Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15276] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We start the Committee stage of a bill that has been a botch from day one. There is now a Supplementary Order Paper before the House that further guts a bill that has already been substantially gutted by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill pales into insignificance when compared with the bill that Marian Hobbs brought in in a great rush in November last year. 
In Part 1 the bill effectively reverts to taking a “do-nothing” position—with one exception which I want to cover in detail. Gone are the provisions for setting up a special panel. Now all Part 1 effectively does is require the Canterbury Regional Council through the allocation board to set up a process that is perfectly contained within the Resource Management Act. 
I challenge the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope on this Government’s woeful record in respect of the Resource Management Act. Five years ago a National bill was before the House and the way that bill was managed was an absolute sham. The select committee did its job diligently but the bill sat on the Order Paper for over 2 years and then suddenly the Government tried to rush it through. 
It is exactly the same situation with this Supplementary Order Paper. Members of the select committee would have welcomed the referral of the Supplementary Order Paper to select committee. But no Minister Marian Hobbs said that it had to be developed and advanced in a great rush. That was in March. This bill was introduced in November last year in a great rush in a truncated process and now—10 months later—we are still debating it and trying to fix the botch-ups that Marian Hobbs proposed. 
We on the Opposition side of the Chamber have consistently argued that special legislation is not required in respect of the Resource Management Act. What is required is comprehensive reform and this Government has consistently failed at that hurdle for 5 years. 
I want to draw particular attention to the amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The great purpose of this bill was to have a specific allocation plan but now the Minister has decided that there will be a regional plan. Well there are regional plans in the Resource Management Act right now so why has the Government done a complete U-turn over the course of the last 10 months? 
I make the further point that the botch-up in this bill has cost the taxpayers of New Zealand $100 million. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is how much Meridian Energy spent in developing Project Aqua. When Meridian Energy pulled the plug on Project Aqua it cited the botch-up over the law and the changed rules all along the way as reasons for doing it. I say to members opposite that they are responsible for $100 million of wasted public money because of their poor policy poor lawmaking and the continuous hashes that we have seen in this very important area of law. 
Looking at what is left of Part 1 I challenge Government members to put to the Committee why this bill is needed at all. The Canterbury Regional Council is to have elections in only a month’s time so why does the Minister for the Environment have to override the process under the existing Resource Management Act to appoint a board only to write a regional plan? What does the Government have against the people of Canterbury? Why will it not trust the elected people who on 9 October will take up their role as regional councillors? Why can those people not write the plan for the Waitaki River? Why do we need this special bill at all now that it has been gutted to this extent? 
There is no case for this bill except one—which is perhaps why the Government is advancing with it—the bill is a botch-up.