Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15352] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I must rise to correct the serious misinformation that Gerrard Eckhoff has put before the Committee about the Green Party and its position; and likewise Mr Brian Connell. My first point is that I met with the farmers of the Mackenzie Country Denis Fastier and others and I did not give them any commitment to vote for any particular amendment because no amendment was on the floor of the House at that time. I did say I would seriously consider what could be done about their position and I have done that. 
The second point is as I said yesterday in the Chamber the Green Party has sympathy with this but I could not vote first of all for an amendment that amended a clause that no longer existed; secondly for an amendment that amended the evaluation clause rather than the allocation clause; or thirdly for an amendment that did not finally come to the Committee but might have which made this the primary consideration that the board had to take into account. 
However I have negotiated a little change with Nick Smith to his amendment and I can now vote for it so members just might like to retract some of their statements. The amendment that I understand that Nick Smith is now putting forward makes it clear that the point at which the board has to take into account the Order in Council is the point where it is considering the allocation of water to activities in clause 14AA(c). That is an important change because I am not prepared to vote for an amendment that states that the Order in Council must be taken into account when determining water that is to be used for firefighting stock watering and drinking. Nor am I prepared to entertain that it should be taken into account when allocating water to sustain the intrinsic values of the river itself. Those things must come first; they are primary. But when it is a case of allocating water between hydro and irrigation and other industrial activities I think this is a matter that could reasonably be considered. 
I think that the member’s proposal to put in a new clause 19A fits better in the structure of the bill than the two other possibilities that we considered yesterday and therefore is worthy of consideration. It does not make this the overriding consideration of the board. It does not say that the board must take an all-or-nothing approach that it must give the whole 15 cumecs to the irrigators or none of it. It does leave the board to make some serious judgments about whether there are some win-win situations whereby at times of the year when the water is most needed by the irrigators it may be less needed by the hydro generators and to reach a decision that is fair taking everything into account. It will no doubt take the various legal decisions into account. It will no doubt inquire into what happened in 1991 and into why the Order in Council was not carried over. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask the board to do and therefore I am happy to support the amendment.