Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

The sham of this bill is exposed in terms of what has happened to Part 4. But I must note the huge disappointment there will be in South Canterbury at the loss of, and the disregard that has been shown by the Labour Party and the United Future party to, commitments given to people there by former Ministers of the Crown. The message that the Labour Party and United Future have just given to the people of New Zealand is that Ministers of the Crown can go to communities, make commitments, and say things will happen, and then this Parliament will put no weight on that. That makes for a very sad day for the Mackenzie country, a very sad day for South Canterbury, and a sad day for this Parliament. The message we have given is that people should not trust Governments, and that is something I deeply regret.

When we look at Part 4 we see that Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs has completely gutted it—it gets rid of clause after clause. My question is why? The Minister supported this bill when it was introduced. The Government members supported those same provisions at the Local Government and Environment Committee, and at the second reading. Why, suddenly, have 16 clauses in Part 4 simply disappeared from the bill? I am not surprised that Marian Hobbs, the Minister responsible for this bill, has failed to take a single call to justify what she has done. When she introduced this bill, she assured the House that it had nothing to do with Project Aqua. Well, why is it that when Project Aqua disappeared, suddenly the bill was gutted? Either she was less than upfront with this Parliament and the people of New Zealand before, or she is being less than upfront with them now. This Committee deserves an explanation. Why is it that a panel of commissioners was going to make the key decisions about individual consents to take water from the Waitaki River then, but will not do that now? What has changed? Why is it that Government members stood up in this Chamber not more than 6 months ago, and vigorously defended the fact that those consents could not be dealt with by the Canterbury Regional Council, yet now they can be? Can any member of the Labour Party tell us what has brought about that U-turn? The silence is deafening. Not one of those members can provide a justification for that enormous U-turn, in terms of where the Government now rests in respect of Part 4.

Of course, we are also dealing with schedule 2. In that schedule, a whole list of resource consents is provided for. There are over 200 different applications in the schedule. My question is this: why is it that we have to provide a special consent process at all to deal with a small application, like that by Tōtara Farming, for a very small amount of water? We on the Opposition side of the Chamber have argued until we were blue in the face that the Resource Management Act needs reform—for instance, that applications need to be processed more quickly. For all the talk about trying to reduce delays under the Act, this legislation will delay 240 resource consents. The Government has said that it wants to reduce delays under the Act, so I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, why this legislation is to add to the delays.

I shall explain why there are delays. First, a regional plan is required to be written for water, and there is a process of 12 months for that to be done. It then goes through a consent process, which will take at least 12 months. Of course, the resource consent applications were lodged at least 18 months ago, and some 2 years ago. Is it good enough that the poor old cow-cocky who is waiting for a resource consent, sometimes for as much water as would fill a cup, or for as much water as that per hour to feed a few stock, has to sit around and wait for 4 years to get a consent under this Government?

This is awful law. It is just typical of the delays and the bureaucracy of this Government, and of the Government’s approach to the Act.

New Zealand First is very pleased to support Part 4, for the very simple reason that in the first reading debate we believed then, and say again now, that this task could have been done by the Canterbury Regional Council. I have faith in the Canterbury Regional Council to be able to carry through the task that this legislation imposes upon it. I had faith then and I have faith now, and I want to reiterate that. I have further faith, because in the passage of time, since the commencement of the thought in 2002 that there should be such a bill, much has progressed with regard to the Canterbury region.

I have already spoken about the natural resources plan that is before us, and the expectancy that when that regional plan is developed, it may not be able to be effective until 2009 at the earliest. Instead, this legislation sets up a regional council ability to go ahead to plan exclusively for the Waitaki Catchment area, and, regrettable as it is for those who seek to have water upstream or downstream, if there is to be a time delay it will be nothing more than would have been experienced under the provisions of the bill. However, uppermost in the mind of the board would be the local concern about the river.

The issue that existed when the bill came to the House for its first reading is still there. There does not appear to be sufficient water to meet the demands that are inherent in the applications that are in schedules 1, 2, and 3. New Zealand First stands to support, again, this part of the bill. We believe that the Canterbury Regional Council is able to set a management regime for the Waitaki River. It will provide an adequate level of protection for all the in-stream values, and will do it in a proper and appropriate way; the native life of the river, fish in particular, and recreational values will be uppermost in the minds of those who do the work.

The allocation of water above the management flow regimes can be achieved. I know that there already has been work, and some flow regimes set for the lower Waitaki River, and that this time, as well, for the first time in this region, the council will look at the effectiveness of water use, which hitherto has not been one of the issues. While there will be some issues around that, particularly if it goes beyond technical efficiency into the allocative issue, that will bode well for the future life of the river.

So New Zealand First does support this part of the bill. It believes that this is an easier way to achieve, by council negotiation, what could have been achieved by the bill, but it is done by the local council with its commissioners doing the job. Other councils throughout the country have done it. I say again that despite some of the reservations that have been expressed in the Chamber, I have faith in the Canterbury Regional Council to do the job. I believe that the Ministry for the Environment will be able to provide some extra financial help and funding. It already has expertise with regard to this area, and other Government ministries may have as well. The end result will be a sustainable management of the river and its resources, for the betterment of the whole catchment.

There are some thorny issues that the group will have to look at, particularly with regard to those users now. One of the issues that still has to be faced is what happens to those who have consents and come to the end of their natural term. That is an issue I hope will be given some thought. If priority is given, first and foremost, to the health and the enhancement of the river, then that will be a huge improvement and lift above what has been achieved in many of our rivers in past years. We support this part because, with the substance and material that is before the would-be panel, this could be a model for other rivers, and for other councils to follow.

I rise to support Part 4. I want to respond to comments from the Hon Nick Smith, who said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust Government.” He should have said that the message of this bill is: “Don’t trust National Governments.” Remember, it was a National Government in 1969 that promised to set aside water for irrigators, for future irrigation needs. Another National Government, between 1990 and 1993, changed the rules and allocated all the water to others—mostly for an unprecedented 35 years. Nick Smith now pretends to be the champion of those whom that later National Government dispossessed. Very soon a court will be having something to say about the bankability of all those water rights. What this bill will do is allow, for the first time ever, for competing applications for a limited resource to be considered on their respective merits, rather than simply dished out to the first people to apply—probably hot off the first four ships. The applications will be judged on their merits.

I refer to national costs and benefits, and regional costs and benefits. National costs and benefits, and regional costs and benefits, are not necessarily the same thing. It may well be that they will be in conflict in this case, because a study commissioned and published on the national costs and benefits determines that in the upper part of the catchment, which is the part where the crunch really comes, the water is worth more to the national economy and the national welfare by running through all the turbines down the river, than it is going on to the pastures.

However, down at the bottom end of the river, the opposite is true. When the water has already run through most of the generators, it can be taken for irrigation. Irrigation undoubtedly has high value, especially for the region. It also has a very substantial value for the national economy.

All I can say is that this is a very complex issue. It will pose a very difficult job for the board members appointed pursuant to this legislation. It will demand wisdom, not the sort of political opportunism we have been hearing this afternoon from members opposite.

It was interesting to hear the member who represents the local area, and who is—apparently—the Minister of Agriculture tell us that water—

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.