Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased that this legislation is now ready to be passed. It was over a year ago that the problems of water allocation in the Waitaki, began to become apparent. There were a number of large and competing applications to use water from the Waitaki River, and there was no plan or policy basis on which to decide how the water should be allocated, if allocated at all. The community felt under siege by the proposals that would alter significantly the environment in which they lived. Project Aqua drew the eye of the nation, and the public more generally wanted the chance to debate the best use of the water in the Waitaki. There were alternative proposals for different irrigation schemes, and the farming community wanted to be sure that the costs and benefits of alternative uses of the water in the Waitaki would be considered. In the meantime, the applications were piling up and it was clear there was not enough water to go around. Even if the regional council, Environment Canterbury, had embarked on preparing a plan, those applications would have pre-empted that plan unless special provision was made.

As Minister for the Environment, I decided to call in all the applications for use of water in the Waitaki, and pass special legislation that would ensure that a regional plan was prepared to guide decisions on allocating water from the Waitaki River. I called in those applications in September 2003, and by early December 2003 I had legislation ready to introduce into the House. The legislation provides that the applications that have been called in will be put on hold while a water allocation framework is prepared. That plan will be the basis on which water is allocated in the Waitaki catchment.

During debates members have raised the issue of why we do not do this for other river catchments. First, some rivers are under regional councils that do have water allocation plans, but currently this Government is conducting a comprehensive review of water management that would take in all New Zealand rivers. The Waitaki situation of multiple demands for its water outstripped the policy development timetable. We could not wait.

The legislation was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 10 December, and I would like to thank the committee—although I know the chair thinks it was a thankless task—for its excellent work and the positive changes it has recommended to the bill. The committee received over a hundred submissions. It spent several days hearing submissions in the catchment, and it made it as easy as possible for the local community to have a say on the bill.

The select committee reported back to the House on 22 March. A week later Meridian Energy Ltd announced it was not proceeding with Project Aqua. Opposition members need to reread Meridian Energy’s announcement on that matter. It was not all as they asserted. Geotechnical investigations had shown a need for design changes that impacted adversely on the economics of the project. That announcement prompted me to rethink several aspects of the bill to ensure that the legislation we had drafted was still relevant. Those changes were prepared in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper.

The key change was removing the requirement for a panel of commissioners, in Part 4. The prospect of Project Aqua being withdrawn meant that fewer consent authorities were involved. The select committee changes also meant that the panel would, in fact, be a group of council appointees. That was what the select committee had changed. I considered that it was more sensible to leave the consent decisions to be dealt with by the local authorities in the normal manner under the Resource Management Act. This meant that large sections of Part 4 were no longer needed. In the interests of timeliness, however, especially for the irrigators whose applications have been called in, we retained procedural aspects of the bill that provided for priority fixtures by the Environment Court on any appeals on the consent decisions, judicial conferences, and requiring consideration of strike out of appeals.

Following on from the changes proposed by the select committee, I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the water allocation board is to produce a regional plan for the allocation of water in the Waitaki, to leave no room for doubt—particularly judicial doubt. I recommended that the term “water allocation framework” be removed and replaced with the term “regional plan”. I also specified four key outcomes that the plan must provide for. I also proposed that the prescription in clauses 17 to 20 be removed and that the bill simply specifies what the regional plan must provide for. It does not mean that the matters set out in those clauses are no longer relevant—they are; it is simply that they are already matters that can be dealt with in a regional plan under the Resource Management Act and do not need to be prescribed as mandatory considerations. Similarly, the cost-benefit test contained in clause 20 is already inherent and enabled in the Resource Management Act and does not need to be specifically provided for. Clauses 41 and 42 provided for comparative assessment of applications. I recommended that those clauses be struck out, because I intend to explore that approach further for all New Zealand through the water programme of action.

The water allocation board will still compare the merits of different categories of activities when deciding how water should be allocated in the Waitaki catchment, and this plan will provide the policy basis on which individual applications will be assessed by local councils. Recognising that the water allocation board has a difficult task before it and that I want it to have sufficient time to get it right, I propose that 12 months be given for the board to develop and approve the regional plan. There will be no extension of the time limit. Once a plan has been approved, the applications that have been put on hold by the legislation can then be considered under the plan by the local authorities.

In keeping with the spirit of consultation that lies behind this legislation, we consulted the councils, stakeholders, and community about the Supplementary Order Paper. I believe that the changes that have been proposed are sensible and will ensure the allocation plan that is produced will be consistent with Resource Management Act best practice.

The Opposition moved an amendment in the Committee, asking that the board take into account the 1969 Order in Council. That was unnecessary. I will write to the board to ensure that the injustices felt by those affected by the Order in Council are heard. The story of what happened to that Order in Council is not a proud one for the National Party, but that party should not compound the poor decision the National Government made in 1993 with even poorer ones made now. I urge all who are interested in the future of the Waitaki River to become involved in the preparation of that plan. I expect Environment Canterbury will then have a solid planning tool, which it can implement to provide for the best use of the water and to meet the best interests of the community.

I commend the bill to the House.

I have taken calls during the second reading debate on this bill and during the Committee stage, and the position that the National Party has had, and still has, is that we are strongly opposed to this legislation. Nothing I have heard from the Minister today or during the Committee stage will change my position or that of the National Party on this particular bill.

The central theme of this bill has always been—and no amount of words from the Minister will change it—about Project Aqua. The whole agenda, as the bill was constructed, was about the Government’s pet company getting Project Aqua up and running. The other consent holders on the Waitaki River were not regarded, at all. Their property rights were stampeded over by this Government.

The Minister for the Environment asserts that this bill is now about water allocation. It is not about that. She has now put back before the House a messy, muddled bill. The agenda has moved away from that central theme of Project Aqua. What we have now, and what this bill will become known as, is “the Hobbs’ debacle”. The Government set out to pervert the Resource Management Act and its processes, simply so that Project Aqua could be started. The National Party and some other parties fought very hard to make sure that the truth of what this Government was trying to do was exposed.

