Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15558] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I will recap a little. This is special legislation brought in to rush through a major project by sidestepping the Resource Management Act. It is about calling in applications for water takes under questionable circumstances. The Minister advertised for appointees to the board at the same time that the select committee was hearing submissions—so much for the integrity of the process that everyone who was submitting in good faith would expect from the Minister! But no the Minister flouted the public’s expectations that this bill would be carried forward in good faith and be open to scrutiny and changes at all stages. The Minister flouted that assumption about the integrity of the process of the law. Before the process had barely begun she was already acting on the assumption that the bill had been passed. 
What does that tell the public? No sooner has the process started than the Minister is calling for appointees for the board which is provided for in the bill. But that bill could have been changed at any time. It could perhaps even have been canned and all the expenditure from the process saved and given to Environment Canterbury to spend on coming up with a water allocation plan. 
 So that is a little bit of a recap of some of the aspects of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. It was introduced to the House for the sole purpose of fast tracking Project Aqua an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise that was fully intended to sidestep the normal Resource Management Act process. There is absolutely no doubt that this bill clearly says what the current Government has continually refused to admit; that is that the Resource Management Act needs changing—urgently. The current Minister in charge is making some pretence at change but no one seriously believes there will be significant or serious change at all if any. In short no one will be holding his or her breath on that score—and that sounds a little bit like the phrase used by Brian Connell. The one thing that we can guarantee from this current Government is plenty of spin lots of interference and little else. 
The current Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs even tried to claim that the bill had nothing to do with Project Aqua. That was ludicrous in the extreme because in speaking to Part 1 the Minister said that the reason that there is what is a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper that virtually guts the bill is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. She obviously cannot remember from one sentence to the next. 
So the previous Minister even tried to have us believe that Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would be subject to the Resource Management Act and stand on its own merits. The Minister’s own words were: “To those who accuse the Government of introducing this bill in order to promote certain projects—for example Meridian Energy’s product Project Aqua—read my lips: Project Aqua like all the applications for Waitaki water will stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act.” She also said that the bill’s aim was to achieve a fair prompt and transparent decision-making process. I think that the Minister’s own actions fell far short of saying that it would be fair and transparent and it certainly is not prompt. 
Brian Connell 
: Is this the same member who said it was beautifully crafted? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Oh it is definitely the same member who said it was beautifully crafted and balanced. But I would like to remind members that she said that Project Aqua would stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act. But that would not necessarily be the case because Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would not necessarily have to go through a Resource Management Act process. It would depend on what was provided for in the allocation plan. 
The bill had a substantial number of exemptions from the Resource Management Act and as I have said many times the full section 32 analysis was not to have been required. However that provision was changed pretty smartly by the select committee. Be that as it may given the huge ministerial influence in the bill with the appointments of the board approvals and suchlike the water take for a hydro project could be provided for in the allocation plan to such a degree that it could actually be a permitted activity. Now that is feasible and it could happen. One could make provisions to that degree as long as one has stated so in the water allocation. So a hydro project as long as it met the conditions within the water allocation plan would not necessarily have to go through a consent process but it could be a permitted process instead. That came as a bit of a surprise to some of the submitters. However I believe that given the current scrutiny of this whole project that is unlikely to happen but it is still a possibility. 
So why do we now have this bill? I think it is time that the Minister should can this bill and instead give the $3.5 million allocated for the process straight to Environment Canterbury which had identified the matter in its annual plan and which was approved to go forward with an allocation plan. The Minister should give that body the $3.5 million and let it get on with the job. Then there would not continue to be the ministerial interference in the bill that still exists because—as we all know—the Minister appoints the board according to specific criteria tikanga Maori and all which is ridiculous— 
Brian Connell 
: What’s Environment Canterbury going to do now? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well who knows? But the Minister appoints the board and then picks the chairperson deputy chairperson and goodness knows who else. So ministerial interference continues to be in this bill when it really is unnecessary. She should have just given Environment Canterbury the $3.5 million that was allocated in the estimates for this bill told it to get on with the job and wrapped a bit of a time frame around it and that would have achieved exactly what she thinks this bill might achieve—except it adds another layer of bureaucracy into the mix. 
By doing that no legislation would be required. We might have saved a lot of time and effort for officials politicians and a huge number of submitters who not only spent their own limited funds but also expended a lot of time and energy into meetings planning and undertaking advocacy on this bill. There is a huge emotional input into this bill as well which also came at a cost. So we might also have saved the taxpayers $100 million of public money which was wasted because of poor policy and planning if right from the outset the Minister had just said: “Look. Here’s a few million. Go and do your plan and do it by X time.” Maybe members could have had that on the table today. It could have been happening right now. They did not have to go through that long drawn-out and very questionable process which the Minister has also betrayed since the earlier stages by calling for appointments to the board and calling in the water applications before the bill had even finished going through its hearings process with the submitters. 
On Tuesday the leader of the National Party Don Brash accompanied by the Hon Dr Nick Smith accepted a petition on the steps of this Parliament which this Government has already ignored because the Minister who has a particular interest and is responsible for that area Mr Sutton opposed honouring those agreements with the upper Waitaki catchment farmers. That is an absolute disgrace. This current Government has ignored those farmers who wanted it to honour those obligations that the Government was committed to some time ago. I also think it is hugely disappointing that United Future has not supported the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to honour those agreements. I think that is a failing on the part of this Government— 
Jim Peters 
: New Zealand First supported it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: New Zealand First supported it—yes. So did the ACT party and I think that is to its credit. 
 Those parties wanted to uphold the honour and integrity of this House but they failed due to the current Government and its supporter United Future. I think that is a gross failure indeed. That Supplementary Order Paper should have been supported. The upper Waitaki catchment farmers should have been supported. This Parliament should have honoured those agreements; it should have honoured its obligations. Those farmers do not have a Waitangi Tribunal - style process they can go through. They rely on this House to address the injustices they believe they have faced at the hands of this Government. That should have been addressed by the Government and those agreements honoured. National opposes this bill because we believe that this whole process has been completely unnecessary from the outset. National is happy to oppose this bill.