Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15353] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 That seems to have been a long time ago Mr Chairperson. We are in a catch-up mode and the farmer waits. I totally applaud Dr Nick Smith for the Supplementary Order Paper he has put to the Committee in support of those farmers who were disenfranchised for something that they thought was theirs had always considered to be theirs and it was taken away. I also commend Jeanette Fitzsimons for supporting that Supplementary Order Paper. I think it is commendable and that we all have the best interests of the farmers at heart. 
 I am concerned that the Hon Jim Sutton does not seem to want to support those people and their right to have access to that water. So the farmers wait and they have waited for some time. With this bill up her sleeve the Minister for the Environment put all the applications for water takes on hold until she introduced her bill some months later. So farmers still wait in spite of the fact that the applications were for existing take. They are still waiting. 
The bill is an abuse of process. It favours an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise with the Government reaping the profits. How does such favouritism accord with the statements made by the Minister that the Resource Management Act itself was fine that it did not need changing and indeed that it was beautifully written and beautifully balanced? Here she is with a favourite project and wanting to sidestep that whole process. She made some significant exclusions in sidestepping that process one being no less than not meeting the full requirement of section 32 of the Resource Management Act. However we have seen an amendment to that which is great. 
It is interesting to see the favoured position of Meridian Energy while the Dobson dam is not supported in spite of unanimous local support for that project. It throws up the real difficulties with the Resource Management Act in that we have a bill that was intended to sidestep that whole process. Transpower is also struggling to attempt upgrades. It is postponing those upgrades because of the significant problems being faced under the Resource Management Act. Clearly it does need to be changed to improve the process for all activities rather than just one for which this bill was created. We have now gone from about 55 clauses to about 26. 
Not only has the Minister been very involved in setting up a preferred process for a pet project by a Government State-owned enterprise she has also been advocating sidestepping key aspects of the Resource Management Act. The Minister was happy to exempt her Government agency from doing what everybody else is supposed to do. However the hard work of the National members of the select committee revealed that treacherous process of work and they insisted that section 32 of the Resource Management Act be required in its totality with no exceptions and that was done. 
Ministerial interference is rife in the bill even with its substantial changes. Ministerial interference actually exists in the role of setting up the board. As we all know the board was advertised well before the select committee finished hearing the submissions which really is atrocious. It remains to be seen just what promises were given to those people who applied to the Minister for the Environment to be appointed to the board. 
The Minister can appoint the chair of the board which is quite extraordinary. Why can the board not appoint the chair? She also appoints the deputy chair. Why can the board not appoint the deputy chair/ One would think that at least it could appoint the deputy chair if not the chair; and not only that but the Minister is also appointing in accordance with the requirements of the bill and people have to have some expertise. One of those portions of expertise is with tikanga Maori. One has to ask why that is. 
Brian Connell 
: Tikanga Pakeha! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Is that valid? One could say that that was very valid but as we know the word “tikanga” is not a substantive word. It can mean all manner of things and has no real substance.