The member who has just taken a call said that this bill is not just about the Waitaki River. Well, if it is not just about the Waitaki River, why is she so silent about other rivers in Canterbury? Why is a water allocation process not now in place for the Rākaia, Waimakariri, or Rangitata rivers, or, further afield across this country, for rivers like the Waikato or the Whanganui? The answer is that the central theme of this bill has always been Project Aqua. No other river is having this type of central bureaucracy imposed on it—and that is the flaw in the Government’s argument that this bill is not about Project Aqua.

I said before that this Government stampedes across private property rights. Here is just another example. We are seeing at the moment land access issues being developed, against the majority view in this country. The member for Aoraki, who is also the Minister who voted against the Order in Council, is now promoting land access and the ability to roam at will across private property in this country. He is the same Minister who thumbed his nose at the people of South Canterbury regarding that Order in Council.

I will talk about that in some detail. The Order in Council was for 15 cumecs of water. The Waitaki River has a mean annual flow of 340 cumecs, so that represents about 1.7 percent of all the water that is available. It is not just that the farming community wanted that small amount of water; it is also about the fact that they had been promised that water by the Crown in 1969. They had been promised that water. The fact that they had not taken that water to date was simply because the technology to enable them to use that water had not been available until recent times. But as soon as the community put up their hand and said: “OK, we are now in a position to use it. Will the Crown honour its word?”, this Government said no. A perfectly reasonable amendment was put forward by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. The Green member Jeanette Fitzsimons supported that, and I acknowledge her contribution.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: We had to change it first.

BRIAN CONNELL: The member did support it, and I acknowledge that. However, United Future members chose not to support it, and they have no excuse. They understand the value of water to that community, and they still chose not to support it.

The Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton, has acted in a terrible, irresponsible way. Not only is he the Minister of Agriculture but he is the local member in that area, and he made a very clear decision to vote for the Labour Party rather than for his constituents. That is a sell-out of the worst kind. Mr Sutton has affirmed that he really will retire. I can think of no member who would so clearly thumb his nose at his local constituents and expect to get re-elected. He has done more to get a National member elected to Parliament in South Canterbury than anyone else could possibly have done. National thanks him for that. However, my heart goes out to the people of South Canterbury. They are now in a situation whereby a promise made to them by the Crown has not been honoured. The great tragedy is that the Mackenzie Basin will become a desolate area as a consequence.

Mr Sutton, who is the Minister of Agriculture and the local member, knows the value of water to farmers. He will argue—and did argue, in fact, though it was a very flawed argument—that the 1.7 percent of the water that the farming community could not get, even though it had been promised it, would be better used for electricity generation. He knows and I know that that is factually not true. One cumec of water has five times the return when used for irrigation purposes than when used for electricity. Of course, if that water were used for irrigation purposes, a large amount of it would run back into the river once it had served its purpose, which was to generate huge amounts of productivity in that area.

So Mr Sutton has been found wanting, and the people of South Canterbury will not forget that. On the other side of the river, we have the member for Otago. He came to this House and committed the greatest sin of all. He stood and took a call—he was shamed into taking it—and said: “I am neither for it, nor against it.”

Gerrard Eckhoff: What was his name?

BRIAN CONNELL: I cannot remember his name—“Parker Pimpernel”, or something like that. I cannot quite think what it is. He was heavily disguised when he came to Parliament and took a call. I do not know what his name is, but apparently that is not uncommon because down in Otago they do not know him at all. But they will know his name now, if they do their research. He is the member who purports to represent their interests, and comes to the Parliament and says: “I am neither for nor against.”

The great tragedy about this muddled bill that the Minister has now put before the House is that we missed a huge opportunity to think strategically and laterally, and talk about water usage in a more strategic sense. We could have looked at best practice. We could have started looking at transferable water rights, for example. We have only to look across the Tasman, to Australia, to see how they manage a scarce resource. We could have looked at some best practice. Here in this country we seem to think that that is absolute anathema. I am of the opinion that it is only a matter of time. Here was an opportunity for the Minister who introduced this bill to the House, and the Minister of Agriculture, to do something strategic. Transferable water rights, or tradable water rights, are what is happening on the Murray River in Echuca in central Victoria. It was an opportunity for this Government to put in place something worthwhile. This is a muddled bill. The National Party is strongly opposed to it.

I rise to take a brief call in support of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to make a rare admission: I am confused, in two respects. The first ground for confusion is that one of my colleagues a minute ago asked me: “Who is that member speaking?”, when the member opposite was delivering his speech. We took a quick poll on the Labour side of the aisle, and for a good 3 minutes none of us could think of his name. Someone said he is from Ashburton. We consulted the Ashburton Guardian—I am told that the member has a close family interest in it—but, notwithstanding that, we still could not find his name. So if any other members can help us, we would appreciate some assistance after my short soliloquy.

The second ground for confusion is that it is not often that Government members come to this House and the whips say: “Would you like to take a call?”. I said to them: “This is the Waitaki bill, and I’m from Waitakere. Is there some confusion here?”. They said “No.” I realised that they were being brilliant, because I actually grew up in South Canterbury. That member was referring to water rights in South Canterbury, and I have news for him: I used to go salmon fishing in the Waitaki River, and I loved it. I never caught a single salmon in the Waitaki River, but I am prepared to believe that there were some there, and I want my little man to know that there are some salmon there, as well.

This bill is important because it preserves water rights, now and for the future. We are entering a time when water rights will become contestable. We need to have a proper structure to guarantee them for future generations. No local member could do more than Jim Sutton has done to ensure the interests of his local electorate—my old electorate—are indeed protected.

When New Zealand First considered the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill we had three components in mind. The first is that this bill is concerned, first and solely, with water allocation. Secondly, we believe that the rights of existing permit or consent holders, which included Meridian Energy, irrigators, and, traditionally, recreational users, are paramount in any framework or plan. Thirdly, we held from the beginning and throughout the whole of this process that the in-stream values that characterise this river must, above all, be paramount in any framework or, now, plan. We are aware that the normal resource consent process goes through, in this case, two regional councils, but also involves some district councils. We also are aware that Environment Canterbury, which has authority for most of the area under consideration, had no water plan for this river, but had before it over 60 resource applications awaiting a hearing.

