Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

I make a strong plea to this House to back good, honest Government, and to honour the pledges made to the community of the upper Waitaki River at the time that the huge developments took place in the 1960s. It is very clear from the evidence provided to the Local Government and Environment Committee that commitments were made by former Ministers to that community. Members on the Opposition side of the House want to ensure that those commitments are honoured.

I challenge the member of Parliament who represents that community, Mr Jim Sutton, to take a call—he is in the Chamber—and to support his constituents. I have met with hundreds of his constituents who would have liked—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Name them.

Stan Scorringe, plus a whole lot of others, if Clayton Cosgrove is bothered. Will that member, and, more important, will Mr Sutton back his constituents and ensure that the commitments to that community are honoured? Quite frankly, if this Government was up to the job, the support for that community would be in the bill. The Government has chosen not to provide for that, and that is why I ask all the parties in this Parliament to support the amendment in my name, which will ensure that when the board comes to allocate the waters of the Waitaki River it will be required to take into account the commitments to that community.

I would suggest to Mr Jim Sutton that if he is not prepared to back his community on something as basic as that, then next year he will be a goner.

💬 Brian Connell: He’s retiring anyway.

Well, he is retiring anyway, said Mr Connell, and maybe he is retiring because he knows that the guillotine is fast approaching. This is a serious issue. It is a serious issue because the job of a constituency member is to back his or her people, and Mr Sutton is choosing to put the Labour Government ahead of the interests of the Aoraki people. I want him to listen to good, effective people like Mayor Stan Scorringe, who, alongside many others whom I could list, has very effectively advocated for that community on the reasons that this amendment is required to this part of the bill.

I also want to challenge United Future. Those members know in their heart of hearts that what has occurred in the Mackenzie Basin is wrong and requires legislative correction, and it would be a shame if they, too, joined Jim Sutton, voted against this amendment, and went against what they know to be right for the Mackenzie Basin community. All we are asking is that the commitments made to that community by former Ministers in the 1960s are honoured, and that where communities have accepted commitments in good faith, those commitments are honoured when it comes to the allocation of the Waitaki River’s water.

I would also like to commend the amendment of Dr Nick Smith. Just this very day I spoke with Mr Denis Fastier, who is driving this issue, which is not so much a demand as a request that Parliament behave in an honourable fashion.

💬 Opposition Member: It was a commitment.

It was a commitment and a promise that were given. What is it about promises that, if they are a few years old, they are considered to no longer apply? I do not believe that, and I am not sure whether this Parliament believes that. The fact that the undertaking was given 30-odd years ago does not negate the promise and commitment that were given.

I spoke with Mr Fastier earlier today. I asked him whether he had received support from the Green Party and United Future for Nick Smith’s amendment. He said that he absolutely had. The people in the Mackenzie Basin went to the expense of getting a highly competent ecologist by the name of Peter Espie to present, especially to the Green Party, the significance of water and how it will ensure the ecological sustainability of that region, because as we all know, farming in the Mackenzie, with the north-west winds, rabbits, and so on, has been an absolute disaster. But the area is recovering, and with the help of water it will recover—there is no question about that. But the people of that area need the help of United Future and of the Green Party. Mr Fastier told me today that those parties were both very supportive. They both said that they understood the issue, and that they were very much in favour of the amendment.

But I came to this Chamber yesterday, and I found that, no, that was not the case. The Greens and United Future have backed away from the commitment they gave to that group of farmers. Why? Why did they agree, and then back down? To make matters even worse, those parties were not even answering their phone calls. Mr Fastier rang United Future to have a last-minute conversation, and he rang the Greens, but neither Ian Ewen-Street, the agricultural spokesperson and rural affairs man, nor Jeanette Fitzsimons would answer their calls. Why? What sort of deal has been done with the Minister that has got those parties to completely turn and go back on the word they gave on a regular basis to those people? Those people were very confident the minor parties—the Greens and United Future—would back this amendment.

