Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12014] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the second reading of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. As a former teacher of history I think a very recent glimpse of the bill’s history may be of some value to us in this debate. 
In mid-August last year the Government announced its intention to decide the resource consent applications for the Waitaki River in order to reduce costs and uncertainty and to address conflicts between competing users. The Government was concerned as were the people of the Waitaki Valley about the applications by Project Aqua 7; by Irrigation North Otago which would take up to 27.5 cumecs to expand irrigation in North Otago; and by the Aoraki Water Trust which would increase irrigation in South Canterbury by using 15 cumecs from Lake Tekapo. However in addition to those applications for substantial water takes there were 51 other resource consent applications to abstract water or to use water being processed by Environment Canterbury. Nine of those applications were from Meridian Energy Ltd to roll over its existing water permits for its hydroelectricity system in the Waitaki River catchment which had been granted under the former Water and Soil Conservation Act of 1967. 
The Government announced that it had decided in principle to allow changes to the Resource Management Act to enable all potential and expected users of Waitaki River water to be considered together and that allocations were to be made on what was considered best for the region and for New Zealand. It also indicated that that would occur in a submission process for those parties interested in having their say. 
On 2 September last year the Minister for the Environment announced there would be an amendment to the Resource Management Act to provide for a statutory body to determine a water allocation framework for the Waitaki River catchment. That body would consider and hear submissions and could undertake its own inquiries and make its own final decisions. There would be no appeals to the Environment Court on that body’s final decisions on the water allocation framework but there could be appeals on points of law. So late last year we had brought before us the bill we are debating today. In the process the Minister formally called in 60 applications including the nine from Meridian Energy to roll over its water permits. 
What are the substantial issues that are the background to this bill? There are two issues: above the Waitaki dam the amount of water that should be allocated out of stream for non-hydroelectricity purposes needs to be determined and below the Waitaki dam many additional decisions are required about what the appropriate amount is to leave in-stream what can be taken from river and tributaries and what use should be allowed for the Project Aqua canal system to convey water for other purposes. In other words there are competing demands and major water allocation issues and options with regard to the Waitaki River catchment. There are abstractors including Meridian Energy that would divert water to another catchment or into storage and there are those who value the water in-stream. If there were sufficient water in the Waitaki River to satisfy all applicants there would be no significant water allocation issue. 
In that regard the demands for ground water are also relevant because of the hydraulic connections to surface water. There are a number of areas where the surface water flows to ground water and vice versa. There is also the exclusive use of water where permits are able to be used to abstract or use water and they are protected with regard to the right to take water from any other such permits. Those would normally form the body of content of a regional water plan. 
I want to pause for a minute so that we are fully aware of what a normal regional water plan is and with regard to Environment Canterbury where such a plan would be at in time. The plan would include such matters as the regulated minimum flow or flows or lake levels under which no abstractions can take place or where abstractions are restricted; the restrictions on the rates of use of water; the sharing or leaving of blocks of water in the stream above the regulated minimum flow—and that issue is before the courts in another place now—restrictions on the damming or diversion of water; caps on the amount that can be abstracted from the river including the allocation of limits to ensure reliability of supply for those consented abstractors; the freshes; abstractions of flood or high flows; the important matter of the reservation of water for particular users; public water supply; industrial supply; stock supply for farmers and other group members who have some rights of augmentation of their water supplies; the priority to or reservation for existing abstractors or users by defining the conditions of their water permits; the provision for water storage schemes; the renewal of existing resource consents including the amounts required as well as compliance with minimum flows and other restrictions; and lastly the reservation—or the priority of allocation perhaps—of water for hydroelectricity purposes. However it should be known that apart from giving security with regard to the granting of consents and setting an allocation limit there are no regional plans that I know of that give special reservation or priority of allocation of water for hydroelectricity purposes—and that includes the neighbouring Otago regional water plan. So those are the substantive issues major and minor that are before those who adjudicate upon the consents. 
What was in the minds of those who came to us? I will speak of their concerns very very quickly because of limited time. Keith Turner of Meridian Energy said that the bill did not protect existing water consent holders. He said that the problems this bill is intended to address exist only below the Waitaki dam and not above it. Business New Zealand and the Major Electricity Users Group contend that the prime aspect of the legislation should be existing property-use rights. They talked about the selective amendment of the Resource Management Act and in actual fact asked to wait until the Government some time in the future—and when that will be is a great uncertainty—had an overall Water Programme of Action. 
My old professor Ken Palmer of the Save the Waitaki group said that the omission of the appeals process represented a “major departure from principle”. He said that the policy of the bill we saw first was to outweigh the normal sustainable management purpose of the Resource Management Act. Last of all he said that the bill has an agenda that effectively endorses the development of hydroelectricity activities. 
David Henshaw on behalf of the Aoraki Water Trust said in contrast: “The allocation of water should involve balancing environmental national regional and local interests”. Those members who arrived from the trust called for a total catchment approach and called last of all for the honouring of the expectations raised in the 1969 Order in Council. The chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee has already mentioned what I believe was the excellent work of the committee in making a day-by-day intelligent response to the issues raised by submitters. 
New Zealand First was conscious of the following issues in the bill. The Resource Management Act meant that applications were considered on a “first come first served” basis. Although Mr Palmer said otherwise in actual fact that is so unless there is a call for further information. This bill in the final report-back to this House provided for a water allocation board that is not at ministerial direction apart from its initial selection. It provides for a water allocation framework to be developed after public hearings with a very robust system of hearing submissions. 
New Zealand First gives support for this bill to pass on to the Committee of the whole House. We believe that this bill is much changed from the previous bill that came to the House for the first reading because of the excellent work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
We seek two changes to the bill. I said at the committee and I will say again that I am not happy with the whole selection process for the panel of commissioners. I also concur with the last speaker—the chairperson of the select committee—about the appeal process and that principle should be revisited in the Committee of the whole House. Our position is that the bill has always been about water allocation not about Project Aqua and that the panel of commissioners will hear submissions based upon the water allocation issues and will decide how that should be made. 
We agree that Mackenzie Country farmers do have rights. They had reasonable expectations in 1969 and those expectations have not yet been realised so they have a case. We believe that this bill provides for an independent group to devise an equitable water allocation framework for the Waitaki catchment. Utmost in that must be the future life of the river and the health of the river for this and future generations. We support the bill at this stage.