I will pause for just a minute, because the issue of time is important with regard to the rights and to the matters of the Order in Council, which I will traverse later. But what are the facts of the situation with regard to Meridian Energy, which is a significant user of water, and, supposedly, the reason for this bill, particularly with regard to the upper Waitaki Valley? In 1991 Environment Canterbury granted consents to what was then ECNZ, and is now Meridian Energy, for all its activities on the Waitaki River, after—and this is the point—a lengthy public participative working-party process. I am assured absolutely by Environment Canterbury that the working-party that looked at the issues in 1991 received no objections from anybody. After that, Environment Canterbury adopted an interim policy that covered the matter of the minimum flow of the lower Waitaki River, and set about preparing a plan. It also has assured me, and assured the Minister as well earlier this year, that at that point it stopped because there was no demand, and, furthermore, there was a very strong feeling that a water plan was not required. It may be that territorial issues between Otago and Canterbury were also an influence at that time. So when this bill came to the House there was no residual water plan; there was a regional policy statement giving some guidance, but there was no facility in hand at all to consider the complex matters that were going to become the matter of a potential consent.

When the bill came to the House—and I want to emphasise this point—New Zealand First did not support it. Our support as a party came after the excellent work done by the select committee in changing almost completely a number of the core issues in the bill. We felt that the bill that came back to the House provided a more adequate process to determine the use of water in the catchment area, to develop a water allocation framework, and to provide for the issues, with the main issue being the limited available water supply in the catchment because of the range of applications but also because of the amount of previous use.

We acknowledge the importance of renewable energy for the Waitaki catchment, as well as irrigation, the natural in-stream issues, recreational community fishery issues, and, not least, Ngāi Tahu concerns, which were all defining features of what the allocation would be in the regional plan. Under the Resource Management Act, the “first come, first served” basis is not designed to compare the merits of comparative applications for water. It requires only an effect-based assessment or impact for any proposal. That is the major issue that is still to be determined, and if it is not determined in the course of the development of the regional plan, then unsolved problems will be left. There has to be a determinative solution as to what is the process or the case for comparative applications for water from the same stream or the same stretch of water.

We would have preferred it if this part in the final review, which came back after the Supplementary Order Paper, had had some input from the public. I know that groups like Waitaki First would have much preferred it if the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered the matters considered by the Committee of the whole House. It felt that the select committee would have given those matters more serious application and would have come back to the House with a far better bill than the one we are now looking at, and I am quite sure that would have been so. The Government of the day, in its wisdom, decided to bring the matters directly to the House. We lost the opportunity to consider in a semi-private or public forum some of the expert advice that we could have called on before this became the bill’s final form. I understand the reasons why those matters were brought here, but I believe that we missed a valuable opportunity to really get it right. The Waitaki First submissions, earlier on, were anxious that we did get it right for the sake of its river.

But what does this bill do for us finally? It establishes a Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board, and it establishes a plan and a process in a 12-month period. We have had some call for alternatives, and I refer to the present regional natural resources plan, which is before the region right now. I have said previously in the House, and I will say it again, that the earliest expectancy that that planning could become operative, in any sense, would be in 2008-09. If this bill is passed today, within a year from now a proposed regional plan for the Waitaki catchment could be in existence, and every would-be user would have to “give regard to” that proposed plan as from that date. That surely is a far better operative proposal for the future than any other that I know of. May I say that the people I have spoken to, the people of the upper Waitaki catchment valley—the farming community there, the would-be irrigators, and those associated with the length and the breadth of the river—see that as a far more desirable step than anything else that has been mentioned here or in other places.

Brian Connell: What about Federated Farmers?

JIM PETERS: Federated Farmers may have said otherwise. Their submission, which has been around this place, relates back to what they feel is the unfinished business of the Order in Council, and I will come back to that towards the end of my speech. It is the only unsolved issue so far as I am concerned.

What this regional water plan will do is put into effect what was stated in the Tasman District Council case, with Carter Holt Harvey, and that was that regional councils need to manage water bodies and stream flows to reflect, and this is the important point, the current environment—that is, in 2004—and that the allocation of water should provide equal opportunities for all users to access the resource, and we would applaud that. If the regional planning commissioners would also set as their major objective the enabling of access to water while safeguarding and protecting in-stream values, then that would be something we would look forward to with pleasure. We know that Environment Canterbury has the material and data, including historical knowledge of the Waitaki catchment dating right back to 1928 and beyond. We know that high-quality data and investigation were provided in the application that was submitted by Meridian Energy to Environment Canterbury. We also know that the recent work of the Ministry for the Environment and others provides a huge body of knowledge, which now needs to be sorted out, assembled, disseminated, and, finally, put into a regional plan. In so far as New Zealand First is concerned, we look forward to seeing that plan. If the plan is in accordance with the new, revised clause 14A with those four major components, if it attempts to look at the issue of an allocative framework as well, then we will be very satisfied, and I am quite certain that those people who are most concerned about their river will also be satisfied.

The final matter is that the life of the river inherently needs to be preserved. It is for public use; it is for private use; but, most of all, the river itself is important. It is important that those in-stream values are recognised in a final regional plan. New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill and looks ahead to Environment Canterbury doing its job.

Nothing the Minister for the Environment has said today or on any previous occasion convinces me there is any need for this bill. The Greens accepted that there was a need at the beginning. The Minister said today that if the application from Project Aqua to take—she did not use this number—73 percent of the flow of the river had gone ahead, there would not have been enough water to go around. There were all those applications to take water, but no regional plan to give any guidance as to how those consents could be considered. So we accepted that there was a need for the bill at that stage.

I have to say the select committee did a very good job on it. We worked very hard. We sat extra hours, by a long way. We constrained ministerial power in the bill quite considerably. We ensured a high level of skill and expertise on the board that would set the water plan. We ensured there would be more than two such people to consider all those matters and make the decisions, and we returned to the councils concerned the power to issue eventual consents. We reported back a bill that I was proud of, particularly because the entire select committee, all of whose members had voted differently on the introduction of the bill, supported the amendments we had made. What is more, we met the very tight deadline of 22 March, which was the Minister’s deadline. We were not given the normal 6 months. We also went to Oamaru and heard submissions.

