Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10602] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill is an abuse of process and an abuse of power. It is the Government writing the rules to suit itself. It is offensive to all those New Zealanders who believe there should be one rule for all including this Government. That is why members of this National Opposition will oppose this bill. 
Let us not pretend that this bill is about anything other than a huge strategic decision for New Zealand. It is about a $1.2 billion development—a development a third bigger than the Clyde Dam. It is the biggest hydro development in 30 years in this country and will take 73 percent of the water out of the Waitaki River. There are so many similarities between this bill and the Clyde Dam empowering bill. The only significant difference is that today we live in the age of spin. Let me get a few things straight for the Minister in terms of her misleading New Zealanders. She said the bill is not fast-track legislation. That sounds like another great DB advertisement: “Yeah right”. The Minister’s own press releases say this bill is necessary to reduce time delays. They say it has to occur as quickly as possible to expedite decision making. If that is not fast tracking what on earth is? 
The bill enables the Government’s own company Meridian Energy to bypass key sections of the Resource Management Act. Why is the water plan for the Waitaki River not going to be appealable to the Environment Court? Every other river in the country will be. What is more clause 32 severely limits any appeals to the Environment Court. It is a Clayton’s appeal process. Similarly the bill severely limits the Environment Court appeals on hydro developments in terms of their consents. The powers to strike out appeals are a lot wider evidence is strictly limited and the bill fast tracks any hearings. We then heard the Minister’s claim that the board and the commission are independent. It is laughable. The Resource Management Act requires that decisions are made by locally elected regional and district councillors accountable to their own communities. This bill states that all the decisions will be made by the Minister’s own appointments. The Minister appoints the chair and the deputy chair; and to quote the bill they “hold office at the pleasure of the Minister”. How does that differ from the Environment Court. The Environment Court is judicially independent. This is all about sycophants appointed by this Government to rush through Project Aqua. 
We then come to the draconian provisions which give carte blanche powers for the Minister to override the Resource Management Act. The bill states that the Minister and any part of the board’s process or any part of the panel’s process can completely override the Resource Management Act. The Minister will be given the power to override completely any element of process in respect of the Resource Management Act. That is nothing less than draconian. I want an explanation from Government members who have vigorously defended the Resource Management Act and all its bureaucracy then suddenly when it comes to the Government’s own project it wants those sorts of powers to change the rules. What about the other 50000 consents a year by small businesses other New Zealanders and competing energies companies? Why are the rules different? 
National has been arguing for the reform of the Resource Management Act for years. We went blue in the face over the resource management amendment bill introduced in 1998 with our own special policy statement fixing the Resource Management Act in 2001. At the beginning of this year we had our own special select committee which specially looked at the issues of the Resource Management Act. Marian Hobbs and Labour said the Act was fine and did not need change. She said it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced. It seems it is beautifully balanced except when it relates to the Government’s own project. 
The Minister claims that this amendment bill is needed because there is no regional water plan for the Waitaki River. But she could direct the regional council to provide one in terms of the Act. She could fund the council to do so. She has been Minister for the Environment for 4 years. She claimed there is a policy vacuum. If there is a policy vacuum it is the Minster’s own fault. She should have changed the law to require every council to have a plan for all of our major rivers but she has not done so and this bill does not do so. 
There is a huge conflict of interest because if Meridian Energy makes a buck out of Project Aqua it goes straight into the coffers of this Government. Therefore the Government has a conflict of interest that it is abusing in this Parliament this afternoon. There is a very close parallel between this bill and the Clyde Dam bill of 1982 and the Government has learnt nothing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What rubbish! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell Mr Mallard that the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Conservation Authority. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the Clyde Dam bill was approved by the Planning Tribunal in 1980. But with the appeal rights it then went to the High Court and was reconsidered. The only thing that is different I tell Mr Mallard who is trying to interject is that the teaching is at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. The Government should reform the Resource Management Act for all. [ 
Interruption 
] That member has changed his tune. That member is in a Government of Helen Clark Pete Hodgson and Marian Hobbs who cut their political teeth on opposing Sir Robert Muldoon with the Clyde Dam empowering bill and now they have introduced their own bill. If members opposite—like the talkative member from the South Island—push through this bill at the fast pace they are proposing they will throw away—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that Trevor Mallard does not want to debate the issues. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. The member will rise withdraw and apologise. That remark was not called for. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government will force this bill through on a fast-track timetable and report back in March. That is a dirty trick. The Government has brought this bill in just before Christmas and thinks that the South Islanders are stupid and will let the Government get away with this. The arrogance of South Island members opposite will cost them support in the South Island. The people of the south will rise up against this bill and tell the Government that it should follow the rules that it sets for all. Members on this side of the House say the Resource Management Act should be reformed. We do need to have new energy generation but whether it is the Dobson hydro scheme on the West Coast the Pencarrow wind farm or the new proposal on rivers and other parts of the country there must be the same set of rules whether or not they are Government companies or private companies. We are telling the Government not to screw the scrum to its own advantage and not to let its conflict of interest enable it to overrule good law and good process. 
I want to point out that this bill changes Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. That perhaps is the most fascinating part of the bill. I have heard the Minister for the Environment vigorously defend Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. She says the criteria is appropriate for everywhere in the country yet when it comes to Project Aqua it appears the Government will screw the position by suddenly saying that it has to take into account the national perspective of economic benefits. Why should the national perspective of economic benefits be considered for this project but for no other? If the Government were bringing in a resource management amendment bill to change the rules for all rivers and for all consent applicants that would be fair enough but it should not do it exclusively to suit its own project. 
The Government is getting our country into an awful mess in respect of both resource law and energy law. New Zealand does need new generation but this sort of playing favourites and putting this bill alongside the resource management energy bill will create a right mess. There should be a reform of the Resource Management Act for all not just for some. The Government’s abuse of process and rigging the rules to suit itself will bring it down. New Zealanders stand very firmly of the view that there is one law for all. The Government has brought a bill into this House that provides for a different set of rules for the biggest dam scheme in this country in 30 years. That is nothing less than a constitutional outrage. National will fight this bill every step of the way.