Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15287] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I concur with what I am sure is the majority of members in this Committee that this bill is absolutely not necessary. It has been absolutely gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper as was brought to the attention of members by the Hon Nick Smith. It is just extraordinary how this bill which had 55 clauses has been reduced to closer to 34 clauses as a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper. One really has to ask why this bill is necessary. 
I note in Environment Canterbury’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that it had notified its intention to do a water allocation plan and had about 33 submissions in support of that being priority work in the ensuing year. Yet the Minister cut across the bowels of everybody and introduced a bill to put forward a project that would bypass the Resource Management Act. After hearing all the speeches in the Chamber I think most members would concur on that point. 
It is just extraordinary that we have now come to the point whereby essentially Environment Canterbury could do a water allocation plan without this legislation. It intended to do so and it should be allowed to do so. All the submissions have been put through the process largely for nought. There has been a huge expense in time and a lot of anguish frustration and heartache about all the different changes and issues that arose as a consequence of this bill. It took some considerable time and effort on the part of all those who submitted and there was a huge number of submissions. That has largely all been a waste of time. I think that is an absolute tragedy. The quite extraordinary amount of money that has been spent to bring this bill to this stage and to this state is just criminal. 
I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee has spent an inordinate amount of time on this bill. Committee members have met with people who have made submissions and have looked at the area. There was commitment and dedication on the part of us all to try to get this bill straightened up from the sorry state it was in and all of that has largely been wasted. The bill in its original form noted within it 55 exclusions to the Resource Management Act and 13 inclusions. It was a significant amendment to the Resource Management Act. 
One of the predominant concerns was the exclusion of aspects of section 32 but as has been evidenced by the chair of the committee that was changed. As the bill was developed the Minister saw the efficacy of requiring the purposes of the Resource Management Act to remain intact with regard to section 32. 
As my colleagues have said Environment Canterbury should be putting forward this water allocation plan. That has been the purpose of the Resource Management Act. I see that it is trying to sidestep the Resource Management Act to put forward Project Aqua on the basis of it being in the national interest. The Minister is now looking at a better expression of the national interest in changes to the Resource Management Act although there is some scepticism about whether that will come to pass. 
I point members to the considerable effect of the Supplementary Order Paper. It absolutely guts the bill. I really do not know why we are going ahead with this bill. It is a complete waste of everybody’s time. It is just a nonsense that we are wasting our time debating it in the Committee stage. The Minister should have withdrawn this bill and left it to Environment Canterbury to go back to the people to make submissions on setting up a water allocation plan following the due course of the Resource Management Act. I am certainly glad that National opposes this bill. It has been an absolute disaster from whoa to go and I think all the exclusions and changes to the Resource Management Act are absolute evidence of that. National opposes this bill.