Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15296] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A number of colleagues have— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would ask that my colleague Gerry Eckhoff gets a call in this debate. He is the only South Island high-country farmer in this Parliament. He is the southern man from Otago and I believe that he has been calling consistently. I would like an assurance that you will not take the closure motion before he has an opportunity to make his contribution. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A number of members have asked in this Chamber why on earth the Government is proceeding with this legislation and there is one very devious reason for that. It is that the Minister for the Environment broke the law and now she has to patch it up. Let me set out for this Parliament the way that the Minister did that. There is a very specific provision in the Resource Management Act that allows the Minister to call in resource consents that are of national significance and there would not be a member in this Committee who would contend that Project Aqua was not a matter of national importance. But the Minister did not just call in Project Aqua. The schedule of this bill lists consents for as little as 1 litre of water per second. One farmer has had a water right for a couple of stock tanks for 126 years and his resource consent was called in. Is there a lawyer in the Committee or any member of the Committee who believes that it is a matter of national importance for a farmer in Kawerau to draw off sufficient water to supply a couple of stock tanks? 
At the Local Government and Environment Committee we heard from Queen’s Counsel who were very clear that the Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs had broken the law. I am sure that the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope has had the same advice from his officials and that the real reason that the Government is proceeding with this bill has nothing to do with protecting the water of the Waitaki River and has everything to do with patching up Marian Hobbs’ botch-up. The only way that the Government can patch up her illegal act in October 2003 is to pass this legislation. If members had done what they should have done with this bill and chucked it in the bin the Minister for the Environment would be wide open—absolutely wide open—to be taken to the cleaners in the courts of New Zealand. This Parliament is being asked to retrospectively fix up the Minister for the Environment’s illegal acts. That is right—we are being asked to patch up her illegal breaking of the law and that is not good enough. 
I do not know why the members from United Future and New Zealand First are prepared to patch things up for an incompetent Minister who has broken the law. I challenge any member of the Government to get to his or her feet and describe how the Minister for the Environment could possibly have acted within the law by calling in such small resource consents. That was never what was intended in terms of matters of national significance. I challenge David Benson-Pope to get to his feet and tell members what his officials have said. We know what they said to the select committee. They said that the law was doubtful and that the bill would help to clarify it. What does that mean? It means that the Minister broke the law and Parliament is being asked to fix that. Well I say that it is not good enough for Ministers to break the law. 
I want to make another point to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope. He has said that Labour wants to fix delays in terms of the Resource Management Act. I ask him how this bill will help to do that. This is a resource management amendment bill so how will it help with the delays? Will this legislation solve the delays under the Resource Management Act for the poor old cow-cocky? [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should get on his feet and speak rather than do that silly business of pointing in the Chamber. I ask him how this bill will help to deal with delays under the Resource Management Act. I see that the Minister does not want to answer that. What this bill had done for the poor old cow-cocky in Otago who applies for a small amount of water is that it has made him or her wait for a year while the Government puts this bill through the House. Part 2 will then take another year for the development of a water plan. Then the consents will have to be heard—and that will be at least another 6 months or probably 12 months—and it will take another year after that if they go to the Environment Court. Does any member of this Parliament believe this bill will reduce delays?