Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

One of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if one challenges any aspect of its programme—[Interruption]

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We just heard the Minister of Conservation casting aspersions on the Hon Nick Smith. He called him ugly. I do not believe that that is acceptable in this Parliament. If the member did not take offence, I certainly took offence on his behalf, and I believe that Minister Carter should stand, withdraw, and apologise for making such a silly and offensive remark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I certainly heard the member in the first instance refer to the word “ugly”. Did the member refer to that word in relation to a member personally?

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Beauty, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. I withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I assume that my time will be taken from the beginning, given the interruption.

My point is that one of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if they are challenged on any aspect of policy and they cannot win the intellectual argument, they simply resort to personal attack. They do it with persons outside the House; they do it within the House. I do not take offence. I take it as a compliment that I am so effective in my role in Opposition that they are not prepared to have the debate on the issues, but resort to those sorts of personal insults.

I want to systematically go through each of the points the Minister has made and test whether they are true. The first thing he said was that this bill is due to the fault of the National Party and the Resource Management Act. Let us just reflect on that.

The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 by National, and voted for by the Labour Party at the time. Labour had actually introduced the bill and passed its first reading and a good part of its second reading. Furthermore, National introduced a substantive amendment bill in 1999 that significantly reformed the Resource Management Act. When Labour came to office it threw that bill out. Labour passed another bill just 12 months ago, and at the conclusion of that bill, passed in May of 2003, it said the Resource Management Act was all fixed and there would be no further problems.

Then, lo and behold, Marian Hobbs was sacked, and David Benson-Pope came into the job. He says he will fix all the problems in the Resource Management Act with a bill that he will be taking to Cabinet next week. I say to the Minister that that is a strange sort of record. How can there possibly be any credibility in his claim that it is National’s fault? It does not stand up to scrutiny.

Then we have the claim that this bill, when the Minister introduced it, had nothing to do with Project Aqua.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: That’s right.

The Minister in the chair says that that is right. Yet the Minister, only 10 minutes ago, when addressing the bill, said it had to be radically changed because Project Aqua had been withdrawn. Are those statements consistent?

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Rubbish!

The Minister did. In speaking on Part 1 he said the reason we have this Supplementary Order Paper is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. How can the Minister say in one breath that this bill has nothing to do with Project Aqua, and in the next breath say that we have to have an Supplementary Order Paper because Project Aqua has been withdrawn? That, again, makes no sense.

Then the Minister said the reason we need this bill is that we need a plan for the Waitaki River, and it is the only way it can be achieved. Again, the Minister is very solidly mistaken. All the Government would need to do, and we know from the estimates that the Government has put up $3.5 million for the development of this plan, is to tell the Canterbury Regional Council that it will put up the money, on the proviso that the council delivers a plan under the existing Act. The bill would not be required, at all.

In the substantive question, members on this side of the Chamber ask why the people of Canterbury are going to vote on 9 October for a new regional council, when already this bill will say that the council cannot do the job. Already this Government has decided it has no confidence in the Canterbury Regional Council to do its job and write a plan. The further point is, why a plan for the Waitaki River? Why not the Rangitata River, the Rākaia River, the Ashley River, or the Ashburton River? Why is it this particular river? The Government cannot pass special legislation for one particular river, without giving this Parliament very concrete reasons as to why it is doing so.

If there is a flaw in the Resource Management Act and the Minister believes that all rivers should have a management plan—and there might be some substance in that argument, which was eloquently put by Jeanette Fitzsimons—let us have a bill that requires all rivers up to a particular size to have a management plan within a particular period. That might make some sense. But why just this river, and just this region?

We cannot have the Minister of Local Government in the Chamber talking about the powers of general competence and who says that we trust local government, and then have a bill that takes the powers away, and gives them to a group of people who will be appointed under Part 2. I say to the Minister that it makes no sense. He has been caught out time and time again, misleading the intent of this bill and the reasons for it. I challenge him to take a call and answer some of those fundamental questions that this Parliament needs an answer to if this legislation has any merit.

I thought the Rākaia River, and recently the Rangitata River, were subject to river conservation orders. The issues raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—

💬 Brian Connell: You think that’s a management plan, do you?

No, they are not. What they do is to limit the allocation of water that can be taken, by setting minimum flow regimes. That would be part of the work done by the council—

💬 Brian Connell: Very arbitrary line.