However, with the withdrawal of Project Aqua I no longer accept that this bill is necessary. The Waitaki River volume now vastly exceeds the volume of water required by the applications to take water. It vastly exceeds it. There are many rivers in this country that are much more allocated than the Waitaki is and for which no plan is being proposed. What is special about the Waitaki? I listened very carefully to hear why the Minister still thinks it is more important for this river than any other river to have a plan, and I did not get an answer. Meanwhile, we have red zones in Canterbury where the council says no further groundwater can be allocated because the groundwater is already seriously depleted. We have rivers like the Ashburton that are a shadow of their former selves because of over-allocation. We have rivers facing the twin threats of pollution from runoff from surrounding land, and depletion of their flow. Of course, when we take water and deplete the flow we increase the concentration of the remaining pollutants in the river—it is a pincer movement.

But this bill is actually not about the river, and that is the sad thing about it. This is not a bill about the river as a habitat for rare wading birds. It is not about the river as people’s favourite trout and salmon fishery and a major tourism attraction. It is not about the river as a recreation area for kayakers and rafters. It is about who gets how much water for commercial purposes. It is an allocation plan; it is not a plan for the river.

We have a sustainable development programme of action. We have not seen a lot of action, but that is what the programme is called. It has identified water as one of the key four issues we need to work on—the key four things that are threatened in terms of sustainability. This bill does nothing in respect of that. What we need is mandatory regional planning for fresh waters. We need mandatory, integrated catchment plans for all our significant rivers that are under pressure—plans that recognise the multiple values of the river—not allocation plans that try to arbitrate between those who want to take water out of the river for other purposes. The other values have got to be respected more. In this bill we even have a clause that states the board must provide water for the following purposes, but gives no priorities. We have a clause that does not even state that the board must provide for firefighting, stock watering, and the intrinsic values of the river itself, as the Resource Management Act states, before it considers how much water is to be allocated for hydropower or irrigation. It makes them all equal. Goodness knows what the board will do with that!

Jim Peters, who has been a really contributing member of the select committee—and I always value what he has to say—says that the reason for this bill is that we cannot wait till 2009 for a plan for the river, which is how long it would take if we left it to the council. Why is it OK for all the other rivers, which are in a worse state than the Waitaki, to wait even longer than 2009? The Minister has not done anything even to require the process to start for any river other than the Waitaki.

I wrote to the Minister some months ago, sharing with her a discussion paper that I was considering with various regional councils and other groups around the country, seeking their views on whether there should be mandatory, integrated catchment management plans for rivers. I got some interesting feedback from members of the community and from councils, but after all these months I have not had a reply from either of the Ministers I sent the paper to. There has not been even an official acknowledgment from either of them that I contributed that input. Basically, it appears that no one in the Government wants to know. The Government just wants to sort out the wrangle between the irrigators and the hydro generators, and the rivers can go hang.

I rise with some reluctance to speak on the third reading of this bill. I am reluctant because I had hoped we could at least debate this issue through and come to a common-sense solution that everybody would be pleased about. In fact, that has not happened. So that is the reason for my reluctance.

If this bill is about anything, it is about the sensible use of New Zealand’s most valuable natural capital: its water. People only have to go anywhere overseas to understand just how valuable this stuff that we now call blue gold is. Pure, fresh, clean water is of enormous value not just to the people of the South Canterbury and North Otago region but to New Zealand and, indeed, to the world. Even as we debate this third reading, massive quantities of this blue gold flows to the sea and is there “wasted”.

The great need on the Waitaki River, the Clutha River, and on rivers throughout the area east of the main divide is harvesting and storage. The argument between the irrigator, the power generator, the fisherman, and recreational user, and even the in-stream user, have a degree of unanimity about the use of the water, because each receives his or her share. But it is totally stupid and quite ridiculous to have, as I mentioned earlier, vast quantities when the snow melts—which is happening right now—run to the ocean and there become of no use to this country. This bill should be about how we can effectively allocate and use this most wonderful of our natural capital assets, fresh water, in the most sensible and effective way to benefit the people of the region. And I emphasise that. I do not really believe that the people of Auckland, Northland, or Coromandel where Ms Fitzsimons comes from, have some sort of divine right to the waters and the benefits of the Waitaki River. I think the people who live and work in that region have a far greater right to the use of that water than others who come from far greater and far distant regions.

If they love the Waitaki so much, they should join us in this region. But, no, they pontificate from afar and tell the people of our region how it should happen. This is what will happen with the advent of the board that the Minister is setting up—not the people of the region, not the regional council, or the district councils, but the Minister will appoint her people to decide what should happen to the wealth, which is the water, of the Otago and Canterbury regions.

There is very little doubt that the wealth of that region will go to Wellington. This bill is designed for Meridian Energy to capture the benefits of the water allocation that is about to occur. I say unequivocally that that is wrong. I advocate as a rural MP, as a member in the Otago electorate, for the people of my region, and for rural New Zealand. I do so unashamedly. I do not go to South Canterbury or to Otago and advocate the values of the Labour Party to the people of that region. As a member of Parliament my job is to come here and speak unashamedly on behalf of the people of the region from whence I come.

Shane Ardern: Jim Sutton doesn’t do that.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: No, Jim Sutton has not done that, and I ask Mr David Parker, who is here with us this evening, to take a call to speak about how he feels and how he is representing the people of his region, and to tell them how he can do so effectively by saying: “Well, I’ve got two opinions on this. One is for, and one is against. You can just sort of tell me what you think at election time.” I think it is the job of members of Parliament to speak in this House and to stand or fall on their private opinions based on what they have gained—the experience they have gained, and the opinions they have gained from the people whom they consult with in this region.