The ACT party, of course, has backed this amendment all the way through, and we will continue to do so. But the local member has not been outspoken on this issue. Surely, if any member should have been the flagship for this debate, it would be Mr Jim Sutton, the member for Aoraki. He should have spearheaded the drive for those people to get the water that is needed. The potential in that region is absolutely enormous, so why do we hear so little from that Minister? Perhaps the fact that the issue affects only a relatively small number of people, in a numerical sense, is uppermost in Mr Sutton’s mind; I am not sure whether that is the case. But I would have thought it was the job of the constituent MP to be the spearhead in the drive for water for that region. That appears not to be happening, and I think the people of the Mackenzie Basin who are listening to this debate today would be very interested to hear from the Minister for Rural Affairs, from Ms Jeanette Fitzsimons, and from United Future as to why they are backing away from a commitment once given to them, and just given to them again very, very recently.

If there was total agreement amongst this Committee that Parliament should honour that commitment, then we could all move forward very, very quickly. But it does appear that the Green Party and United Future are backsliding on this issue. A deal has been done, which may not manifest itself immediately.

I am moved to rise to my feet, because this matter is of great importance to my constituents. My constituents were made certain promises by the Government of the day in 1969. A certain amount of water was set aside to be available for local irrigation by an Order in Council. Unfortunately, those promises were later abrogated by another Government in 1990-91, when the rules were changed.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: 1993.

Well, 1991 to 1993—around then. Several things happened, but the total result of those things was that the promise that was made was abrogated, and there was no provision that endured in the water allocation process for those people from then on. The rules were changed. The water was allocated in greater quantity and for a greater time to the hydroelectricity generator operating in the catchment.

I have been trying as best I can to find a way to right that wrong. The problem is that in order for rights to be granted now to would-be irrigators, they would have to be taken away from existing consent holders, some of whom are small local irrigators but most of whom are the people of New Zealand, the owners of the electricity generator. Maybe both sets of parties could be given consents even if, as has happened on many of New Zealand’s rivers, that results in an over-allocation, so that a rationing system has to be devised for the times when there is insufficient water to meet the needs of all consent holders. But the Environment Court has said that no, that cannot be done. Many people, including myself, think that that decision of the Environment Court judge is a bit dodgy. The matter is subject to appeal, and the appeal will be heard within the next few weeks. The outcome of that case will be very important, because it will determine whether, without the retrospective removal of the existing rights of consent holders, this matter can be righted.

There is one more thing I want to say, about a matter that is pertinent to that. The National Party is promoting the gathering of a petition that seeks to take away rights from existing consent holders and to reallocate them to would-be irrigators. As much as I would like to see that happen, I have to respect that some legal rights exist, and that the people who hold those rights are entitled to protection. But the National Party’s petition would give water only to irrigators within the Mackenzie Basin; it would not provide any water for the irrigators on the other side of Burke Pass who want to run some water through the pass. For that reason—that partiality of the National Party for one group of applicants over another—the Mayor of Timaru and many other leading citizens have refused to sign that petition. It is a purely opportunistic move by a desperate political party, which talked to one group and agreed to support what it asked for but forgot there was another group, just as important and probably rather more numerous, that had an equally valid claim. That group is entitled to have its claim considered, and does not want this Parliament to turn around and pick out one group at the expense of another, in that way.

I stand for due process, and I will continue to work to find a just solution to this dilemma, but that is not made any easier by the opportunistic and disreputable activity of some members of the Opposition.

I congratulate the member for Aoraki on at least getting to his feet, taking a call, and addressing this issue. However, that is where the praise is going to end, because he has in a very calculating way tried to mislead this Committee with regard to—

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has accused me of misleading the Committee. He simply cannot do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the Minister for raising that, and ask the member to please desist from doing so.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chairperson. The member has said that that water, if taken, would be kept in the Mackenzie Basin alone. That is absolute nonsense, and he knows it. Stan Scorringe and others have made it very clear that if this consent is obtained, the water would be piped through Burke Pass and made available for a significant number of users across South Canterbury. This member for Aoraki has been exposed for being silent on this issue. He has got to his feet today, only because he has been chastised by other speakers in this Chamber; he has been shamed into getting to his feet. He has not been an advocate for those constituents of South Canterbury, and he knows it.

I have a question that the Minister should have addressed when he got to his feet. What is more important: a vote for the Labour Party or a vote for his constituents? He is elected by his constituents, and he should have been here fighting hard for them on this particular issue—but he was not.

💬 Jill Pettis: His constituents vote Labour, otherwise he wouldn’t be their MP!

He has been found wanting, and it does not matter how much his colleagues might call out in support of him to try to distract me from getting to the truth, because the Minister has been exposed on this issue. Nick Smith has done this member’s bidding. He is the member who has put the amendment forward. He is the member who proposed it, and the member for Aoraki has been found wanting.

