Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15292] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 There is a need for a regional water plan for the Waitaki River. Most of my constituents agree that that is still necessary notwithstanding Meridian Energy’s decision not to proceed with Project Aqua. There was a suspicion when this bill was introduced that it was a “think big” equivalent that would push through Project Aqua and push it through against a proper consideration of the proposal under the Resource Management Act. Those suspicions run deep in my electorate because the Clyde Dam on the Clutha River was pushed through under empowering legislation by the then National Government under Mr Muldoon. But those suspicions were dispelled in my electorate after the good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee removed all the contentious clauses in the bill before it was reported back to the House. 
Indeed on the bill’s second reading it was supported by the Greens New Zealand First and United Future in addition to Labour. Those parties all agreed that it was not think bigging Project Aqua. 
Brian Connell 
: He was supporting Project Aqua. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No I did not support or oppose Project Aqua I say to Mr Connell. The member is again misinformed. [ 
Interruption 
] No I agree that Resource Management Act - type principles are the appropriate mechanisms to use in order to deal with issues like that unlike that member who would use the power of Parliament to prevail over proper process and the interests of the local community. I find it difficult to accept the Greens’ decision not to support the bill any longer because it seems to me that if from a principled position one accepts that there is a need for a water allocation framework that principle remains good either with Project Aqua or in its absence. None the less there were others who supported the need for a water allocation framework. Indeed during the height of the controversy Dr Brash made a visit to Oamaru. He held a press conference and when he was asked for his opinion he said he thought there was a need for a water allocation framework. I agree with that. He was actually right on that occasion but he has not been supported in that opinion by his colleague Dr Nick Smith. 
I also think that the simplification of the bill by the removal of some of the particular considerations listed in the bill when it was introduced and their replacement now by general Resource Management Act principles is appropriate. My reading of that list of criteria was that they really restated the Resource Management Act anyway. I think there was a danger that they would have added unnecessary complexity and that the Minister is wise to remove that risk by making it clear that the existing Resource Management Act principles apply. I am quite confident that those existing principles are adequate to deal with the issues that need to be considered here. 
Shane Ardern 
: No evidence! 
DAVID PARKER 
: There is no evidence of that? You would prefer different principles? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Point of order Mr Chairman! 
DAVID PARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. I did not mean to bring the Chair into the debate. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (John Carter) 
: I say to Mr Shirley that that is very kind. I was aware of it; I was going to let it go. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party would introduce different considerations if it were in charge of this legislation. As in the case of the Clyde Dam it would use the power of Parliament to overrule proper principles. 
I am happy to support this bill. I know that the majority of my constituents think that it is wise legislation and I am pleased that it is supported by both New Zealand First and United Future. I am also pleased that Environment Canterbury acknowledges that it is a wise thing to do.