Tragically, this bill will be about the redistribution and the reallocation of property rights. Yet again, this Government, through legislation, will legislate away per courtesy of this allocation board, existing water rights. I hope that some of the members opposite have some idea what a property right actually means to the people of this country. Any Māori members should know what a property right means, but they do not. I see Georgina Beyer in the House. I would like her to take a call and tell this House that she actually believes in property rights. If she does, she will vote this bill down, as would any other member of the Government who has the courage of his or her convictions on this issue.

This issue is not difficult—it is hugely important, but it is not difficult. It is about respecting the property rights of those landowners of the region who in some cases have held a property for generations. Let me assure the members of this House that the land down there without water, and without the ability to irrigate, is almost valueless. Even some of the grapes that are to be grown on land in the North Otago region into the future, while planted on stony ground, absolutely need water to ensure the viability of that particular crop. That is why, with huge investment going into our region, the security of property rights and the security of water supply is absolutely crucial. The people of our region will now be sitting on eggshells or on razorblades wondering whether their property rights will be reallocated under this socialist Labour Government. That is an issue that I am sure will be brought up time and time again at the next election.

The point has also been raised—and I ask about it again—as to why we need a specific Act for the Waitaki catchment. What is so different about the Waitaki River from, say, any other river in Canterbury or, indeed, even the Clutha River in my region? I ask Minister Hobbs or any other member of the Government what specifics there are that make this river so different that it needs an allocation committee. Of course, we all know that it is about ensuring that the Government’s State-owned enterprise, its subsidiary company, gets the lion’s share.

It is all about the transfer of wealth out of the South Canterbury region, out of the North Otago region, per courtesy of Meridian Energy, and up to Wellington. I assure members that I will be informing the voters of our region down in the south just exactly what has occurred, and about the fact that the Mackenzie Country irrigators—those who had been promised water all those years ago—have in fact been let down hugely by Mr Baldock and by the United Future Party. They raised the expectations of those irrigators to a huge level, only for them to be let down. That is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy for the people of South Canterbury and North Otago. The ACT party will be voting against this bill.

It is, indeed, the end of a long journey for this legislation. I recall speaking on the first reading and declaring that United Future was not supporting legislation that would be a fast tracking of a project, but would be supporting the fast tracking of a process. If there is one thing that is clear after the long passage of this legislation, it is that this bill was definitely not about the fast tracking of Project Aqua, despite the fact that members on the other side of the House continue to harp on about that. Given the fact that once the Local Government and Environment Committee reported back, Project Aqua was called off a week later, it would take an incredible leap of logic to be able to suggest that this bill was about fast tracking that project.

United Future is pleased to see the passage of the bill through to third reading today. It is the most timely way of establishing a water allocation plan for the Waitaki River. Although many critics have said that the regional council should have done this earlier, as Jim Peters said earlier it actually did try to do so, and perhaps encountered more opposition than we had fully understood.

But nevertheless that is all history. The fact is that a plan was not established. Some critics have said that the regional council should now do it. But I am convinced, as is Jim Peters from New Zealand First, that that would result only in further delay, and no better outcome than what this bill will provide for the residents, and the users of the Waitaki River. Some suggest that councils all across the country should be required to develop plans. Well, that is a discussion that is going on, and perhaps there is merit in that. But I cannot understand the logic behind those who say that because there is not a water allocation for some other needy rivers, somehow we should abandon doing one on this river.

That does not make sense. We were kicked into gear on this particular river because of Project Aqua, and also because of many other applications for consent for the use of water from that river. I see no logic whatsoever in turning back from this course of action, simply because there are other rivers that also need an allocation plan. Hopefully, many, many residents and water users around the country will be delighted if this is the first of many water allocation plans that are to come, in order to give certainty to both recreational users and commercial users of our rivers and our waters in this country.

During the Committee stage there was a great deal of discussion about the Mackenzie Basin and the 1969 Order in Council. I find it rather strange, also, that the Green Party and the ACT party, which supported the amendment put forward by National to do something about this, are voting against the bill. How does one vote for an amendment, and then vote against the bill that would have brought that amendment in? On no occasion did those parties say that the support for the bill would change if the amendment passed—[Interruption] No, no, they had already made it clear they were not in favour of the legislation. So it was simply a little bit of politicking.

I have been concerned about the Mackenzie Basin. I visited it during the discussions about the bill, and I have seen first-hand the environmental degradation in that area. I am concerned that water ought to be allocated. On my urging, the Minister gave an assurance to this House that the water allocation board would have all the information put in front of it concerning the 1969 Order in Council so that nothing would be left not discussed or considered when it did come to allocate water.

But ultimately the case for water being allocated in that area rests upon the current situation, not on the historical situation, in my opinion. We know that the board will take into account the historical story, as the select committee has also done, and be moved by the promise made, and the promise broken, by the National Party, in the amendments it has made to legislation that have taken away that right. But ultimately it is the fact that the Mackenzie Basin needs water today, and the water allocation board should do all it can to allocate water to that area. I fear that if it is not possible to allocate water because of current consent, and users have to wait a considerable number of years, it may be too late to reverse the environmental degradation on that area, in which case we must rely upon Meridian Energy becoming a good neighbour in that area and making some of that water available.

I do not believe, and I do not think anyone on the select committee believed, that 15 cumecs of water would cause Meridian Energy to lose its ability to generate electricity for the rest of New Zealand. So we hope that it will act responsibly in that area if, in fact, it is impossible for the board to allocate water until the expiration of current consents.

We do look forward to the determination that is going to be made by the courts, and some certainty that will follow from that. Ultimately it is that determination that will have a greater impact on the Mackenzie Basin requests than perhaps what the water allocation board does. But the very real and present danger of ongoing environmental damage is of concern to United Future, and that is why we are supporting this legislation, because it offers the best hope of getting something done. There is no point voting against this bill and then claiming that one is doing something on behalf of those interested parties.

The other issue that has been of major concern is, of course, the Lower Waitaki. More than 100 submitters came to the committee during the course of this legislation to express their concern about too much water being taken out of the river, and therefore, the very important amenity and intrinsic value of that river being lost. I urge those people today, as we pass this legislation and the board is established, that they will again engage in the process of making submissions to the board so that their concerns can be heard and addressed by the board.

