Burns Brendon: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burns Brendon: Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:9604] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on this bill the Resource Management (Requiring Authorities) Amendment Bill in the name of my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. I was interested to listen to the language from the MP for West Coast - Tasman Mr Auchinvole who said that this bill could increase red tape and that it could impede progress. But I think that in fact the Government wants to cut some red tape on new water projects in Canterbury. The Prime Minister defined in his statement to Parliament last month that he wants to see real progress on water allocation in Canterbury so it is little wonder that Mr Auchinvole is defining that this bill may deflect things that are in the public interest and is suggesting that that might be excessive. 
I suggest that what we might well see from this Government in alignment with the sentiments expressed in voicing opposition to this bill is a move to breach not just the fundamental property rights that my colleague Shane Jones referred to—which we would expect to be a fundamental principle of the right and which we are also I think expecting to see very shortly from Cabinet as early as next Monday with announcements on the future allocation and management of water in Canterbury—but also the breach of another fundamental principle the fundamental principle of taxation without representation. I think that the Government is prepared and poised to remove the democratically elected organisation Environment Canterbury from the management of Canterbury water and instead install a commissioner perhaps in the form of Jenny Shipley the former National Prime Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’ve been attacking them for months. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The Minister is welcome to comment on this and to confirm whether the speculation which he has not yet denied is correct. What a segue we have got there—what a segue we have. There is the former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Wyatt Creech a member of the Open Country Dairy board which has breeched environmental law on a number of occasions. He is followed perhaps by his Prime Minister Jenny Shipley the commissioner for Environmental Canterbury. Jenny Shipley is of course a very good friend of Ruth Richardson who happens to be on the board of Synlait in Dunsandel another dairy company and who is the ideological soulmate of Don Brash who in turn is on the board of Oceania Dairy Group down in Waimate. So we can see why this Government has a view of not wanting to see an amendment to the Resource Management Act that suggests that matters should be designated in the public interest or that sees a requirement that work should be authorised only if it is necessary. 
Therefore that is why we are hearing that language from the Government tonight. It is little wonder that the people of Canterbury are beginning to ask questions about what is actually at stake in terms of the management of Canterbury’s water; they will hear the signals from the Government tonight that this bill is presenting. The signals are that Cabinet will decide on Monday. We have had signals from the Prime Minister that he wants to see the rapid allocation of water. He wants to get some very quick economic runs on the board. 
I heard the MP for Taupo talking about environmental balance. Well in my experience environmental balance always comes second to economic growth especially when this Government is involved. We have already seen that the environmental balance in Canterbury has been put to one side because there is no capacity any longer to swim in the waterways and streams of Canterbury. Who will accelerate the process for the allocation of water? We have had an acknowledgment that there have been problems around the allocation of water. Why would we want to accelerate more allocation without fundamental changes to environmental protections being put in place first? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot have blue-green; what we will get is blue-brown. That is what will happen across the waterways of Canterbury if legislation like this continues to proceed. Environmental balance has always come second. 
Public interest has come second. This bill is an attempt to signal that public interest should come first. Public interest should come first. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You said the legislation shouldn’t proceed. Make your mind up. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I do believe that this legislation should proceed. I think this Government needs to come back to some basic precepts. It should say that public interest should come before the interests of those who have property. But it should protect property rights and this bill acknowledges that in the case of Central Plains Water the rights of property holders were put second to the interests of a particular and small group of trustees all of whom came on board for that project. The Government should also be acknowledging a fundamental principle that one expects from parties of the right: when we are going to have taxation it should come with representation.