Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15553] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is indeed the end of a long journey for this legislation. I recall speaking on the first reading and declaring that United Future was not supporting legislation that would be a fast tracking of a project but would be supporting the fast tracking of a process. If there is one thing that is clear after the long passage of this legislation it is that this bill was definitely not about the fast tracking of Project Aqua despite the fact that members on the other side of the House continue to harp on about that. Given the fact that once the Local Government and Environment Committee reported back Project Aqua was called off a week later it would take an incredible leap of logic to be able to suggest that this bill was about fast tracking that project. 
United Future is pleased to see the passage of the bill through to third reading today. It is the most timely way of establishing a water allocation plan for the Waitaki River. Although many critics have said that the regional council should have done this earlier as Jim Peters said earlier it actually did try to do so and perhaps encountered more opposition than we had fully understood. 
But nevertheless that is all history. The fact is that a plan was not established. Some critics have said that the regional council should now do it. But I am convinced as is Jim Peters from New Zealand First that that would result only in further delay and no better outcome than what this bill will provide for the residents and the users of the Waitaki River. Some suggest that councils all across the country should be required to develop plans. Well that is a discussion that is going on and perhaps there is merit in that. But I cannot understand the logic behind those who say that because there is not a water allocation for some other needy rivers somehow we should abandon doing one on this river. 
That does not make sense. We were kicked into gear on this particular river because of Project Aqua and also because of many other applications for consent for the use of water from that river. I see no logic whatsoever in turning back from this course of action simply because there are other rivers that also need an allocation plan. Hopefully many many residents and water users around the country will be delighted if this is the first of many water allocation plans that are to come in order to give certainty to both recreational users and commercial users of our rivers and our waters in this country. 
During the Committee stage there was a great deal of discussion about the Mackenzie Basin and the 1969 Order in Council. I find it rather strange also that the Green Party and the ACT party which supported the amendment put forward by National to do something about this are voting against the bill. How does one vote for an amendment and then vote against the bill that would have brought that amendment in? On no occasion did those parties say that the support for the bill would change if the amendment passed—[ 
Interruption 
] No no they had already made it clear they were not in favour of the legislation. So it was simply a little bit of politicking. 
I have been concerned about the Mackenzie Basin. I visited it during the discussions about the bill and I have seen first-hand the environmental degradation in that area. I am concerned that water ought to be allocated. On my urging the Minister gave an assurance to this House that the water allocation board would have all the information put in front of it concerning the 1969 Order in Council so that nothing would be left not discussed or considered when it did come to allocate water. 
But ultimately the case for water being allocated in that area rests upon the current situation not on the historical situation in my opinion. We know that the board will take into account the historical story as the select committee has also done and be moved by the promise made and the promise broken by the National Party in the amendments it has made to legislation that have taken away that right. But ultimately it is the fact that the Mackenzie Basin needs water today and the water allocation board should do all it can to allocate water to that area. I fear that if it is not possible to allocate water because of current consent and users have to wait a considerable number of years it may be too late to reverse the environmental degradation on that area in which case we must rely upon Meridian Energy becoming a good neighbour in that area and making some of that water available. 
I do not believe and I do not think anyone on the select committee believed that 15 cumecs of water would cause Meridian Energy to lose its ability to generate electricity for the rest of New Zealand. So we hope that it will act responsibly in that area if in fact it is impossible for the board to allocate water until the expiration of current consents. 
We do look forward to the determination that is going to be made by the courts and some certainty that will follow from that. Ultimately it is that determination that will have a greater impact on the Mackenzie Basin requests than perhaps what the water allocation board does. But the very real and present danger of ongoing environmental damage is of concern to United Future and that is why we are supporting this legislation because it offers the best hope of getting something done. There is no point voting against this bill and then claiming that one is doing something on behalf of those interested parties. 
The other issue that has been of major concern is of course the Lower Waitaki. More than 100 submitters came to the committee during the course of this legislation to express their concern about too much water being taken out of the river and therefore the very important amenity and intrinsic value of that river being lost. I urge those people today as we pass this legislation and the board is established that they will again engage in the process of making submissions to the board so that their concerns can be heard and addressed by the board. 
The legislation requires the board to provide for water to sustain the intrinsic value and the amenity value that the board identifies and determines should be sustained in the Waitaki River and associated beds banks margins tributaries islands lakes wetlands and aquifers. I cannot see anything clearer than that. The board will make provision for those needs and then look at what water is available for very useful commercial development over and above that need. It is absolutely pointless to waste the opportunities for commercial development in the area simply because we want to keep the river as it always has been when there is sufficient water flowing down there at various times of the year that can be used commercially. 
It is very exciting to see the potential for development particularly in the viticulture industry as well as the agricultural and other horticultural development in that area that is dependent upon some water coming out of that river. I believe that this process will enable the residents and users of the Waitaki River to have their say in that process and to be assured at the end that when water is allocated for their concerns it will be a time then for other users to have their go. I am confident though that if the board does its work consistently and properly the idea that such a large-scale project as Project Aqua could take as much water from that river as it was intending to do will be forever put into the garbage bin. I believe that it was a failed idea in the beginning to be able to take 60 to 70 percent of the water from that river for hydro generation. I believe that the board will do its job and give some assurance for the residents of the area. To wait until 2009 before any development can take place would be an absolute nonsense unless of course parties believe that economic development is not of importance to us as a nation. We are certainly not a party like that. United Future will be supporting the third reading of this legislation and looks forward to the allocation of the water plan.