The legislation requires the board to provide for water to sustain the intrinsic value and the amenity value that the board identifies and determines should be sustained in the Waitaki River and associated beds, banks, margins, tributaries, islands, lakes, wetlands, and aquifers. I cannot see anything clearer than that. The board will make provision for those needs and then look at what water is available for very useful commercial development over and above that need. It is absolutely pointless to waste the opportunities for commercial development in the area, simply because we want to keep the river as it always has been, when there is sufficient water flowing down there at various times of the year that can be used commercially.

It is very exciting to see the potential for development, particularly in the viticulture industry, as well as the agricultural and other horticultural development in that area that is dependent upon some water coming out of that river. I believe that this process will enable the residents and users of the Waitaki River to have their say in that process and to be assured at the end that when water is allocated for their concerns it will be a time then for other users to have their go. I am confident, though, that if the board does its work consistently and properly, the idea that such a large-scale project as Project Aqua could take as much water from that river as it was intending to do will be forever put into the garbage bin. I believe that it was a failed idea in the beginning to be able to take 60 to 70 percent of the water from that river for hydro generation. I believe that the board will do its job and give some assurance for the residents of the area. To wait until 2009 before any development can take place would be an absolute nonsense, unless, of course, parties believe that economic development is not of importance to us as a nation. We are certainly not a party like that. United Future will be supporting the third reading of this legislation, and looks forward to the allocation of the water plan.

I rise to support this Government bill. Before I comment about the legislation in particular, I would like to respond to a couple of points made by Mr Eckhoff. Firstly, I do agree that water is amongst New Zealand’s most precious commodities. We need to plan its use well. I do not agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ earlier comment that just because we already have over-allocated aquifers in Canterbury, we should not now have proper planning for the use or conservation of the water in the Waitaki River. To deal with Mr Eckhoff’s point as to property rights, this legislation does as he desires: it preserves the existing property rights, to the extent that they exist in a resource consent. This legislation does not undermine property rights. But a consent to use water is a consent for a limited term of years, and there is no right of renewal at the end of the term. We never renew water rights in New Zealand. We often allow people to get a new right on the same terms as their prior right, because their justification to use the water, including their economic investment in the land and related infrastructure, means they have a compelling case to have a new right granted to them. But we do not renew water rights, and a water right is not itself a property right that lasts forever.

In the legislation we do not undermine the existing holders of water rights, be they farmers or Meridian Energy. Whether Meridian Energy’s rights at present mean that no one can get additional consents at the moment in the upper catchment is a matter to be determined in another forum—in the High Court or the Environment Court. This legislation does not affect that case’s outcome. If Meridian Energy is right and the upper catchment is already fully allocated, the framework board will be left to make decisions about the future allocation of water after current rights expire. It will not take water from Meridian Energy in contravention of any High Court or Environment Court decision.

I turn briefly to the suggestion that we should not do anything now. I agree completely with Mr Peters’ comments, which were backed up by United Future. To do nothing would mean that there would be a policy vacuum concerning the use of that very precious resource until after 2008 or 2009. That is good enough reason for this legislation.

I shall deal with two other things. I disagree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ comment as to this being a water allocation or a water use bill. It is true that new clause 14AA refers to a regional plan for the allocation of water. That does not mean that the consent body has to allocate all the available water in the Waitaki River. The framework board will have to effectively come up with a minimum flow regime for the river, and over and above that amount there will be water, some of which will be available for abstraction. There is no obligation under this legislation for that board to specify a minimum flow, and then to allocate the rest of the water now. The board may say that we need to err on the side of caution, and therefore to leave a bit more in the river. It may do that in terms of the minimum flow, and it may also do that in terms of water above the minimum flow.

The board may say that we should not allocate all the water now, because there is a need to provide for the future in a way that requires some flexibility to be left in the river system for the future. So the board may say that, despite the fact that the demand for irrigation in the next few years will not use all the available water from the river, the rest of it should not be made available for electricity generation because things can change. It may say there should be some flexibility left in the system, and that the water should not all be allocated today.

There is another important point. I suggest to members that the changes that were made between the first, second, and third readings, and that are in the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee, have all gone in the same direction. When the bill went to the select committee, it had criteria in it that were perhaps inconsistent with some Resource Management Act principles. The select committee, with the unanimous agreement of all parties, brought those criteria back closer to the principles of the Act. Indeed, we thought they completely reflected the Act. To avoid any doubt, the Government has now changed the prescriptive list of criteria, and has reverted, in clause 16, to express reference to the principles of the principal Act alone, unless there is an express variation of those principles in this legislation—and there is no express variation of the principles when it comes to water allocation.

The main clause that pertains to that is clause 14AA. It should not be read, and is not to be read, as meaning that the principles set out in the principal Act are overridden in a way that requires the allocation of all the water today. Provision can be made for future generations, as it can be in river plans issued under the normal Resource Management Act processes.

For those reasons, I am very pleased to support this legislation. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the good work that went into this legislation on the way through. I agree with the statement of the chair of the select committee, Jeanette Fitzsimons, that all parties were cooperative in that process, and that, as is so often the norm in this Parliament, as a consequence we have better legislation. I am pleased to support this bill.

I listened with great interest to the member for Otago. He made some very sensible points in his contribution to the debate. But the interesting thing about it was what the member failed to tell the House today. He did not even acknowledge the fact that there was a major review process in train on the Resource Management Act when the Labour Party took over the office of government, and that Labour canned the whole thing. Here we are today with an ad hoc abuse of the parliamentary system—a bill that deals with the water allocation for one river.

