Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10606] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 No one should be in any doubt at all that this bill is being introduced because the Government wants Project Aqua to proceed and if applications for water rights are considered in the order they were received there may not be enough water left in the river for the mega-electricity project. At the same time this bill underlines serious failures in the way the Resource Management Act itself has worked and in the provisions that regional councils have made. 
The Act provides for all applications to take or discharge into water to be heard in the order they are received and focuses on considering the effects of each application. There is no provision for considering cumulative effects in this first-up best-dressed process. The Act was passed at a time when there was a real prejudice against anything one could call “planning”. Some councils have taken the view that under the Resource Management Act councils are not supposed to plan for their communities but just to consider the effects of each proposal on an ad hoc basis. The resulting mess in the Waitaki shows that this is a failed approach and that councils have got to be more proactive. 
Regional councils have had 12 years to do something about this in their regional policy statements and plans and the Ministry for the Environment has had 12 years to see that they did it. But they have not. It is not as though they have had no warning of the situation. The need to plan for cumulative effects was debated at the time the Act was passed and it is not true that as recently as 12 years ago we thought there was all the water in the South Island rivers that we could possibly need. It was clear even then that there would be conflicts over water in drought-prone areas of the South Island before long and the warnings about effects-based planning were sounded at the time. It was up to regional councils to plan for ways to consider cumulative effects and resource shortages. They could have developed water allocation policies setting out the priorities in their region and water management plans for each catchment against which to consider specific applications. But in most cases they have not. As a result all local users of water fear that if Project Aqua is given consent there will be nothing left for anyone else or for the river itself. 
The Greens oppose ad hoc project-based legislation but we are in a mess here. The status quo cannot work. In that situation somebody needs to take action and set up a process for water allocation under the resource management criteria in the Act. Given that applications are already in the system the only way to do this is for the Government to use its call-in powers. It has not done that for Project Aqua alone but it has done it for all competing applications and prior to that for the allocation process itself. This is actually not like the Clyde Dam. In that situation the National Government used Parliament to overturn a High Court decision and approve a single project. The project had been through its planning process. It had in the final appeal been turned down and Parliament and the National Government overturned that legal decision for a single project. That was real “picking winners”. This bill is not as bad as that. 
The Greens are cautiously supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee because frankly we do not see what other course of action is available. Given time it could have been done with a national policy statement but a national policy statement would take too long to resolve the current impasse. It should however still happen. A national policy statement under the Act for the protection and allocation of fresh waters would help regional councils everywhere to do their job better. That would not take away their power to determine local priorities but it would offer guidance at a higher level. Instead this legislation leads to us saying and here I do agree with Nick Smith: “Why only the Waitaki?”. Do other rivers not also need catchment plans and water allocation policies? Other rivers are certainly at risk of over-allocation and some believe they are already over-allocated. Are we going to wait until there is another Government-favoured project that needs water before we address the generic issues? I believe we should look seriously at amending the Resource Management Act to require regional councils to establish catchment management plans for each river system and water allocation plans for the water resources they control so that this situation will not arise again. 
Having said that I note that there are some reassuring things about this bill. It is reasonably faithful to the principles of the Resource Management Act. It says that in-stream values must be considered first then water for stock and domestic use and finally some division of the remainder between industrial uses such as irrigation and hydro-power. But the devil is in the detail and the select committee will be considering the submissions carefully and looking for amendments to make sure this is the best process that can possibly be established in the circumstances. 
 In particular the Greens are concerned at the composition of the board which will allocate water among different uses with no right of appeal except on matters of law. The Bill provides for that board to be appointed solely by the Minister and raises the concern that it will be there just to serve the Minister’s interests. There is a balancing of local and national interests that must be served here and the very least we might expect is for the Minister to give some power of appointment of at least a minority of the positions to local government in the region. Another option would be to invite an independent and expert authority such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to appoint one of the members. The possibility that the board may comprise as few as two people is a serious worry. Two people between them could not possibly have the mix of expertise that is needed to properly consider all the complex and technical issues that will arise here. It is vital that the board has within it some expertise in in-stream river values. Otherwise board members will be captive to whatever line the best-paid lawyers and consultants can sell them. Make no mistake all the pressure from all the applicants here will be to take as much water as possible and leave as little as possible for the river itself. So the upper limit of five members seems to us much more appropriate than the lower limit of two. There is no appeal against the decision of this board so it must be given the resources and the time to get it right first off. The time it is given must respect what is possible for the local people volunteering their free time and without much money. It must not be a process designed only for those who are full time and well resourced. That means the select committee should set a longer time than normal for submissions particularly as it is over the Christmas period and be prepared to work the extra hours that the Minister has made possible in order to still progress the bill rapidly. 
The outcome of the process will set precedents for water allocation plans on other rivers too. It must have regard to principle at every step and not just be a shortcut to a project that the Crown wants. Under this bill the consent-hearing process will be taken out of the hands of local councils. Instead of arguing their case in front of their elected representatives local people will have to front up to a more formal and unfamiliar process dominated by big players with highly paid lawyers and consultants. It is our duty in this Parliament to ensure the balance is as fair as it can be made both in terms of the process followed and of the resources made available. 
Finally I want to say a word about Project Aqua itself—the immediate trigger for this bill. Nick Smith managed to say a lot about how terrible the process was and avoid telling us anything about where National stands on Project Aqua. It would be nice to know. I will tell members where the Greens stand. The Greens oppose it. It is being touted as part of the answer to our dry-winter electricity shortages. New Zealanders need to know that if we sacrifice our largest braided river by diverting three-quarters of it out of the riverbed to a canal it will actually make dry-winter shortages worse. Project Aqua will generate most power when there is most water in the river. That will be in summer. The lower demand in summer and the greater supply will lower prices in summer making investment in wind power less likely yet wind power is not subject to dry-year shortages and provides the balance we need to having all our eggs in the hydro basket. In the driest winter months Project Aqua may generate nothing at all because the flow will not exceed the minimum required for the river itself. The company has disguised that with figures given for the annual generation in a dry year. But most of that annual generation will be in summer when power is not short. Looking at the figures for last June we see that the water available above the minimum flow Meridian Energy proposes was a quarter of the 340 cumecs that represents full capacity for Project Aqua. Last winter was by no means the driest we should plan for. So in our time of greatest need we can expect Project Aqua to hardly be there. At the very least we owe these people a fair and inclusive process for putting their case for local values against a Crown-owned corporation.