Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15555] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support this Government bill. Before I comment about the legislation in particular I would like to respond to a couple of points made by Mr Eckhoff. Firstly I do agree that water is amongst New Zealand’s most precious commodities. We need to plan its use well. I do not agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ earlier comment that just because we already have over-allocated aquifers in Canterbury we should not now have proper planning for the use or conservation of the water in the Waitaki River. To deal with Mr Eckhoff’s point as to property rights this legislation does as he desires: it preserves the existing property rights to the extent that they exist in a resource consent. This legislation does not undermine property rights. But a consent to use water is a consent for a limited term of years and there is no right of renewal at the end of the term. We never renew water rights in New Zealand. We often allow people to get a new right on the same terms as their prior right because their justification to use the water including their economic investment in the land and related infrastructure means they have a compelling case to have a new right granted to them. But we do not renew water rights and a water right is not itself a property right that lasts forever. 
In the legislation we do not undermine the existing holders of water rights be they farmers or Meridian Energy. Whether Meridian Energy’s rights at present mean that no one can get additional consents at the moment in the upper catchment is a matter to be determined in another forum—in the High Court or the Environment Court. This legislation does not affect that case’s outcome. If Meridian Energy is right and the upper catchment is already fully allocated the framework board will be left to make decisions about the future allocation of water after current rights expire. It will not take water from Meridian Energy in contravention of any High Court or Environment Court decision. 
I turn briefly to the suggestion that we should not do anything now. I agree completely with Mr Peters’ comments which were backed up by United Future. To do nothing would mean that there would be a policy vacuum concerning the use of that very precious resource until after 2008 or 2009. That is good enough reason for this legislation. 
I shall deal with two other things. I disagree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ comment as to this being a water allocation or a water use bill. It is true that new clause 14AA refers to a regional plan for the allocation of water. That does not mean that the consent body has to allocate all the available water in the Waitaki River. The framework board will have to effectively come up with a minimum flow regime for the river and over and above that amount there will be water some of which will be available for abstraction. There is no obligation under this legislation for that board to specify a minimum flow and then to allocate the rest of the water now. The board may say that we need to err on the side of caution and therefore to leave a bit more in the river. It may do that in terms of the minimum flow and it may also do that in terms of water above the minimum flow. 
 The board may say that we should not allocate all the water now because there is a need to provide for the future in a way that requires some flexibility to be left in the river system for the future. So the board may say that despite the fact that the demand for irrigation in the next few years will not use all the available water from the river the rest of it should not be made available for electricity generation because things can change. It may say there should be some flexibility left in the system and that the water should not all be allocated today. 
There is another important point. I suggest to members that the changes that were made between the first second and third readings and that are in the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee have all gone in the same direction. When the bill went to the select committee it had criteria in it that were perhaps inconsistent with some Resource Management Act principles. The select committee with the unanimous agreement of all parties brought those criteria back closer to the principles of the Act. Indeed we thought they completely reflected the Act. To avoid any doubt the Government has now changed the prescriptive list of criteria and has reverted in clause 16 to express reference to the principles of the principal Act alone unless there is an express variation of those principles in this legislation—and there is no express variation of the principles when it comes to water allocation.  
The main clause that pertains to that is clause 14AA. It should not be read and is not to be read as meaning that the principles set out in the principal Act are overridden in a way that requires the allocation of all the water today. Provision can be made for future generations as it can be in river plans issued under the normal Resource Management Act processes. 
For those reasons I am very pleased to support this legislation. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the good work that went into this legislation on the way through. I agree with the statement of the chair of the select committee Jeanette Fitzsimons that all parties were cooperative in that process and that as is so often the norm in this Parliament as a consequence we have better legislation. I am pleased to support this bill.