Sutton Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sutton Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15349] 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am moved to rise to my feet because this matter is of great importance to my constituents. My constituents were made certain promises by the Government of the day in 1969. A certain amount of water was set aside to be available for local irrigation by an Order in Council. Unfortunately those promises were later abrogated by another Government in 1990-91 when the rules were changed. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 1993. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Well 1991 to 1993—around then. Several things happened but the total result of those things was that the promise that was made was abrogated and there was no provision that endured in the water allocation process for those people from then on. The rules were changed. The water was allocated in greater quantity and for a greater time to the hydroelectricity generator operating in the catchment. 
I have been trying as best I can to find a way to right that wrong. The problem is that in order for rights to be granted now to would-be irrigators they would have to be taken away from existing consent holders some of whom are small local irrigators but most of whom are the people of New Zealand the owners of the electricity generator. Maybe both sets of parties could be given consents even if as has happened on many of New Zealand’s rivers that results in an over-allocation so that a rationing system has to be devised for the times when there is insufficient water to meet the needs of all consent holders. But the Environment Court has said that no that cannot be done. Many people including myself think that that decision of the Environment Court judge is a bit dodgy. The matter is subject to appeal and the appeal will be heard within the next few weeks. The outcome of that case will be very important because it will determine whether without the retrospective removal of the existing rights of consent holders this matter can be righted. 
There is one more thing I want to say about a matter that is pertinent to that. The National Party is promoting the gathering of a petition that seeks to take away rights from existing consent holders and to reallocate them to would-be irrigators. As much as I would like to see that happen I have to respect that some legal rights exist and that the people who hold those rights are entitled to protection. But the National Party’s petition would give water only to irrigators within the Mackenzie Basin; it would not provide any water for the irrigators on the other side of Burke Pass who want to run some water through the pass. For that reason—that partiality of the National Party for one group of applicants over another—the Mayor of Timaru and many other leading citizens have refused to sign that petition. It is a purely opportunistic move by a desperate political party which talked to one group and agreed to support what it asked for but forgot there was another group just as important and probably rather more numerous that had an equally valid claim. That group is entitled to have its claim considered and does not want this Parliament to turn around and pick out one group at the expense of another in that way. 
I stand for due process and I will continue to work to find a just solution to this dilemma but that is not made any easier by the opportunistic and disreputable activity of some members of the Opposition.