Mr Sutton said that the Environment Court ruled it out, therefore he cannot support it. Well, that is an absolute nonsense, as well. The amendment that has been suggested makes it very clear that all that is being asked for is for the board to take into consideration the Order in Council that was given as an absolute in 1969. I have to ask the member what value that puts on the word of this Parliament. There is no point in denying that that allocation and that bond was given.

Mr Peters knows that it was given. Mr Peters, like me, would have seen the media reports of the time that made it very clear that a Minister of the Crown made a very clear undertaking that the people of the upper Mackenzie Country, when the technology allowed, would be able to access those 15 cumecs of water. There is no point arguing that because those people do not have the water, they are no longer entitled to it. The facts are that the undertaking was very clear: when the technology became available, that water could be used.

It really makes me cross—and the member for Aoraki knows it, because he would have seen it, as well—that this bill calls for hardly 2 percent of the available water. A strategic water study carried out by Environment Canterbury in 2003 found that there was plenty of water in Canterbury, and provided it was used in a sustainable way, there was plenty for everybody. The Minister knows that. I know that the member for the Green Party has also been approached by people from the upper Waitaki area. I understand from those people that the Green member gave serious consideration—if not her word—to coming to this House to fight for them on this particular issue. I understand that she has seen for herself the benefit of water used for irrigation, and what it will do to protect the environment of the Mackenzie Basin. I call on the Green member to get to her feet now and to fight for them.

Let us take one step backwards. In doing so, I applaud the Minister for coming to the House and putting his case. The issue that was before us when we first considered the matters in the Waitaki River valley, and that is still with us in this revised bill, is the intensity of the competing demands for water from that catchment. There is demand from Meridian Energy, with regard to energy generation, and from those abstractors who would divert the water to another catchment or into storage. By the way, with regard to that, we should be very sensible of the fact that those demands for energy are winter-related, and those demands for irrigation are likely to be summer-related. There is a seasonal issue here that we have not had much observation or discussion on.

Then there are those who have placed extreme value upon the tourism industry and upon the values of the river itself. That comes particularly from recreational users. The issue in this amendment has not really been teased out yet. It is the issue of the exclusive use of water, and of whether the consents or permits to abstract or use water are protected—that is the key—from the granting of any other permits for the life of such a permit, or consent for beyond that period. That is the core issue before members at the present time.

It is further made difficult by the fact that, as New Zealand First said yesterday, in February 1991 the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was granted a bundle of water rights for that very area for a term of 35 years. That raises the issue that I have already related of existing water rights, and of how those could be impacted on.

In the course of the previous discussion that took place with regard to the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee, those issues were teased out. We heard varying opinions about what should be done. We have come to the situation whereby we have before us a reasonable amendment that states we should take account of the 1969 Order in Council allocations. There should be some concern about that, because the last thing that anyone—not least those farmers who may be listening to us at the present time—would want is extensive and lengthy litigation.

The issue is that any water plan is lengthy. I was involved with a regional water plan that started in 1995 and was made final on Monday. That is the length of time it took to complete one small regional water plan. I have no doubt that despite all the best intentions, this regional plan, when it is developed from this bill, will take a lengthy period of time. The litigation will go on. The litigation need not be on “taking into account’—which is one of the concerns before us now—fr any regional body looking at the water plan for the Waitaki catchment. The hearing of submissions, the going-through of due process, and the trialling and careful observation of the submissions before that body, will likely not be affected by litigation. It could sustain any appeal, on the basis that the taking into account of the 1969 allocations was properly and appropriately considered.

I think that contention—which would be a worry for anybody who genuinely wants to get involved and see an end to the Waitaki River catchment scheme—is not valid if the body that is appointed to hear the submissions does so in a proper way. At the end, when the plan comes out in a draft form, there will always be some concerns. There will be numerous reference orders and work that goes to and from the Environment Court. But I also say with great certainty that the issue of taking into account gives some hope to those people at long last. The issue has festered, and will fester further if it is not looked at in this bill and by the panel that is set up to look at the new order plan for the Waitaki River. It will go on and on. New Zealand First would wish this to be an issue that brings clarity and certainty, not only to those Mackenzie Country farmers who want the water, but also to the taxpayer-owned Meridian Energy.

