Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15303] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will certainly support the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Smith calling for this matter to be taken into account. Indeed my colleague Gerrard Eckhoff who does a remarkable job serving the interests of farmers throughout the country but particularly those in the South Island high country and surrounding landscape has been pressing this point in the ACT caucus and we certainly accept that situation. 
What we have is a clear promise and commitment from the Crown. In 1969 when the Crown was building those Toecap schemes in the Waitaki catchment we had a clear commitment. What better proof of a clear commitment than an Order in Council providing for that volume of water to be made available for irrigation purposes? We know that an additional metre of freeboard was put on the Toecap structure so that another metre of water would be available in that dam for irrigation. Of course that is the top metre. When one puts a metre at the top of the freeboard the surface area of the dam is that much greater. That is an immense volume of water. 
The other aspect that needs to be considered is that the irrigators’ demand for water relates to a very confined time. It is really during the maximum point of evapotranspiration—principally January and February when evapotranspiration is at its greatest. That is not the time of year when we are in a most critical situation in terms of storage levels in our hydro dams—typically May June or July. Yes one could argue that given a severe drought all storage is critical and that is partly true but water supply is so intermittent so often that Meridian Energy stores all the water then spills it all. Meridian Energy stores it through the critical period when it could be earning hundreds of millions of dollars and enhancing the farmlands of the Tekapo Basin then spills it down the spillway to sea because it does not know how intermittent supply will be or how prolonged a drought will be. That just does not seem sensible. 
But for the Government now to pretend that it does not have any obligation when an Order in Council in 1969 gave that commitment seems rather strange to the ACT party. The fact that this Government is happy to renege on it disturbs me but we have some precedents for that. Let us think about the West Coast Accord. The Labour Government signed the West Coast Accord which included the union movement local government and all the forest industry. It was an absolute commitment in perpetuity. It was going to provide for a sustainable yield of beech forest in perpetuity. How long did “in perpetuity” last? The accord was signed by Phil Goff the Minister for the Environment in September 1987. One of the first things this Labour Government did when it came to office was to tear up that accord. It just tore it up. This Government’s word is worth nothing. It is a bit like its tax policy: it said that only 5 percent will be affected but we already know that 10 percent is affected. 
Brian Connell 
: 12 percent! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right—12 percent. That figure was mentioned in question time today. We are guaranteed broken promises from this Labour Government. To get back to the bill it is a critical issue and it can be provided for. We do not believe there should be special legislation but if this board is to be set up then for goodness’ sake let us at least let the board weigh up the merits and take into account that Order in Council. As I understand it that is all that Dr Smith is asking for. It is a very reasonable request. How could one possibly vote against it? All that the amendment states is that the Order in Council should be taken into account and considered. Hopefully we will have a panel of competent experts. I am not too sure that the Labour Minister will appoint competent experts but let us hope he does—in which case how could one vote against that amendment? I call upon United Future. How could United Future not support this amendment to make that water available?