Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15406] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Just before the rising of the House last Thursday evening the last Labour speaker was the Hon Jim Sutton the member for Aoraki which is the area where this particular legislation is to take effect. I could not believe my ears when the Hon Jim Sutton who also happens to be the Minister of Agriculture informed the House that he thought hydroelectricity and the generation thereof were in a much higher sphere than agriculture in terms of the national good. Let me just say this on the side: one can always tell when Labour members are on the way out and about to resign or retire because they do not care how much damage they leave behind for Labour candidates coming in. Members should just pause for a moment and think about what the honourable member said—this is the Minister of Agriculture a Minister in this current Government. He said that in relation to the national good the generation of hydroelectricity was of far greater importance than agriculture. That defies belief and it is certainly manna from heaven for the incoming National candidate who will clearly win that seat. 
Let us have a look at the detail of what that Minister was proposing. He said that it is far more important that as little as 2 percent— 
Brian Connell 
: 1.7 percent. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —1.7 percent of the flow of that river—the amount promised by an Order in Council in 1969 to the farming group at the top of that catchment area—is spilt over a hydro dam than it is used for irrigating that area. In keeping with that sentiment he then voted down the very good amendment of my colleague Nick Smith that would have meant that the agreement entered into in 1969 was honoured. That is a disgrace! Members on the other side of the Chamber should take a call and explain to this Committee what the Labour Party Government and the Minister of Agriculture mean by that and why the Minister thinks that is a sustainable policy for that area. 
Further when we have a look at what happens in Part 4 and the regulation around the panel of commissioners that is to be set up—a water board—to allocate the water from the upper Waitaki we see it will be so bound up in regulation that it will not be able to make a decision anyway. So in this part the Labour Party Government sets up a Labour-appointed quango because it does not trust the local authorities to allocate water on a sensible basis which somehow or other in terms of the national interest takes preference to agriculture—that is the bit we cannot understand—then binds that panel up in so much regulation and Wellington-dictate that it cannot make a decision as to what might or might not happen anyway. So the question out of that for those of us on this side of the Chamber who have not been close to the issue—some of my colleagues have been—is why this process is necessary. Why is this bill necessary? In the first place why is this panel necessary and why are all the clauses under Part 4 necessary in terms of controlling what that panel may or may not do? 
I would be interested if the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs took a call and explained that away because I do not think it is possible to explain first of all why this group has to be set up and also why the regional councils or the district councils cannot be trusted. They are currently going through a local body elections process whereby all of this could be sorted out in an open democracy particularly under the power of general competence that was introduced by her Government. So why can they not sort it out?