It may be an arbitrary line, but I understand that it cost the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Fish and Game Council a quarter of a million dollars to get there. So it certainly was a very costly arbitrary line. But the issue is that the river conservation order process will not be needed for this river, because the board that will be set up will have the ability under Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to develop and approve a water plan that will overcome the issues that there may be with regard to the Rākaia River, the Rangitata River, or any other river in the Canterbury region. That board will go through what would have been done by the regional council, if there had been a water plan. I do not see the local body elections on 9 October as being of particularly great interest. As I said earlier, just to go through the steps that the Canterbury Regional Council is going through, apart from the work that this bill will hasten, would take an inordinately long time. Instead, when the board is selected it will be able to go through those steps.

I will just quickly run over the issues that traditionally make up a regional plan: the minimum flows and the takes or extractions that can take place, the restrictions on the rates of use of water other than that which is required essentially by farmers and for human takes, the blocks of water that can be shared above or below the regulated minimum flows, and restrictions on damming. All the issues that normally form part of a regional plan will be the work of the board. New Zealand First supports that essential core function, which the board will pick up and do in an orderly manner. Previously, I said that we had talked to farmers and to high-country people, and we have done so. The work of the board will take care of the other issues that are very, very important, with regard to people who feel that the Waitaki River is theirs—the recreational users, and the down-valley users of water. They will have their concerns and their issues resolved in the orderly and a transparent process that is a regional water plan. The bill hastens that process.

Again, New Zealand First stands to say that we support this provision, because it will bring a quick benefit to the community. We could go back in history and look at what the regional council did not do, or was not supposed to have done—the strategic things that were mentioned by two previous members. But for my part, I believe that Environment Canterbury has done a sound job in recent years, and I believe it is still doing a sound job.

Last of all, we understand that this bill would not be before the House in this form unless there had been consultation with Environment Canterbury about the core issues. I expect that Ministry for the Environment and Environment Canterbury staff have met on several occasions and have come to the point where, if this bill is passed and is passed speedily, they will be able to make progress. Probably they have already worked on some of the core components of a regional water plan.

New Zealand First supports Part 2, and hopes that the bill will hasten the benefit that the board will bring more quickly and more transparently to the wider community, and not just to the people of the Waitaki Valley.

Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs contains one sensible amendment to Part 2. Having said that this legislation comprises a comprehensively bad Supplementary Order Paper and a comprehensively unnecessary bill, I do give credit for the fact that it contains one sensible amendment. The bill takes away the silly requirement for the board to apply for an extension of time if it cannot do the job in 9 months. It was absolutely clear all the way through the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings that the board could not do the job in that length of time. All the submissions we had stated that the job was too big for that, and the bill now gives the board 12 months to do its job, without wasting its time by going through special applications and special Gazette notices. So that, I guess, is an improvement.

However, new clause 10A on that Supplementary Order Paper is not, in any way, as benign as that amendment. The select committee was quite appalled at the extent to which the bill, as introduced, created the board to act as a sort of puppet for the Minister and the ministry, which clearly knew the outcome they wanted. It gave the Minister all kinds of powers to direct the board, and it gave the ministry the power to give the board all the information on which it had to base its decision. The select committee got rid of both those provisions. What clause 10A does is to reinsert, with exactly the same wording as before, the old clause 10(1), which stated: “The Minister may … (a) arrange for work to be done for the Board: (b) supply any information to the Board.”—as though the board was not capable of doing that for itself. So the Minister—and for that we should read “the Ministry for the Environment”—will do that for the board and, in doing so, will insert itself back into control of the process. What has not been reinserted, however, is clause 10(2), which had stated that any such work and any information supplied to the board must be made available for public inspection. That bit has not gone back in. It seems that one will have to use clause 13, “Official Information Act 1982 amended”, in order to find out just what information the Ministry for the Environment has given the board and what work the ministry has arranged to have done for the board.

I have been wondering just how the Government was going to get a majority for those arrangements, and I was quite astonished to hear a few minutes ago that United Future supports this legislation. Larry Baldock was a member of the committee, yet he will now vote to have a lot of the work of the committee removed from the bill. I wonder why he is doing that, because he seemed to support that work at the time. United Future also says that it supports the outdoor recreation people. The trout and salmon fishers do not want all that water to be allocated for hydro and irrigation purposes. The people who want to take water out of the river will thank United Future for its support of that, but the fishers—whom United Future says it supports—want the water to be left in the river, and they will remember that. The fishers told the select committee that the river needs to keep the water that it has now. We cannot simply reduce it to a minimum flow—a bit of a trickle—and allocate a whole lot of it to other economic purposes, and still have a good trout and salmon fishery. So I am surprised that the member supports a bill to allocate water, rather than a bill to plan for the best management of the catchment.