Although that may come in forthcoming legal matters, in actual fact I suspect that, as is the nature of things, if the major energy corporate lost, it would appeal. Farmers would be put to a further expense, and the prospect of irrigation and value to the economy, not only in the Mackenzie Country but also in the wider Canterbury region and in this country, would be lost forever, because the issue was not properly looked at. That is the real reason why New Zealand First gives strong support to Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, and why I believe that other parties in the House ought to take into account a sensible resolution.

I must rise to correct the serious misinformation that Gerrard Eckhoff has put before the Committee about the Green Party and its position; and, likewise, Mr Brian Connell. My first point is that I met with the farmers of the Mackenzie Country, Denis Fastier and others, and I did not give them any commitment to vote for any particular amendment, because no amendment was on the floor of the House at that time. I did say I would seriously consider what could be done about their position, and I have done that.

The second point is, as I said yesterday in the Chamber, the Green Party has sympathy with this, but I could not vote, first of all, for an amendment that amended a clause that no longer existed; secondly, for an amendment that amended the evaluation clause rather than the allocation clause; or, thirdly, for an amendment that did not finally come to the Committee, but might have, which made this the primary consideration that the board had to take into account.

However, I have negotiated a little change with Nick Smith to his amendment and I can now vote for it, so members just might like to retract some of their statements. The amendment that I understand that Nick Smith is now putting forward, makes it clear that the point at which the board has to take into account the Order in Council is the point where it is considering the allocation of water to activities in clause 14AA(c). That is an important change because I am not prepared to vote for an amendment that states that the Order in Council must be taken into account when determining water that is to be used for firefighting, stock watering, and drinking. Nor am I prepared to entertain that it should be taken into account when allocating water to sustain the intrinsic values of the river itself. Those things must come first; they are primary. But when it is a case of allocating water between hydro and irrigation, and other industrial activities, I think this is a matter that could reasonably be considered.

I think that the member’s proposal to put in a new clause 19A fits better, in the structure of the bill, than the two other possibilities that we considered yesterday, and therefore is worthy of consideration. It does not make this the overriding consideration of the board. It does not say that the board must take an all-or-nothing approach, that it must give the whole 15 cumecs to the irrigators, or none of it. It does leave the board to make some serious judgments about whether there are some win-win situations whereby at times of the year when the water is most needed by the irrigators it may be less needed by the hydro generators, and to reach a decision that is fair, taking everything into account. It will no doubt take the various legal decisions into account. It will no doubt inquire into what happened in 1991, and into why the Order in Council was not carried over. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask the board to do, and therefore I am happy to support the amendment.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I will give the call to Sandra Goudie because she was on the select committee.

That seems to have been a long time ago, Mr Chairperson. We are in a catch-up mode, and the farmer waits. I totally applaud Dr Nick Smith for the Supplementary Order Paper he has put to the Committee in support of those farmers who were disenfranchised for something that they thought was theirs, had always considered to be theirs, and it was taken away. I also commend Jeanette Fitzsimons for supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is commendable and that we all have the best interests of the farmers at heart.

I am concerned that the Hon Jim Sutton does not seem to want to support those people and their right to have access to that water. So the farmers wait, and they have waited for some time. With this bill up her sleeve the Minister for the Environment put all the applications for water takes on hold until she introduced her bill some months later. So farmers still wait, in spite of the fact that the applications were for existing take. They are still waiting.

The bill is an abuse of process. It favours an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise, with the Government reaping the profits. How does such favouritism accord with the statements made by the Minister that the Resource Management Act itself was fine, that it did not need changing, and, indeed, that it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced? Here she is with a favourite project and wanting to sidestep that whole process. She made some significant exclusions in sidestepping that process, one being no less than not meeting the full requirement of section 32 of the Resource Management Act. However, we have seen an amendment to that, which is great.

It is interesting to see the favoured position of Meridian Energy while the Dobson dam is not supported, in spite of unanimous local support for that project. It throws up the real difficulties with the Resource Management Act in that we have a bill that was intended to sidestep that whole process. Transpower is also struggling to attempt upgrades. It is postponing those upgrades because of the significant problems being faced under the Resource Management Act. Clearly, it does need to be changed to improve the process for all activities rather than just one for which this bill was created. We have now gone from about 55 clauses to about 26.

