Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15348] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would also like to commend the amendment of Dr Nick Smith. Just this very day I spoke with Mr Denis Fastier who is driving this issue which is not so much a demand as a request that Parliament behave in an honourable fashion. 
Opposition Member 
: It was a commitment. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It was a commitment and a promise that were given. What is it about promises that if they are a few years old they are considered to no longer apply? I do not believe that and I am not sure whether this Parliament believes that. The fact that the undertaking was given 30-odd years ago does not negate the promise and commitment that were given. 
I spoke with Mr Fastier earlier today. I asked him whether he had received support from the Green Party and United Future for Nick Smith’s amendment. He said that he absolutely had. The people in the Mackenzie Basin went to the expense of getting a highly competent ecologist by the name of Peter Espie to present especially to the Green Party the significance of water and how it will ensure the ecological sustainability of that region because as we all know farming in the Mackenzie with the north-west winds rabbits and so on has been an absolute disaster. But the area is recovering and with the help of water it will recover—there is no question about that. But the people of that area need the help of United Future and of the Green Party. Mr Fastier told me today that those parties were both very supportive. They both said that they understood the issue and that they were very much in favour of the amendment. 
But I came to this Chamber yesterday and I found that no that was not the case. The Greens and United Future have backed away from the commitment they gave to that group of farmers. Why? Why did they agree and then back down? To make matters even worse those parties were not even answering their phone calls. Mr Fastier rang United Future to have a last-minute conversation and he rang the Greens but neither Ian Ewen-Street the agricultural spokesperson and rural affairs man nor Jeanette Fitzsimons would answer their calls. Why? What sort of deal has been done with the Minister that has got those parties to completely turn and go back on the word they gave on a regular basis to those people? Those people were very confident the minor parties—the Greens and United Future—would back this amendment. 
The ACT party of course has backed this amendment all the way through and we will continue to do so. But the local member has not been outspoken on this issue. Surely if any member should have been the flagship for this debate it would be Mr Jim Sutton the member for Aoraki. He should have spearheaded the drive for those people to get the water that is needed. The potential in that region is absolutely enormous so why do we hear so little from that Minister? Perhaps the fact that the issue affects only a relatively small number of people in a numerical sense is uppermost in Mr Sutton’s mind; I am not sure whether that is the case. But I would have thought it was the job of the constituent MP to be the spearhead in the drive for water for that region. That appears not to be happening and I think the people of the Mackenzie Basin who are listening to this debate today would be very interested to hear from the Minister for Rural Affairs from Ms Jeanette Fitzsimons and from United Future as to why they are backing away from a commitment once given to them and just given to them again very very recently. 
If there was total agreement amongst this Committee that Parliament should honour that commitment then we could all move forward very very quickly. But it does appear that the Green Party and United Future are backsliding on this issue. A deal has been done which may not manifest itself immediately.