There is a need for a regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Most of my constituents agree that that is still necessary, notwithstanding Meridian Energy’s decision not to proceed with Project Aqua. There was a suspicion, when this bill was introduced, that it was a “think big” equivalent that would push through Project Aqua, and push it through against a proper consideration of the proposal under the Resource Management Act. Those suspicions run deep in my electorate, because the Clyde Dam, on the Clutha River, was pushed through under empowering legislation by the then National Government under Mr Muldoon. But those suspicions were dispelled in my electorate after the good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee removed all the contentious clauses in the bill before it was reported back to the House.

Indeed, on the bill’s second reading it was supported by the Greens, New Zealand First, and United Future, in addition to Labour. Those parties all agreed that it was not think bigging Project Aqua.

💬 Brian Connell: He was supporting Project Aqua.

No, I did not support or oppose Project Aqua, I say to Mr Connell. The member is, again, misinformed. [Interruption] No, I agree that Resource Management Act - type principles are the appropriate mechanisms to use in order to deal with issues like that, unlike that member, who would use the power of Parliament to prevail over proper process and the interests of the local community. I find it difficult to accept the Greens’ decision not to support the bill any longer, because it seems to me that if, from a principled position, one accepts that there is a need for a water allocation framework, that principle remains good either with Project Aqua or in its absence. None the less, there were others who supported the need for a water allocation framework. Indeed, during the height of the controversy, Dr Brash made a visit to Oamaru. He held a press conference, and when he was asked for his opinion, he said he thought there was a need for a water allocation framework. I agree with that. He was actually right on that occasion, but he has not been supported in that opinion by his colleague Dr Nick Smith.

I also think that the simplification of the bill by the removal of some of the particular considerations listed in the bill when it was introduced, and their replacement now by general Resource Management Act principles, is appropriate. My reading of that list of criteria was that they really restated the Resource Management Act, anyway. I think there was a danger that they would have added unnecessary complexity, and that the Minister is wise to remove that risk by making it clear that the existing Resource Management Act principles apply. I am quite confident that those existing principles are adequate to deal with the issues that need to be considered here.

💬 Shane Ardern: No evidence!

There is no evidence of that? You would prefer different principles?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Point of order, Mr Chairman!

I withdraw and apologise. I did not mean to bring the Chair into the debate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (John Carter): I say to Mr Shirley that that is very kind. I was aware of it; I was going to let it go.

The National Party would introduce different considerations if it were in charge of this legislation. As in the case of the Clyde Dam, it would use the power of Parliament to overrule proper principles.

I am happy to support this bill. I know that the majority of my constituents think that it is wise legislation, and I am pleased that it is supported by both New Zealand First and United Future. I am also pleased that Environment Canterbury acknowledges that it is a wise thing to do.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I firstly congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. May I say that it would be splendid if you were elevated to the Chair behind it at some time in the future, too.

I am very pleased that the member for Otago took that call, because I appreciate the sensitive position he is in. But hearing him come out with the statement that he neither supports nor opposes Project Aqua—neither confirms nor denies—I would advise him to talk to some of the union officials. There are plenty on his side. There is the old union song: “Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?”. That member needs to determine which side he is on, because his electorate will not thank him if he continues to sit on the fence on a matter that is so critical to it. All one does when one sits on the fence in that manner is upset everyone.

Part 2 is the guts of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. When one analyses the bill and reduces it to its basic, essential elements, all it does is set up a committee. The whole essence of this furore and fuss is setting up a big, elaborate committee. That committee has the job of allocating water. We have had a regional council that has been entrusted with that responsibility since the regional councils were established way back in 1989. They did not do it, for political reasons, so what makes anyone think this committee will have any more success, given that it will face the same problems?

The member for Otago said that Environment Canterbury is delighted to have the body there. Of course it is, because it has abrogated its responsibility for nigh on 15 years, and now the Government has stepped in and has fast-tracked special legislation. Make no mistake about it, it was all about fast-tracked special legislation for Project Aqua.

We have had amazing utterances from the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs. I heard Nick Smith say in this debate that she had been sacked. I have not caught up with that news. I know that she is often missing in action, but I had not realised that she had been sacked as Minister for the Environment. I had not heard anything out of her. The last comment she made was that the Resource Management Act was “beautifully worded and beautifully crafted”. At that point Labour had Mr Benson-Pope do a review of the Act to see just how beautifully worded and crafted it was.

