Peters Jim: Urgent Debates — Energy—Project Aqua Cancellation 
Peters Jim: Urgent Debates — Energy—Project Aqua Cancellation 
[Volume:616;Page:12062] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 Just over a year ago New Zealand First along with other parties in the House wrote to every council every chief executive officer of territorial and regional bodies and several major institutions and businesses in New Zealand seeking from them support for a review of the Resource Management Act. We in New Zealand First believed that after a decade of the Act in law and in practice the time had come to review it. The answer from the Government and its associated parties was: “No dice.” 
I was therefore absolutely amazed when I picked up Mr Copeland’s press release because last year in committee and out of it United Future stated unequivocally—and that was not the only occasion; I will mention another one later—that support was needed to reform and review many of the issues covered by the Resource Management Act. However at that time we had no support from United Future. When I read the statement made by Mr Copeland that: “Not least there is a very clear need for an urgent overhaul of the Resource Management Act.” I was quite amazed. Last year United Future members sat on the select committee and in this House and had the opportunity to be part of a renewal and rethinking of the Act for the next decade but they did not take it. 
Secondly with regard to the Resource Management Act I also found some problems with the recent comments made by the current Leader of the Opposition Dr Don Brash about the issue that has caused this debate—namely the demise of Project Aqua and the associated power generation in the Waitaki valley particularly the lower valley. When Dr Brash was down in that region on 10 March he said he was very concerned that the Government was bypassing the normal consent process under the Resource Management Act. He said that a framework was needed so that competing demands for water could be evaluated achieving a balance that would maximise the wealth of the country. That is what he said when he was down there at the beginning of this month. Over the last 1½ months I have seen from my friends on the right consistent swings in attitude to the Resource Management Act and Project Aqua. That statement made by National’s leader was but one. 
 The issue really is that the Resource Management Act should by now have been in the last stages of review. That Act was not the reason for the demise and fall over of the project. In fact a month ago I was aware—and it has been mentioned in the statement made by Dr Turner—that the project having recently completed geotechnical investigations has provided information that requires design changes for the project with an adverse impact on project economics. “Adverse” is the right word because that is exactly what was being found down there about 6 weeks ago. But the real reason for the fall over is not that and since about 10 past 3 yesterday there has been a rush of information from various people and parties about why the project fell over. 
Let me state what the real reason is. People from the Aoraki Water Trust and Mackenzie Country farmers know the reason and this one was volunteered yesterday to the  
Timaru Herald 
 by Meridian Energy spokesperson Alan Seay who said: “The High Court action taken last week by the Aoraki Water Trust and the Timaru and the Mackenzie district councils was the catalyst for the canning of Project Aqua …”. Dr Turner said that the decisions made in the High Court last week with regard to litigatory judgment sought by Meridian—and it was unsuccessful—highlighted the “significant uncertainty around the nature of water rights which could be battled on for years to come”. He said: “Either side of that case is likely to appeal the findings of the High Court and it could take years to resolve.” That is the reason I was told in Otago last year that this would go through two elections. The real issue that has caused the fall over along with the other reasons enunciated by Dr Turner yesterday is that the uncertainty of water-use rights on Lake Tekapo has produced a remarkable change of mind. One can understand that uncertainty. There are other reasons as well all relating back to the economies the timing and the work already done. 
I pause for a minute to pay tribute to that taxpayer-owned company and to the fact that it has in this case exercised prudence and care despite having spent millions and millions of dollars on investigative work on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer and hydroelectricity consumer. Sometimes we in this House forget what that means. This project was not started yesterday; neither was it started last year. Meridian worked on this project and developed it over a long period. I commend firstly the board which was headed by Dr Small and secondly Dr Turner and his staff for the work they did. We have heard comments in recent weeks about the nature of Dr Turner’s work. We know that Dr Turner having worked for ECNZ and having found there was a need for certainty with regard to the central North Island supply—which had been made uncertain because of court decisions—made the very realistic and proper decision in 1990 to seek certainty for his company. 
The next matter I would like to raise in the House and which concerned the committee my party and me greatly relates to the rights of existing consent holders. The bill we brought to the House last week properly reflected the need to recognise the rights of existing consent holders and it set up a framework to examine and carefully consider the rights of all potential and present water users. In other words the framework took into account the river. It took into account present users and potential future users. Contrary to what has been said about Mr Parker that the committee—and particularly Mr Parker the deputy chairperson of the committee—achieved in relation to Project Aqua and its demands a reasonable result for the people of the Waitaki catchment that was not the impression I gained last week. It is not proper for it to be debated in the House and my colleague Peter Brown will pick up on matters of energy which were thought to be the matters for this debate. It is not proper for members in the House to maintain that the Resource Management Act was the answer. The Act applied in respect of the consents in Waitaki and would have resulted in the priority right for Meridian Energy. That is the actual result. Whatever one has been told that is what would have happened in practice and that would have been particularly unfair to farmers in North Otago and in the Mackenzie country and lower Waitaki valley as well. 
The approach we took on the matter—and I did not have time to say this last week so I am pleased to say now—is that the overall needs of the community in the Waitaki catchment area particularly the farming community and its ability and potential to reticulate and use water was of prime concern to us. That is why New Zealand First having worked alongside our friends from the National Party and ACT last year in relation to the potential form of the Act took a stance along the middle line—that is the framework as enunciated and the input of local authorities. It is very very unfortunate that just a week later the prime catalyst for this whole operation—namely Meridian Energy’s applications—is not being considered. However 70 applications are still to be heard. Therefore there is ample cause for this House to proceed with the bill. 
Last of all and most important within the bill is the genesis of a potential change to the Resource Management Act. To that degree although we commend a belated attempt by the Government to set up a junior minister in charge of the Resource Management Act the power not being there is of concern.