact that the bill does not provide for normal Environment Court appeals. This is enormously rich, considering that when it came to New Zealand’s largest dump at Meremere, only half a kilometre from the Waikato River and 4 kilometres upstream from Auckland’s water supply, it was Marian Hobbs, Minister for the Environment, who refused to use call-in powers in that situation. But in this case she is saying “No, we will not do it there, because it suits us; down in the Waitaki Valley, with this Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment) Bill, we will just change the rules to suit the Labour Government.” I wonder about the propriety of this process.

The second thing is that the consent criteria are being skewed from those of any other resource consent. National has made it perfectly clear over the last few years that there are all sorts of problems with the resource consent process. We have the absurd situation in New Zealand where Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner have pointed out that in order to plan and build a road in New Zealand, from go to whoa, getting the bulldozers in, it would take up to 7 years, and they can do the same thing in Singapore in 3 months.

It seems extraordinary that this Labour Government, instead of making the Resource Management Act itself more efficient and effective, chose to cement in processes that are just obstacles to the gaining of a resource consent. It has cemented in a whole variety of these, yet, on this occasion, it chooses to make a specific bill for a specific situation that suits the Government. Then, exemplified in this bill, we have the situation where there is no attempt to ensure that historic commitments given to farmers in the Mackenzie Basin are honoured.

I understand that Meridian Energy’s chief executive, Dr Keith Turner, said the bill did not appear to give any protection to existing rights to take water from the South Island’s Waitaki River. What did the Labour-supported Local Government and Environment Committee recommend? It recommended that a clause in the bill strengthening the rights of existing water consent holders be deleted. This is what Labour does—it just runs riot over those previous commitments that had been made to the land holders up there in the Upper Waitaki Basin.

New Zealand certainly does face an energy crisis, but the solution to it is undoubtedly best achieved by a fair set of rules for all. It is absolutely hypocritical of Labour, which blocked private sector developments like the Dobson scheme on the West Coast, to now be creating its own special set of rules. There is no doubt that an enlightened Government in this country would be looking for a win for the environment, and a win for progress.

There is no case more poignant than the Dobson one, where it could certainly happen. But in that case, for ideological reasons, this Labour Government said: “No. We will make it a ‘lose’ for the environment and a ‘lose’ for progress.” It is that sort of sentiment that has brought about its choosing to abuse the Resource Management Act and bring in this particular legislation. This is the Government that at the same time it is bringing in this special legislation for a project that suits it, has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and is about to slap on a carbon tax that will significantly affect every New Zealander and every New Zealand business. This Government just does not think through a national plan of efficiency or fairness, or an appropriate set of national strategies that are in any way visionary in terms of the crisis we have before us concerning energy. What absolutely astounds me is that the Government has brought in that carbon tax—or is about to, and is determined to—on a premise based on total uncertainty. The National Party rejects this amendment that the Labour Government is bringing in.

I am very honoured to stand to support the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I reiterate that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board to be appointed, and to develop a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River. The bill will require a panel of commissioners to be appointed to consider the consent applications together, within that framework.

The suggestion that this legislation is empowering or fast-tracking Project Aqua is clearly not so, because the Greens support this bill—notwithstanding their opposition to Project Aqua.