Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10448] 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her reported statement that the Resource Management Act 1991 is a “beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation”; if so why is special legislation required for Government-owned Meridian Energy Limited’s Project Aqua to proceed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by that comment but the member omitted the rest of that wonderful quote which was that the Resource Management Act had to be made to work. The special Waitaki legislation is necessary because without a regional water plan the Resource Management Act alone cannot balance the competing applications. We want to ensure that a fair and open process produces the best decisions for Waitaki water without favouring any applicant—as wrongly presumed in the member’s question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister for the Environment seriously suggesting to the House and the people of New Zealand that we would not have this resource management bill in her name if it were not for Project Aqua? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Without a water allocation plan Project Aqua and the large irrigation requests—if they were all granted—would mean that no water would be left in the Waitaki. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What will be the effect of the water allocation framework to be drawn up by the Waitaki Catchment Board under the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The water allocation framework will become operative as if it were a regional water plan under the Resource Management Act and will guide the decisions about specific applications for water. Of course we would not need to legislate for this if the National Government had not abandoned local government during the 1990s leaving many local authorities without the capacity to draw up regional water plans themselves. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Would the Minister agree that after 12 years of the Resource Management Act if there is any regional council that does not have a catchment management plan and a water allocation plan for a major river system then it is negligent and failing in its duty; and would the Minister consider amending the Resource Management Act to require catchment plans and water allocation plans for the water resources controlled by regional councils? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am loath to condemn regional and local councils for the absence of plans because plans are also required for air quality soil quality as well as water quality and—because they were left without the resources—some of them did not get around to that. An amount of persuasion has gone on with the councils. I do not want to pass that into legislation because I would much rather give a hand to enable different plans for different catchments. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister for the Environment explain to the House why the re-establishment of a separate Waitaki catchment commission to allocate water is not just turning the clock back 15 years and is an admission that the Resource Management Act has failed miserably—even if in her eyes it is a “beautifully written beautifully balanced piece of legislation”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The bill uses the Resource Management Act’s very good principles and very good procedures for the most part. The fact that there was an absence of a water allocation plan meant that it was “first come first decision”. When there are 66 applications a “first in first served” policy does not mean that the best use is achieved. 
Larry Baldock 
: In light of the ongoing concern and constant criticism expressed by interest groups and Opposition parties about delays the Resource Management Act causes for major projects is the Minister surprised by criticism of her most recent effort to address such problems by those very same groups including most notably the National and ACT parties? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Resource Management Act comes in for a lot of criticism from a whole range of people whether it be non-governmental organisations or business concerns. As such it is always under constant review. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has this Minister steadfastly refused to make substantial amendments to the Resource Management Act when asked to do so by the forestry industry the agricultural sector the energy sector and the transport sector but hello hello when it is the Government’s own company she will put a special bill through just to help it out; and how is that any different from the special Clyde Dam legislation that was passed in 1983? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There is an absolute difference in relation to the Clyde Dam legislation. The Clyde Dam legislation was about fast-tracking—this is not. That legislation was about reversing local decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] Let me say again that that legislation was about reversing local decisions. [ 
Interruption 
] This is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some difficult decisions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a speech made by Dr Michael Cullen in 1983 in which he talks about constitutional outrage and abuse of process and in which he states that the people of Otago should decide how their water resources are used rather than a committee appointed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he went on too long. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you might say that the barracking came from this side of the House but not all of us were barracking. Some of us were actually trying to listen. I would really like the Minister to give the answer again so that we can hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I heard an amount of interjection but I managed to hear the answer from this part of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier you ruled that I was not to interject on a questioner ever again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No on the asking of a question not an answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: That is right. So I have sat here as you know a model MP—and it has been very difficult. But I could not help but observe that while Dr Nick Smith was raising a point of order given that you have always and quite correctly demanded absolute silence the Government whip David Benson-Pope interjected on him. The Minister Marian Hobbs—and she is nodding her head indicating that she did—interjected on him but somehow when they do it on a point of order it is OK. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well let me say that it was a member of the National Party who interjected while the member was discussing that point of order. I usually tend to stand by that rule but I am not going to be absolutely rigid every single moment of the day. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to take you back to your earlier ruling. I am sitting considerably closer to the Minister than Mr Prebble who raised the point of order and a lot closer than you are and I could not hear the answer that was given. I suggest that it was perhaps a little unfair of you to rule that from your distance you could hear it whereas those of us in this sector of the House could not. Maybe the Minister should be required to repeat it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I hope the Minister could give us a brief summary of her answer. I suggest to you Mr Speaker that it should be that and that there should be no interjection—otherwise we invite barracking and members delay question time by then asking for the answers to be repeated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the point is well made. There was too much interjection. However I thought the Minister was coping with it. I will now ask the Minister to give—and I want silence—a very brief summary of her answer. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As I recall the question it was that this bill was being compared with the Clyde Dam legislation. This bill which we have before us this week will not be about fast-tracking any proposals. Nor is it about reversing local decisions as it was in the Clyde Dam example. It is about establishing a fair and considered process to make some very difficult decisions.