But be that as it may, this bill is a nonsense and it is unnecessary. If one wants to persist with an administrative allocation of water, there is already an existing structure that has had that responsibility for nigh on 15 years. Prior to that, there was the Waitaki Catchment Commission that had that same job. It has done catchment allocation plans in the past. I have looked at them, they are still in existence, and they will not be much different from what this new committee established by this bill may at some point get around to doing.

I will get back to the subject of the Minister for the Environment. The Government claimed that it was not rushing this bill through, but the select committee members will remember that when we were hearing submissions down in Kurow we got a copy of the Ministry for the Environment’s newsletter. In the newsletter the Minister for the Environment was calling for nominations to this allocation board prior to this legislation even being passed. That was over a year ago. I wonder what happened to those nominations. I wonder how many she received. She said that she was not trying to rush the bill through; she did not even have the legislation passed, and she was calling for nominations for this allocation board. That is clearly a nonsense.

Another aspect of this bill was made clear in this debate. It was again about Part 2, with regard to clause 6(2). The initial bill stated that the board must complete its function within 9 months. That was 9 months ago.

I was delighted to see the mystery member for Otago take a call.

💬 Opposition Member: Who is it?

I do not know what his name is. I said he was a mystery member. But I can say why he has only 41 more flights left to Wellington, because a member who stands in the Chamber and says that he does not stand for anything, is not coming back to this place after the next election. If one does not stand for anything, one stands for nothing. It is contagious in the Labour Party—they will not vote on anything. No wonder they call him the “Parker Pimpernel” in Otago!

I also have to take issue with Jim Peters. There are a couple of issues that he has raised. He is well intentioned but I think he is being seduced by a small minority of people. He would have this Parliament believe that he is the only member who has gone to the Waitaki Valley and spoken to the local residents. He is talking to people in the upper Waitaki Valley who are a tiny representation of the people who live along the length and breadth of that great river. Further down the river are a huge number of people who do not want this. They certainly did not want Project Aqua—[Interruption] Jim Peters is calling out about Stan Scorringe. The Stan Scorringe issue is simply about the Order in Council. If that were brought forward we might very well reconsider our opposition to this bill. But let us be clear—this bill is not about that. This bill is a fast-track mechanism for Project Aqua.

The agenda is a moving feast. As Project Aqua has fallen over, the Government has started to change its position. Its latest position is that this is a water allocation process. Mr Peters has fallen for that, hook, line, and sinker. He talks about the farmers of Canterbury. He is not talking about the farmers of Canterbury per se, he is talking about a tiny number in South Canterbury and North Otago. He should at least learn the geography before standing up and representing himself as an expert in my territory, because he is not.

He talks about using the Rākaia River and the Rangitata River to manage irrigation and water allocation programmes down there. I can tell that member that he is wrong, and that is as much as I will say about that. The Opuha Dam is a good example of how people working together in a local community can put water allocation programmes in place without having central government bureaucracy hitting them over the head with a cricket bat. It simply is not necessary.

This bill was Project Aqua in disguise. Geoffrey Palmer, when he introduced the Resource Management Act—and let us be clear about who introduced it: it was Geoffrey Palmer and the Labour Government—said that he did not want the Resource Management Act to be the National Development Act in disguise. But the Government forgot that. It picked up the Resource Management Act and used it to fast track Project Aqua.

I would like the Minister in the chair to stand up and give me an unequivocal undertaking that existing property rights will be protected. Maybe the member from New Zealand First will be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The commentary in the bill states that existing property rights or consents will be maintained, but I can see nowhere in Part 2, or any other part for that matter, that says that that will be guaranteed. It all sounds very laudable, but there is no explicit recognition or protection of existing rights.

The Minister has been asked to get on his feet and give an unequivocal guarantee that those existing property rights will be protected. I bet he will not. If he does not, confusion will reign and it will result in lengthy delays and more costs as existing consent holders have to defend their consents against those new applicants. This bill does not put that stake in the ground. As it exists now, the rights of electricity generators, farmers, and other users are being undermined, and uncertainty will reign. It is likely this bill will promote, not reduce, this type of confusion.

Uncertainty already reigns. In June 2003, farmers applied for water rights for 0.002 cubic metres of water, which is, as someone has said, merely a piddle in a bucket. It is absolutely infinitesimal. The Minister used her call-in powers on those applications in October 2003—the introduction of this bill was in November 2003—so those people have had their water rights put on hold as a consequence of this bill, which they were promised would be passed within 6 months. That did not happen. It dragged on until September 2004, and it still has not happened. There is no plan being formed as yet and it will take some time to form one. Those farmers who have applied for water rights are still in limbo, so there is definitely no certainty around that.

