Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15545] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have taken calls during the second reading debate on this bill and during the Committee stage and the position that the National Party has had and still has is that we are strongly opposed to this legislation. Nothing I have heard from the Minister today or during the Committee stage will change my position or that of the National Party on this particular bill. 
 The central theme of this bill has always been—and no amount of words from the Minister will change it—about Project Aqua. The whole agenda as the bill was constructed was about the Government’s pet company getting Project Aqua up and running. The other consent holders on the Waitaki River were not regarded at all. Their property rights were stampeded over by this Government. 
The Minister for the Environment asserts that this bill is now about water allocation. It is not about that. She has now put back before the House a messy muddled bill. The agenda has moved away from that central theme of Project Aqua. What we have now and what this bill will become known as is “the Hobbs’ debacle”. The Government set out to pervert the Resource Management Act and its processes simply so that Project Aqua could be started. The National Party and some other parties fought very hard to make sure that the truth of what this Government was trying to do was exposed. 
The member who has just taken a call said that this bill is not just about the Waitaki River. Well if it is not just about the Waitaki River why is she so silent about other rivers in Canterbury? Why is a water allocation process not now in place for the Rakaia Waimakariri or Rangitata rivers or further afield across this country for rivers like the Waikato or the Whanganui? The answer is that the central theme of this bill has always been Project Aqua. No other river is having this type of central bureaucracy imposed on it—and that is the flaw in the Government’s argument that this bill is not about Project Aqua. 
I said before that this Government stampedes across private property rights. Here is just another example. We are seeing at the moment land access issues being developed against the majority view in this country. The member for Aoraki who is also the Minister who voted against the Order in Council is now promoting land access and the ability to roam at will across private property in this country. He is the same Minister who thumbed his nose at the people of South Canterbury regarding that Order in Council. 
I will talk about that in some detail. The Order in Council was for 15 cumecs of water. The Waitaki River has a mean annual flow of 340 cumecs so that represents about 1.7 percent of all the water that is available. It is not just that the farming community wanted that small amount of water; it is also about the fact that they had been promised that water by the Crown in 1969. They had been promised that water. The fact that they had not taken that water to date was simply because the technology to enable them to use that water had not been available until recent times. But as soon as the community put up their hand and said: “OK we are now in a position to use it. Will the Crown honour its word?” this Government said no. A perfectly reasonable amendment was put forward by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. The Green member Jeanette Fitzsimons supported that and I acknowledge her contribution. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: We had to change it first. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The member did support it and I acknowledge that. However United Future members chose not to support it and they have no excuse. They understand the value of water to that community and they still chose not to support it. 
The Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton has acted in a terrible irresponsible way. Not only is he the Minister of Agriculture but he is the local member in that area and he made a very clear decision to vote for the Labour Party rather than for his constituents. That is a sell-out of the worst kind. Mr Sutton has affirmed that he really will retire. I can think of no member who would so clearly thumb his nose at his local constituents and expect to get re-elected. He has done more to get a National member elected to Parliament in South Canterbury than anyone else could possibly have done. National thanks him for that. However my heart goes out to the people of South Canterbury. They are now in a situation whereby a promise made to them by the Crown has not been honoured. The great tragedy is that the Mackenzie Basin will become a desolate area as a consequence. 
Mr Sutton who is the Minister of Agriculture and the local member knows the value of water to farmers. He will argue—and did argue in fact though it was a very flawed argument—that the 1.7 percent of the water that the farming community could not get even though it had been promised it would be better used for electricity generation. He knows and I know that that is factually not true. One cumec of water has five times the return when used for irrigation purposes than when used for electricity. Of course if that water were used for irrigation purposes a large amount of it would run back into the river once it had served its purpose which was to generate huge amounts of productivity in that area. 
 So Mr Sutton has been found wanting and the people of South Canterbury will not forget that. On the other side of the river we have the member for Otago. He came to this House and committed the greatest sin of all. He stood and took a call—he was shamed into taking it—and said: “I am neither for it nor against it.” 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What was his name? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I cannot remember his name—“Parker Pimpernel” or something like that. I cannot quite think what it is. He was heavily disguised when he came to Parliament and took a call. I do not know what his name is but apparently that is not uncommon because down in Otago they do not know him at all. But they will know his name now if they do their research. He is the member who purports to represent their interests and comes to the Parliament and says: “I am neither for nor against.” 
The great tragedy about this muddled bill that the Minister has now put before the House is that we missed a huge opportunity to think strategically and laterally and talk about water usage in a more strategic sense. We could have looked at best practice. We could have started looking at transferable water rights for example. We have only to look across the Tasman to Australia to see how they manage a scarce resource. We could have looked at some best practice. Here in this country we seem to think that that is absolute anathema. I am of the opinion that it is only a matter of time. Here was an opportunity for the Minister who introduced this bill to the House and the Minister of Agriculture to do something strategic. Transferable water rights or tradable water rights are what is happening on the Murray River in Echuca in central Victoria. It was an opportunity for this Government to put in place something worthwhile. This is a muddled bill. The National Party is strongly opposed to it.