Not only has the Minister been very involved in setting up a preferred process for a pet project by a Government State-owned enterprise, she has also been advocating sidestepping key aspects of the Resource Management Act. The Minister was happy to exempt her Government agency from doing what everybody else is supposed to do. However, the hard work of the National members of the select committee revealed that treacherous process of work and they insisted that section 32 of the Resource Management Act be required in its totality, with no exceptions, and that was done.

Ministerial interference is rife in the bill, even with its substantial changes. Ministerial interference actually exists in the role of setting up the board. As we all know, the board was advertised well before the select committee finished hearing the submissions, which really is atrocious. It remains to be seen just what promises were given to those people who applied to the Minister for the Environment to be appointed to the board.

The Minister can appoint the chair of the board, which is quite extraordinary. Why can the board not appoint the chair? She also appoints the deputy chair. Why can the board not appoint the deputy chair/ One would think that at least it could appoint the deputy chair, if not the chair; and, not only that, but the Minister is also appointing in accordance with the requirements of the bill, and people have to have some expertise. One of those portions of expertise is with tikanga Māori. One has to ask why that is.

💬 Brian Connell: Tikanga Pākehā!

Is that valid? One could say that that was very valid, but, as we know, the word “tikanga” is not a substantive word. It can mean all manner of things and has no real substance.

In the last hour my phone has been ringing hot with calls from farmers in the South Canterbury area. They have been ringing to ask me whether Jim Sutton is away on another overseas trip. They know we are debating the superb amendment moved by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Those people are all constituents in the Aoraki electorate, and they are keen to know whether Jim Sutton will vote for or against them. They want to know whether Jim Sutton is away on another overseas trip or is prepared to take part in the debate. I said to Mr Sutton’s constituents that I would go to the Chamber. Surprisingly, I found Mr Sutton sitting in this Committee with his head hanging in shame, because he is about to vote against his constituents and to give the water to Meridian Energy—the superb generating company that pays so much money to the Government coffers, so the Government can spend it on very dubious advertising, such as propaganda. To add insult to injury, the Hon Jim Sutton is apparently the Minister of Agriculture. He, more than anybody else on the Government side of the Committee, should know the importance of irrigation to the whole of the Canterbury region. Yet Mr Sutton will shortly vote against the potential of irrigation. He will make sure that that Crown-owned enterprise, Meridian Energy, gets its fingers on all the water. That is an absolute disgrace.

I went down to South Canterbury recently, to attend a meeting organised by the Mayor of the Mackenzie District, Stan Scorringe. I understand that man is to advance his name to stand for National in the Aoraki electorate. I have little doubt that if Mr Sutton fronts against the farmers on this issue, he may as well stand and take his final valedictory before we close this debate. That man will be gone. When Nick Smith and many other members of the National caucus went down to the South Canterbury area, they found that a commitment was given to the Mackenzie farmers in 1969 that should be honoured. We know that the word of many people on the Government side of the Committee is not worth much, but on the Opposition side of the Committee members are honourable enough to stand by their word. This legislation will completely obliterate the commitment that was given to Mackenzie farmers in 1969. I say to Mr Sutton that that is wrong.

When I was in South Canterbury with the potential next member for Aoraki, Stan Scorringe, I happened to meet with people who represent the Aoraki Water Trust. What huge potential there is for irrigating thousands of hectares, provided the trust can get 1.7 percent of the water out of Lake Tekapō. I understand that Meridian Energy has put huge pressure on all Ministers to make sure that it can claim it owns not only the water after it has left Lake Tekapō but the water before it enters the river—in other words, the water in the lake. I say that is wrong. If Mr Sutton was prepared to vote with us on the Opposition side of the Committee, we might find that we would actually secure some water for the project of the Aoraki Water Trust. We would certainly be able to secure water for the Mackenzie Basin farmers. What huge potential that would add to that province.

We have to wonder why Mr Sutton even bothers to come to Parliament as the member for Aoraki, when he is prepared to turn his nose on those voters in Parliament today. We have to wonder what drives that man.

💬 Shane Ardern: He doesn’t come often.

We do not see him much in Parliament; he says that he is busy overseas. However, on this occasion he is here, and he is in the Committee. He has heard the arguments, so let us find out shortly which side he votes with. Does he really represent the Aoraki farmers, or does he represent Helen Clark?

I move, That the question be now put.