Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15294] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I was delighted to see the mystery member for Otago take a call. 
Opposition Member 
: Who is it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not know what his name is. I said he was a mystery member. But I can say why he has only 41 more flights left to Wellington because a member who stands in the Chamber and says that he does not stand for anything is not coming back to this place after the next election. If one does not stand for anything one stands for nothing. It is contagious in the Labour Party—they will not vote on anything. No wonder they call him the “Parker Pimpernel” in Otago! 
I also have to take issue with Jim Peters. There are a couple of issues that he has raised. He is well intentioned but I think he is being seduced by a small minority of people. He would have this Parliament believe that he is the only member who has gone to the Waitaki Valley and spoken to the local residents. He is talking to people in the upper Waitaki Valley who are a tiny representation of the people who live along the length and breadth of that great river. Further down the river are a huge number of people who do not want this. They certainly did not want Project Aqua—[ 
Interruption 
] Jim Peters is calling out about Stan Scorringe. The Stan Scorringe issue is simply about the Order in Council. If that were brought forward we might very well reconsider our opposition to this bill. But let us be clear—this bill is not about that. This bill is a fast-track mechanism for Project Aqua. 
The agenda is a moving feast. As Project Aqua has fallen over the Government has started to change its position. Its latest position is that this is a water allocation process. Mr Peters has fallen for that hook line and sinker. He talks about the farmers of Canterbury. He is not talking about the farmers of Canterbury per se he is talking about a tiny number in South Canterbury and North Otago. He should at least learn the geography before standing up and representing himself as an expert in my territory because he is not. 
He talks about using the Rakaia River and the Rangitata River to manage irrigation and water allocation programmes down there. I can tell that member that he is wrong and that is as much as I will say about that. The Opuha Dam is a good example of how people working together in a local community can put water allocation programmes in place without having central government bureaucracy hitting them over the head with a cricket bat. It simply is not necessary. 
This bill was Project Aqua in disguise. Geoffrey Palmer when he introduced the Resource Management Act—and let us be clear about who introduced it: it was Geoffrey Palmer and the Labour Government—said that he did not want the Resource Management Act to be the National Development Act in disguise. But the Government forgot that. It picked up the Resource Management Act and used it to fast track Project Aqua. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to stand up and give me an unequivocal undertaking that existing property rights will be protected. Maybe the member from New Zealand First will be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The commentary in the bill states that existing property rights or consents will be maintained but I can see nowhere in Part 2 or any other part for that matter that says that that will be guaranteed. It all sounds very laudable but there is no explicit recognition or protection of existing rights. 
The Minister has been asked to get on his feet and give an unequivocal guarantee that those existing property rights will be protected. I bet he will not. If he does not confusion will reign and it will result in lengthy delays and more costs as existing consent holders have to defend their consents against those new applicants. This bill does not put that stake in the ground. As it exists now the rights of electricity generators farmers and other users are being undermined and uncertainty will reign. It is likely this bill will promote not reduce this type of confusion.