The member who recently spoke about Part 2 and said that this whole bill is just about the appointment of a board is absolutely right. That is just about all that this bill does. It sets a few definitions, but it is largely about establishing this board for the regional water allocation plan. The Minister has her fingers in this pie well and truly, because it is the Minister who will appoint the board. As we have already heard, she has already called for applications for this board. I wonder how many she got, how many people she has made promises to, and whether that is the reason that she has to go ahead with this bill and the establishment of a board. Because, as we have quite clearly heard, the only reason for this bill is to establish a board.

With the establishment of this board, the Minister must have regard for the skills of the board. In looking at that, it is about members of the board having an understanding of water allocation, river ecology, the Waitaki catchment, and tikanga Māori. We have to ask ourselves what tikanga Māori has to do with water allocation, and that is one of the bones of contention, I guess, with the Resource Management Act, because there is a definition of tikanga Māori that is pretty broad and could mean just about anything and everything, and it is my understanding that it pertains to the particular tikanga for that tribal group or individual. The Minister, again with her finger in the pie, appoints the chair of the board, although one would wonder why it is not left to the board to appoint its own chair. The Minister also appoints the deputy chair of the board, so one can see quite clearly that the Minister has quite a great deal of influence—far too much influence—on the board’s composition and on who its chair and deputy chair will be, and that is quite unacceptable.

That does not happen in any other situation where there is a regional water allocation plan going ahead. Those bodies do not have that ministerial influence—or interference, it could more appropriately be called. A member may be removed by the Minister at any time, as well, so what sort of independence does this board have, with so much interference by the Minister? It really is extraordinary. If it were not for this so-called board, there would not be a need for this bill. There has been no justifiable explanation from the Minister as to why this bill is necessary, and we certainly will not get it from the Minister, will we? I have not heard anything to date that would even purport to being a justifiable cause.

The other thing about this board is that when it establishes its regional water allocation plan and accepts submissions to that plan, those submissions cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. No submitter can appeal to the Environment Court, because this process still has some exceptions to it from the normal Resource Management Act process. I put it to members that those exceptions are unacceptable, and that if it were not for this board with all this ministerial interference or for those exceptions to normal Resource Management Act processes, there would be a level playing field for all of those participating.

I move, That the question be now put.

A number of colleagues have—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would ask that my colleague Gerry Eckhoff gets a call in this debate. He is the only South Island high-country farmer in this Parliament. He is the southern man from Otago, and I believe that he has been calling consistently. I would like an assurance that you will not take the closure motion before he has an opportunity to make his contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

A number of members have asked in this Chamber why on earth the Government is proceeding with this legislation, and there is one very devious reason for that. It is that the Minister for the Environment broke the law, and now she has to patch it up. Let me set out for this Parliament the way that the Minister did that. There is a very specific provision in the Resource Management Act that allows the Minister to call in resource consents that are of national significance, and there would not be a member in this Committee who would contend that Project Aqua was not a matter of national importance. But the Minister did not just call in Project Aqua. The schedule of this bill lists consents for as little as 1 litre of water per second. One farmer has had a water right for a couple of stock tanks for 126 years, and his resource consent was called in. Is there a lawyer in the Committee, or any member of the Committee, who believes that it is a matter of national importance for a farmer in Kawerau to draw off sufficient water to supply a couple of stock tanks?

At the Local Government and Environment Committee, we heard from Queen’s Counsel who were very clear that the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, had broken the law. I am sure that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, has had the same advice from his officials, and that the real reason that the Government is proceeding with this bill has nothing to do with protecting the water of the Waitaki River, and has everything to do with patching up Marian Hobbs’ botch-up. The only way that the Government can patch up her illegal act in October 2003 is to pass this legislation. If members had done what they should have done with this bill and chucked it in the bin, the Minister for the Environment would be wide open—absolutely wide open—to be taken to the cleaners in the courts of New Zealand. This Parliament is being asked to retrospectively fix up the Minister for the Environment’s illegal acts. That is right—we are being asked to patch up her illegal breaking of the law, and that is not good enough.

