Hobbs Marian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15544] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 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.