Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15351] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Let us take one step backwards. In doing so I applaud the Minister for coming to the House and putting his case. The issue that was before us when we first considered the matters in the Waitaki River valley and that is still with us in this revised bill is the intensity of the competing demands for water from that catchment. There is demand from Meridian Energy with regard to energy generation and from those abstractors who would divert the water to another catchment or into storage. By the way with regard to that we should be very sensible of the fact that those demands for energy are winter-related and those demands for irrigation are likely to be summer-related. There is a seasonal issue here that we have not had much observation or discussion on. 
Then there are those who have placed extreme value upon the tourism industry and upon the values of the river itself. That comes particularly from recreational users. The issue in this amendment has not really been teased out yet. It is the issue of the exclusive use of water and of whether the consents or permits to abstract or use water are protected—that is the key—from the granting of any other permits for the life of such a permit or consent for beyond that period. That is the core issue before members at the present time. 
It is further made difficult by the fact that as New Zealand First said yesterday in February 1991 the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand was granted a bundle of water rights for that very area for a term of 35 years. That raises the issue that I have already related of existing water rights and of how those could be impacted on. 
In the course of the previous discussion that took place with regard to the submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee those issues were teased out. We heard varying opinions about what should be done. We have come to the situation whereby we have before us a reasonable amendment that states we should take account of the 1969 Order in Council allocations. There should be some concern about that because the last thing that anyone—not least those farmers who may be listening to us at the present time—would want is extensive and lengthy litigation. 
The issue is that any water plan is lengthy. I was involved with a regional water plan that started in 1995 and was made final on Monday. That is the length of time it took to complete one small regional water plan. I have no doubt that despite all the best intentions this regional plan when it is developed from this bill will take a lengthy period of time. The litigation will go on. The litigation need not be on “taking into account’—which is one of the concerns before us now—fr any regional body looking at the water plan for the Waitaki catchment. The hearing of submissions the going-through of due process and the trialling and careful observation of the submissions before that body will likely not be affected by litigation. It could sustain any appeal on the basis that the taking into account of the 1969 allocations was properly and appropriately considered. 
I think that contention—which would be a worry for anybody who genuinely wants to get involved and see an end to the Waitaki River catchment scheme—is not valid if the body that is appointed to hear the submissions does so in a proper way. At the end when the plan comes out in a draft form there will always be some concerns. There will be numerous reference orders and work that goes to and from the Environment Court. But I also say with great certainty that the issue of taking into account gives some hope to those people at long last. The issue has festered and will fester further if it is not looked at in this bill and by the panel that is set up to look at the new order plan for the Waitaki River. It will go on and on. New Zealand First would wish this to be an issue that brings clarity and certainty not only to those Mackenzie Country farmers who want the water but also to the taxpayer-owned Meridian Energy. 
Although that may come in forthcoming legal matters in actual fact I suspect that as is the nature of things if the major energy corporate lost it would appeal. Farmers would be put to a further expense and the prospect of irrigation and value to the economy not only in the Mackenzie Country but also in the wider Canterbury region and in this country would be lost forever because the issue was not properly looked at. That is the real reason why New Zealand First gives strong support to Dr Nick Smith’s amendment and why I believe that other parties in the House ought to take into account a sensible resolution.