I do not know why the members from United Future and New Zealand First are prepared to patch things up for an incompetent Minister who has broken the law. I challenge any member of the Government to get to his or her feet and describe how the Minister for the Environment could possibly have acted within the law by calling in such small resource consents. That was never what was intended, in terms of matters of national significance. I challenge David Benson-Pope to get to his feet, and tell members what his officials have said. We know what they said to the select committee. They said that the law was doubtful, and that the bill would help to clarify it. What does that mean? It means that the Minister broke the law, and Parliament is being asked to fix that. Well, I say that it is not good enough for Ministers to break the law.

I want to make another point to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope. He has said that Labour wants to fix delays in terms of the Resource Management Act. I ask him how this bill will help to do that. This is a resource management amendment bill, so how will it help with the delays? Will this legislation solve the delays under the Resource Management Act for the poor old cow-cocky? [Interruption] The Minister should get on his feet and speak, rather than do that silly business of pointing in the Chamber. I ask him how this bill will help to deal with delays under the Resource Management Act. I see that the Minister does not want to answer that. What this bill had done for the poor old cow-cocky in Otago who applies for a small amount of water is that it has made him or her wait for a year, while the Government puts this bill through the House. Part 2 will then take another year for the development of a water plan. Then the consents will have to be heard—and that will be at least another 6 months, or probably 12 months—and it will take another year after that if they go to the Environment Court. Does any member of this Parliament believe this bill will reduce delays?

I move, That the question be now put.

I certainly appreciate being given the call. In my opening remarks, I say to Opposition members that they are being very unfair to the current member for Otago. Gavin Herlihy is a first-rate member. He has worked tirelessly for that area, and I think they are being grossly unfair to criticise Gavin Herlihy’s work. [Interruption] What? I am sorry, do members mean he is not the current member? Oh dear! Well, I see Gavin’s Herlihy’s name a lot more in the newspaper than I see David Parker’s name, so I just assumed that Gavin Herlihy was still the member for Otago. Gracious me, I must be wrong about that.

When I look at Part 2, it just sends a shudder through me entirely. I note that the Minister is to set up a water allocation board. I and everybody else in this Chamber saw the appointment of a ministerial reference group. The group was supposedly fair and representative, and it has come out with a recommendation in its report that has again sent shock waves throughout the country. The group was appointed, according to the Minister, from men and women of outstanding quality. I am sure that individually some of them probably were, but their report is a shocker. I have not the slightest doubt that the water allocation board will be made up of sycophantic political appointees appointed by the Minister.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Labour hacks.

They will be Labour hacks who have had some association with water—because they once drank some with their whiskey, or something or other. That is the most worrying aspect of this legislation. If the names of the board members were known to us all, we could make a judgment call on that, but, quite clearly, the Minister will appoint her people to the Waitaki Catchment Board in order to get the result that she and the Government want. Exactly the same thing applied with regard to the reference group; that Minister certainly got what he wanted.

I emphasise just how hugely important water is. Water in the South Island, especially in the area to the east of the main divide, is as important as the land itself. Without water, much of our farming would not survive. Yet potentially, the board could well take away from the farming community, especially, its ancestral, traditional, cultural, and social connections.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: What about customary rights?

Well, it could take away customary rights, as well. Where have we heard all those things before? If those sorts of aspects apply to Māori, then they must apply to the people of the land at Kurow, in North Otago, and in the catchment area of the Waitaki River. Water means a huge amount to the people of that area. We have just seen a real battle on that issue. As my colleague Mr Ken Shirley has pointed out, we still do not know what Mr David Parker thinks. I am told that Mr David Parker is the member for Otago. Apparently, he still has not made any comment on this particular issue, to say whether he is in favour or agin. The people of Otago do not really know that. We constantly emphasise that point.

Quite frankly, the regional council has come out with a pretty reasonable plan for our region; the council has forgotten more than the Minister will ever know about this subject. I personally would not mind this legislation quite as much as I do if the allocation board members were to be derived from the regional council or were to be appointed by it. That would be reflective of the region. But that is not to be the case. This bill is a totally inappropriate way of handling a very, very vital issue to the people of Otago: the allocation of what is known as “blue gold” to the people of our region. The issue is of massive importance.

There is another aspect of this part that is hugely disturbing. I see that the Minister can remove a member of the board for what is called “misconduct”—whatever that may be. Does “misconduct” mean disagreeing with the board, or disagreeing with the Minister? Would that be construed as misconduct?

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The area of New Zealand that is now under debate is an area that I represent. I have had only one call on this part, and before you take the closure motion I think it is only fair, in terms of the representation of the good people of Canterbury, that I have the opportunity to take one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There will be other opportunities for the member to speak.