Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10614] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. I want to make my position abundantly clear right from the outset. Despite the Minister for the Environment’s rhetoric to the contrary this legislation is specifically designed to fast track Project Aqua. I cannot help but wonder whether this legislation would be happening at all—let alone being rushed through the House with indecent haste—if Meridian Energy was not a wholly owned Government business. That this country needs more electricity generation is not disputed but in addressing the issue the Government is cherry-picking the Resource Management Act in the most cynical way possible to suit its own purposes. 
Back in 1990 none other than the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer in the second reading of the Resource Management Bill said: “… in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However those are not statements for particular projects; they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” Clearly the then Government was keen to distance the Resource Management Act from the former National Development Act and to make sure that the Government would not be making policy in respect of particular projects. The hypocrisy of that argument is not lost on me. This is special legislation designed to fast track Project Aqua and to skew decision making in favour of development. 
I do not have a problem with the change of emphasis per se. In fact I would argue that it is long overdue. The level of frustration felt by New Zealanders when they brush up against the Resource Management Act is at boiling point. My problem though is that the Resource Management Act needs a radical overhaul but rather than fix it the Government is amending it for its very selective purpose to suit its own needs. It seems incomprehensible that generic legislation has been drafted to cover the processing of consents for major infrastructure projects generally yet the Waitaki consent process will be dealt with by the expedience of one-off legislation. It smacks of legislation that is politically expedient being promoted for a single State-owned enterprise project. It smacks of a Government picking winners as happened in the Muldoon era—and some present members of this Government screamed the loudest about that process. 
The powers vested in the Minister under this legislation should concern the wider community. A Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board will be established and the board will be totally appointed and maintained by the Minister. I have heard others in the National Party refer to this and I totally concur with them: members will serve at the Minister’s pleasure and they will take her advice. This is a Clayton’s board and I essentially believe that it is the Minister in drag. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It’s not a pleasant thought. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Sowry is quite right; it is not a pleasant thought. Furthermore a decision of the board unlike the current Resource Management Act practice cannot be appealed to the Environment Court; it can be appealed only to the High Court on points of law. 
So what underpins Project Aqua? The answer is electricity shortages but I have reservations that Project Aqua will actually be the panacea this Government wants us to swallow. It comes with significant risk. It comes with a price tag estimated at $1.25 billion—and I have reservations about the accuracy of that costing—and a pricing model that I believe needs closer scrutiny. Much has been said about a fairer allocation model but in reality 95 percent of the water that will be used will go to Project Aqua. Seventy-three percent of the water from our last great braided river will be channelled for 60 kilometres down canals that will dissect some of our best and most productive farmland. So that there is no mistake as to the size of these canals I point out that they will be large enough to sail two Cook Strait ferries side by side at any one time. 
The Government’s company Meridian Energy has adopted a bull in a china shop negotiating style and ridden roughshod over the concerns of local communities. The people of Kurow will have to put up with 70-tonne dump trucks running up their main street every 2 minutes yet Meridian Energy has not even had the decency to commission a social impact study. Despite local concerns this Government wants to accelerate this process. 
Will Project Aqua solve our electricity crisis? At best it is problematic. It will certainly destroy one of our great rivers—there is no doubt about that. It is difficult to see the proposal in one of New Zealand’s most drought-prone areas assisting electricity generation in low-flow dry years. At times of critical low inflow Project Aqua is unlikely to deliver anything yet it is promoted as an essential contributor to our baseload supply. I can only shudder at what future generations might think of us if it comes to pass. I have no doubt that we must solve our generation problems if we are to develop as a nation but I have severe reservations about whether this project is the way to do it. I would expect this Government right now to be standing up and putting in place a strategy that dealt with that issue not cherry-picking the Resource Management Act and not trying to pick winners. That is what it is doing. 
I have to echo the question that has been asked by some other members of this House: where is Mr Parker today? Where is Mr Parker when one of the most critical things that New Zealand will face—and certainly the most critical thing that he will face in his electorate—is being discussed? Why is he not taking a call? Why has the whip not demanded that he take a call on an issue that is so critical rather than the whip trying to protect him? This will come back and bite him mark my words. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s in his electorate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He is making a guest appearance is he? He should be here today because this is where he is needed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: He’s paid to be here. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Sowry is dead right and I thank him for his contribution. Finally I want to express National’s strong opposition to this bill. This Government is applying the rules only as it sees fit to support a project that will be undertaken by its own company. This is not democratic nor is it in the best long-term interests of this country.