Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15305] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In speaking to Nick Smith’s amendment I admit to some sympathy towards what he is trying to do. I do think that the 1969 arrangements are part of the matters that the board ought to consider. I also do not think there is anything in the legislation at the moment that prevents the board from considering that issue but I was quite sympathetic to the view that we direct it to do so. However on looking at the amendment I do not think that is what it actually does. 
The amendment is added on to clause 21 which sets out what must be done in order to evaluate whether the allocation decisions that the board has already reached meet the requirements of section 32 of the principal Act. So that is the section 32 analysis and as I read the Act the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs the board has to consider after it has made the allocation decision whether what it has done is appropriate and it has to consider the benefits and costs of its decision. If Nick Smith’s amendment were to be added on to that then the board would have to consider the Order in Council as part of the process of evaluating whether its allocation decision which had already been made was appropriate. It seems to me that the place to consider the Order in Council is in making the allocation not in evaluating the allocation so the amendment may tend to tie the board in certain legal knots. On that basis we may be better to rely on the fact that the bill as a whole does allow those matters to be considered. Possibly the member should have considered amending new clause 14AA inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 244 which sets out what the board must do in reaching its allocation decision. We have not yet voted on that clause. 
However I do want to comment on new clause 14AA which is now all that remains in terms of describing what the board has to do in making its allocation given that clauses 17 and 18 have been entirely removed from the bill. The four matters in new clause 14AA are not prioritised at all. There is no direction to the board as to whether it should first provide for stock watering firefighting and domestic use then provide for the intrinsic values of the river itself and then allocate water between different activities which is what we have all assumed it should do. In fact there is nothing to stop the board given the way that the Minister has worded that clause from providing first for hydro and irrigation purposes and only secondly considering whether the local farmers can water their stock and fight their fires and then thirdly considering whether it has left anything at all for the river itself. 
It seems that new clause 14AA is seriously lacking in not setting any priorities for the way that those four matters are to be ranked. I think that is a serious problem. There is no help in doing that from the clauses that previously provided quite detailed directions to the board as to the matters it was to consider and that in fact turned the process into much more of a catchment management process than simply a water allocation process. But clauses 17 and 18 where the Local Government and Environment Committee put in quite a lot of work and added to what was originally presented to us have completely gone and we now have only new clause 14AA. Exactly how it will mesh with the principal Act is still really quite unclear. The board will find itself in some difficulties in trying to interpret what the Minister has given it to do in that rather ill-advised Supplementary Order Paper.