Another point has been overlooked here today. That member certainly did not touch on it. It is the fact that this bill came about in the first place because of Project Aqua. There have been one or two people who have said that that is not so. Well, that is absolutely how it was. The bill came about because of Project Aqua. In the investigation of that hydro development, $100 million was expended, and the project fell over. Then the Minister, Marian Hobbs, found herself going through a process of putting together legislation that was very similar to the Clyde Dam legislation, which, of course, the Labour Opposition of the day opposed vigorously. Labour said it would never be seen near anything that was as draconian, ad hoc, Government-driven, “think big”, and powerful, and that was such an abuse of the executive powers, as that legislation. But the Minister came down to the House with a bill called the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill for a hydroelectricity project along the lines of the Clyde Dam. For the benefit of those who are listening out there, who will have heard the detail of this issue, we will just say to members that they should hang about, because it will be difficult for them to back up those claims.

Let me look at where some of this debate has gone. First of all, the value of water is something that we can never underestimate. If we just look at the largest export industry in the country, the dairy industry, we see that 92 percent of milk is water.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the member confused?

SHANE ARDERN: I can tell the member that that is so, because I am a dairy farmer. So how does one overvalue water?

During the debate on this bill, the Minister of Agriculture, who also happens to be the member for the upper Waitaki catchment area where this legislation will come into effect, told the House that the reason why the bill was necessary was that we need to have a very holistic view of what we use water for, and that irrigation for agriculture is not as important, in the national interest, as using water for hydroelectricity generation. That member is the outgoing Minister of Agriculture, and the outgoing member for the area where the bill will take effect. One can always tell when Labour members are going out. They want to take about five or six members down with them as they go, and they do not care very much about the person coming in behind them, either. This issue is manna from heaven for the incoming National member for that electorate. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be a major election issue in that seat, and that that member, the Hon Jim Sutton, will be nowhere to be seen. He will leave the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues to deal with the problem, and he will be gone over the horizon to the next high commission post somewhere in the world—probably in Washington, or maybe in the UK if the Speaker has come back to New Zealand by then—

Simon Power: Cook Islands.

SHANE ARDERN: No, I do not see Jim Sutton in the Cook Islands. But he will be off somewhere. That is the very interesting thing about it.

There is a group of people that had property rights written into law by the Order in Council of 1969. The Order in Council was given to them by the Government of the day, and it should be honoured. This legislation does not do that. All that it does is to recommend that a body should look at those people’s claim, and say whether that was so. There is no certainty in this legislation—and that includes the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs—for the farmers in the upper Waitaki area. They will be very unhappy with the Government, and will certainly be unhappy with the member who made a contribution a few moments ago. The reason they will be unhappy is that although the Order in Council gave them only 15 cumecs of water out of the whole Waitaki River—

Simon Power: How much is that?

SHANE ARDERN: It is a very small amount; it is 1.7 percent of the flow of the river. That is all that those people were after, and all that they were promised. Now that is all up in the air, because the Minister for the Environment and the local member, the Minister of Agriculture, have said that an ad hoc process could not continue, and that they would introduce legislation for this river so that there was a process in place to allocate water in a more holistic way. In principle, that is a sensible approach. But why do we not amend the Resource Management Act so that that happens everywhere for every river, right across New Zealand, and not just for this river? The member for Otago may consider that, as it would make a very good member’s bill. He would make a name for himself in farming circles, and he needs to get something in. It would make a very good member’s bill to amend the principal Act so that this process takes place everywhere, and not just in the upper Waitaki River.

A further point needs to be made here. We are right in the middle of a local government pre-election campaign at the moment. The Minister and the Government members who have spoken on this bill are saying they have no confidence in the people of Otago being able to select people from amongst themselves in the local government elections to manage the Resource Management Act process properly, so that we do not have to have this ad hoc stuff from Wellington. They are saying people in Wellington are smarter than the people of Otago, and that the people down there are a bit thick. They are saying people in Wellington know how to manage the issues in Otago—that the hayseeds from that area will not know how to work that out, so they will dictate from Wellington how it should be done. That is an absolute affront to the democratic process that we all sign up to when we enter this House, and is a good enough reason on its own to vote against this bill.

There has been a very poor use of the parliamentary process with regard to this bill. A select committee worked at the bill and came out at the end of the process with a unanimous view of what should happen, and the Minister ignored that. She did not accept that. She turned down the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee and came to Parliament with a substantial Supplementary Order Paper. It made huge amendments to this bill, and those changes have been foisted on to Parliament without the proper scrutiny of the select committee process. That is not the right use of that process.

The Canterbury Regional Council has within its jurisdiction the ability to carry out what this Government wants. The question I ask is why this Government has not been able to comment publicly on that, or to go to the council directly via its Ministers. The Government could have said to the council that it does not think the council is carrying out its job correctly. It could have given the Waitaki River catchment as an example of that, and told the council that if it did not mend its ways, then the Resource Management Act would be changed, so that all regional councils in New Zealand would carry out the intent of the Government. No Minister or Government member has explained why that did not happen.

The worst, and final, point is that Meridian Energy, the company involved in the Project Aqua development programme, is a State-owned enterprise. For this Government to introduce legislation for one of its State-owned enterprises that provides over and above what anybody else could get in a commercial sense anywhere else in the country is an absolute abuse of our democratic process. It could also be argued that the Ministers involved in that decision had a vested interest in the outcome, one way or another. That just about takes me to the point where language could be used that is probably not parliamentary. I see the whip is becoming a little anxious about where I may be going. The fact is that this process is not the correct process. It should never happen, and it should not have been allowed to happen in this case.

The speech from the member who just resumed his seat compelled me to propel myself forward to take the call, because it had a profound effect on how I now feel about this bill. However, it was not quite as profound as the speeches I have heard from Mr Peters and Mr Baldock. They were more on the correct side of the debate and have had a greater effect on me, as did the Minister in her third reading speech, which I thought was fine and dandy. The Opposition would have it that we should have mucked around for years and years, while they procrastinated about whether it was worth doing something about this matter. But here is the Labour-led Government, with some support, thankfully, from the likes of United Future and New Zealand First. Those parties have seen the error of the Opposition’s ways. We are getting on with the job. We are providing a facility whereby the issues of water allocation and planning, etc., for the Waitaki catchment area are to be addressed. I support this bill.

