Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10604] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I am rather mystified that a member from Canterbury would make such an inadequate almost stupid statement in defence of what is a constitutional outrage with regard to resource management and then leave the House—and leave us behind. Why do we have the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill of last year alongside this bill which both bypass the usual processes of the Resource Management Act of 1991? A common theme is starting to develop across the floor of the House with this minority Labour Government that is not acknowledged. The theme is that the Resource Management Act is not adequate to deal with the allocation issues that the Government sees with regard to the Waitaki River valley. It is not adequate to deal with the competitive commercial environment. That is the underlying statement of this bill. If that is so why did we not avail ourselves and why did that minority party not avail itself of the opportunity when it picked up the Simon Upton bill of 1998? It had ample time—almost 4 years—to go through the main tenets the underlying philosophy of that bill and how it operated in the practice and process and sought to implement the reforms that we on this side of the House know now that that Act needs. 
This bill is no answer at all. It is nothing more than a pragmatic ad hoc approach to what is a very very serious issue in New Zealand. Why has it been introduced so soon after the Resource Management Amendment Act? The answer lies with the Government. At the start of the year we went through the whole process. We gave the Government ample opportunity to review the Act thoroughly. There was no willingness—perhaps there was no understanding. I am not sure which it was. 
Today we come to another piece of piecemeal legislation which is pragmatic in its supposed purpose. Let us be quite clear. It is another deliberate moving away from the thinking of the Resource Management Act. I go back to the Resource Management Bill as it came to the House in the memory of some members on the Government side. The Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer said in August 1990—against the ghost of Clyde Dam: “In fact in Part V there is provision for statements of Government policy to influence directly the way in which local government will undertake its functions. However those are not statements for particular projects; and they are not the National Development Act in disguise.” I repeat that they are not in the mind of the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer the National Development Act in disguise and that refers to the Clyde Dam. 
I am saying to the House that this is what we have today. We have the Clyde Dam revisited. There has been a slight change in the timing of where the bill and the Act appear but it is the same disastrous process. It is the same lack of attention to what ought to have been the finer framework of the Clyde River and now the Waitaki River valley. Is this a sign of things to come? I hope not. Waitaki now—Auckland transport next week; climate change tomorrow—energy shortfalls next year; Kyoto obligations—probably in 2005: all to be solved by an ad hoc pragmatic approach with imprest Government proposals coming to the House and with little wish for any proper purposeful thinking but instead imprest Government direction and imprest ministerial direction from Cabinet—from the Prime Minister herself I have no doubt. 
There is no overarching philosophy. Is that not clear in what the Minister herself has said in recent statements which were aired again in the House this afternoon? The Minister said that this will reduce the time delays. “I wish to achieve expedient decisions ensuring the process is as quick as possible.” The most important aspect the Minister said will be to “serve certain outcomes”. 
The previous speaker has already raised the issue of conflict of interest whereby this Government company which annually gives dividends back to the New Zealand Government is the subject of special legislation. We in New Zealand First say that that is not good enough. Why is it not good enough in simple practical terms? We believe earnestly that the process should apply to A J Brown as to Meridian. It should apply to everyone. Here for the first time we have a major shift in resource management thinking whereby the big guy gets his or her day in court because it is an absolutely protected cocoon and without any fear of Government or anybody else interfering with the ultimate outcome. 
Why is it so important to Waitaki? I am very indebted as other members will be for the excellent work of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 and to David Bruce who have kept their minds on the matter right through including in yesterday’s editorial. 
 In an earlier opinion in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 going back to Monday 27 October a very important comment was made—I think unwisely but that is a matter of opinion—by John Rice consenting manager for Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua. This is not a debate about Project Aqua; it is a debate on the processes. But just to see where he saw things going so far as Project Aqua was concerned he said: “The river will still be there with Project Aqua albeit a smaller and different river”. In other words this process in the minds of the major developer would change the Waitaki River for ever and there is no wonder that the issues down there are ones of distrust of high stress and emotion in which have developed the climate of uncertainty and anxiety and the uncertainty of change. 
The issue we have to consider as we go through the various stages of the bill is that we have a right in this country and the people living in the Waitaki River catchment area have a right to expect a certain process. The process is there in the Resource Management Act. It is one that empowers individuals and gives the community a minimal and maximum right with regard to the impact of a decision that affected them step by step. 
So we come to this bill. The previous speaker has already outlined some of the issues but the major point I want to make on behalf of New Zealand First is that we are extremely concerned about this complete ministerial dictation and direction with regard to the total process at each point. It is the Minister who appoints the board. It is the Minister who decides upon the calibre in terms of direction and the choice this Minister and this Cabinet would make is a very big issue for members on this side of the House. What if the Minister having made perhaps an ill choice—out of the four—finds that one of them is not to her choice? Instant dismissal! 
This is a compliant Government imposing its direction upon the people of Waitaki—at every point. However there was a choice to decide—in view of the known ingredient of a lack of a completed water allocation framework for Canterbury—to have a minor amendment to the resource management legislation setting out the proposal with regard to water allocation knowing that the Otago Regional Council has an excellent water plan; knowing that Environment Canterbury has a half-finished plan; and knowing that if the ministry had thought about this over the last year and a half in the recesses of its mind an amendment could have come to the House been before the House and have gone. 
That allocated framework would have allowed the local councils to have directed the applications after hearing the applications in the normal way. The advantages would have been to allow the Environment Court to be a court of appeal for all matters not just for matters that were to be decided by those elsewhere. We would have gone through the proper process. 
The issue for New Zealand First is that we oppose this bill at the present time. We oppose it because it is pragmatic. It is a very indifferent pragmatic approach to a major problem of water and water allocation. We oppose it because the processes that are set out in this bill are a denial of natural justice and equality for all applicants no matter who they are. We look forward with great interest to the second reading and the discussion in the select committee. On that note I want to pause and say: “Why oh why is March the report date when this matter is of such national importance?”. It is the largest dam to be built in recent history and the legislation is going to be compressed and pushed through. That in itself is a very excellent example of this Government’s arrogant unthinking and not-listening attitude. It is prepared to push on and roll over things like a steamroller. May it reap the benefit of this ill-considered approach.