Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12020] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill I too would like to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all right. I should just stay on message and ignore that. I would like to acknowledge the efforts and considerable work the select committee did and I would particularly like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. His contribution at the select committee was magnificent and I think that has been— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Hon Dr Smith. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith—yes I said that did I not? He did make a considerable contribution and he worked diligently to ensure that we made the changes we have made—but not all the changes that we would have liked to see happen. 
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the chair because I think her contribution in managing the whole process under such pressure with the time constraints we were under and the pressure we had to get this bill through was excellent. It could not be faulted given we could not extend the time frame any further. We were being pressured to report this bill back to the House and it was disappointing to us that this whole process has been fast-tracked for the reason enunciated in this House: the Meridian Energy project. Environment Canterbury has not had a water allocation model in the last 14 years. There was no pressure for that to come about because there was ample water in the river. It was not until Meridian Energy came forward with Project Aqua that there was suddenly a need to have this bill because we needed a water allocation plan. So the Minister in bringing this bill to the select committee and requiring us to put it through the process therefore put us in that position. I think it is to the credit of the committee that we worked so well on this bill because the changes had been incredibly substantial. One only has to look at the bill that came before the select committee and then look at it now to see the number of changes that have taken place. 
National welcomes the reduction in the powers of the Minister to sack members of the water allocation board. We also welcome the removal of the Minister’s power to direct the board on the process and to override the Resource Management Act. National also welcomes removing the clauses that would have enabled the normal and thorough analysis under section 32 of the Act to be bypassed when developing the water allocation plan. In addition we welcome removing the national perspective test for Project Aqua and also the transfer of the consent processing for Project Aqua from the Ministry for the Environment to Environment Canterbury. 
However in spite of the many changes that we have been able to make to the bill we still oppose it. We have consistently argued for reform of the Resource Management Act and we find it objectionable that the rules are being rewritten specifically for a State-owned enterprise project. We support many of the amendments to the bill that reduce the number of exemptions from the Act and the powers of the Minister to intervene in the process. However we still have significant concerns about key provisions. The first one is this: the board should have the same level of independence from the Government as the Environment Court and there remain in the bill conflicts of interest on the part of the Government as the owner of Meridian Energy. 
I refer to some of the specific provisions of the bill. Clause 8 provides that the Minister appoints the members of the board. The issue was raised earlier that one of the requirements for a member of the board is for that person to have knowledge of tikanga Maori and that Ngai Tahu customary values and practice are a part of that knowledge. It is interesting to note that Meridian Energy already has that knowledge on its board of directors. Sir Tipene O’Regan is I understand a descendant of Ngai Tahu and he is on the board of directors for Meridian Energy so Meridian Energy certainly has that knowledge available to it. Does that mean that while the Minister must have regard to the need for that knowledge she does not necessarily have to have someone on the board who has that knowledge? Or does it mean that another Ngai Tahu person will possibly be appointed to the board? There could be the interesting position of having a Ngai Tahu director on Meridian Energy and then perhaps a Ngai Tahu member on the board. So I find that could be an interesting outcome. The chairperson of the board will also be appointed by the Minister as will be the deputy chairperson. I see no reason why the board could not make those appointments itself. 
Turning to the rest of our concerns we believe that the principles under which Project Aqua and the other consents are to be considered are being skewed. Those consents should be considered against the unaltered provisions of Part 2 of the Act. Although those provisions are taken into account they are then extended in the bill in clause 42. So first one applies the principles and purposes of Part 2 of the Act and then one has regard in respect of each application to the economic and social benefits and costs of each taking use damming discharge etc. So there are some extended qualifiers that change the emphasis of Part 2 of the Act and National members have concerns about that. We believe that the Waitaki River will have a lower level of environmental protection than any other river in New Zealand and there is no justification for that. We were led to believe that not only by the qualifiers of Part 2 of the Act but also by the substantial changes that we had to address through the select committee process. There were changes with regard to section 32 and section 68(3) which is about taking environmental effects into account. That was excluded from the bill. The whole premise of the Act is to take into account and look after the environment yet section 68(3) of the Act is to be excluded from consideration in the formulation of the water allocation framework. 
Those are just some of the concerns that are part of National’s objection to this bill. We will be raising those matters through the Committee stage and I am sure that we will come up with some Supplementary Order Papers. I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be very disappointed that he is unable to be with us today. He had a particular concern over the 1969 agreement and National members share that concern. We believe that the Waitaki catchment as defined in clause 4(1) of the bill does not fully take into account the upper catchment of the Waitaki because it is not a part of the Lower Waitaki water allocation process. We have major concerns around that. National would like to see that the water rights of those people above the Waitaki dam are taken fully into account and that the previous agreements made with the Government are honoured. We would definitely like to see that take place and we are hopeful that through the process of debating this bill we can reinforce that concern and bring about some change. Farmers and residents of the Mackenzie District have every reason to feel aggrieved at the way the promises made to them in the past have been dishonoured and they would like to see their water rights reinstated. 
Finally I would like to mention the hasty process on this bill. I quote the Minister: “…meaningful democratic participation at the local level is a principle embedded in the Resource Management Act.” Yet she has taken away the appeal provisions within this bill. Two speakers have already commented on that and National absolutely deplores that that provision has been denied to submitters in the water allocation process.