I will recap a little. This is special legislation brought in to rush through a major project by sidestepping the Resource Management Act. It is about calling in applications for water takes under questionable circumstances. The Minister advertised for appointees to the board at the same time that the select committee was hearing submissions—so much for the integrity of the process that everyone who was submitting in good faith would expect from the Minister! But no, the Minister flouted the public’s expectations that this bill would be carried forward in good faith and be open to scrutiny and changes at all stages. The Minister flouted that assumption about the integrity of the process of the law. Before the process had barely begun she was already acting on the assumption that the bill had been passed.

What does that tell the public? No sooner has the process started than the Minister is calling for appointees for the board, which is provided for in the bill. But that bill could have been changed at any time. It could perhaps even have been canned and all the expenditure from the process saved and given to Environment Canterbury to spend on coming up with a water allocation plan.

So that is a little bit of a recap of some of the aspects of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. It was introduced to the House for the sole purpose of fast tracking Project Aqua, an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise that was fully intended to sidestep the normal Resource Management Act process. There is absolutely no doubt that this bill clearly says what the current Government has continually refused to admit; that is, that the Resource Management Act needs changing—urgently. The current Minister in charge is making some pretence at change, but no one seriously believes there will be significant or serious change at all, if any. In short, no one will be holding his or her breath on that score—and that sounds a little bit like the phrase used by Brian Connell. The one thing that we can guarantee from this current Government is plenty of spin, lots of interference, and little else.

The current Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, even tried to claim that the bill had nothing to do with Project Aqua. That was ludicrous in the extreme, because in speaking to Part 1, the Minister said that the reason that there is what is a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper that virtually guts the bill is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. She obviously cannot remember from one sentence to the next.

So the previous Minister even tried to have us believe that Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would be subject to the Resource Management Act and stand on its own merits. The Minister’s own words were: “To those who accuse the Government of introducing this bill in order to promote certain projects—for example, Meridian Energy’s product, Project Aqua—read my lips: Project Aqua, like all the applications for Waitaki water, will stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act.” She also said that the bill’s aim was to achieve a fair, prompt, and transparent decision-making process. I think that the Minister’s own actions fell far short of saying that it would be fair and transparent, and it certainly is not prompt.

Brian Connell: Is this the same member who said it was beautifully crafted?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Oh, it is definitely the same member who said it was beautifully crafted and balanced. But I would like to remind members that she said that Project Aqua would stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act. But that would not necessarily be the case, because Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would not necessarily have to go through a Resource Management Act process. It would depend on what was provided for in the allocation plan.

The bill had a substantial number of exemptions from the Resource Management Act and, as I have said many times, the full section 32 analysis was not to have been required. However, that provision was changed pretty smartly by the select committee. Be that as it may, given the huge ministerial influence in the bill, with the appointments of the board, approvals, and suchlike, the water take for a hydro project could be provided for in the allocation plan to such a degree that it could actually be a permitted activity. Now, that is feasible and it could happen. One could make provisions to that degree, as long as one has stated so in the water allocation. So a hydro project, as long as it met the conditions within the water allocation plan, would not necessarily have to go through a consent process, but it could be a permitted process, instead. That came as a bit of a surprise to some of the submitters. However, I believe that, given the current scrutiny of this whole project, that is unlikely to happen, but it is still a possibility.

So why do we now have this bill? I think it is time that the Minister should can this bill and instead give the $3.5 million allocated for the process straight to Environment Canterbury, which had identified the matter in its annual plan and which was approved to go forward with an allocation plan. The Minister should give that body the $3.5 million and let it get on with the job. Then there would not continue to be the ministerial interference in the bill that still exists, because—as we all know—the Minister appoints the board according to specific criteria, tikanga Māori and all, which is ridiculous—

Brian Connell: What’s Environment Canterbury going to do now?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, who knows? But the Minister appoints the board, and then picks the chairperson, deputy chairperson, and goodness knows who else. So ministerial interference continues to be in this bill, when it really is unnecessary. She should have just given Environment Canterbury the $3.5 million that was allocated in the estimates for this bill, told it to get on with the job, and wrapped a bit of a time frame around it, and that would have achieved exactly what she thinks this bill might achieve—except it adds another layer of bureaucracy into the mix.

By doing that, no legislation would be required. We might have saved a lot of time and effort for officials, politicians, and a huge number of submitters, who not only spent their own limited funds, but also expended a lot of time and energy into meetings, planning, and undertaking advocacy on this bill. There is a huge emotional input into this bill as well, which also came at a cost. So we might also have saved the taxpayers $100 million of public money, which was wasted because of poor policy and planning, if right from the outset the Minister had just said: “Look. Here’s a few million. Go and do your plan, and do it by X time.” Maybe members could have had that on the table, today. It could have been happening right now. They did not have to go through that long, drawn-out, and very questionable process, which the Minister has also betrayed since the earlier stages, by calling for appointments to the board and calling in the water applications before the bill had even finished going through its hearings process with the submitters.

On Tuesday the leader of the National Party, Don Brash, accompanied by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, accepted a petition on the steps of this Parliament, which this Government has already ignored, because the Minister who has a particular interest and is responsible for that area, Mr Sutton, opposed honouring those agreements with the upper Waitaki catchment farmers. That is an absolute disgrace. This current Government has ignored those farmers who wanted it to honour those obligations that the Government was committed to some time ago. I also think it is hugely disappointing that United Future has not supported the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to honour those agreements. I think that is a failing on the part of this Government—

Jim Peters: New Zealand First supported it.

SANDRA GOUDIE: New Zealand First supported it—yes. So did the ACT party, and I think that is to its credit.

Those parties wanted to uphold the honour and integrity of this House, but they failed due to the current Government and its supporter United Future. I think that is a gross failure, indeed. That Supplementary Order Paper should have been supported. The upper Waitaki catchment farmers should have been supported. This Parliament should have honoured those agreements; it should have honoured its obligations. Those farmers do not have a Waitangi Tribunal - style process they can go through. They rely on this House to address the injustices they believe they have faced at the hands of this Government. That should have been addressed by the Government, and those agreements honoured. National opposes this bill because we believe that this whole process has been completely unnecessary from the outset. National is happy to oppose this bill.