Sowry Roger: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10611] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I start by saying that it is extraordinary that the member for Otago whose electorate this project runs right through has chosen not to stand in this House and speak on this legislation. I do not know whether Mr Parker—who they say is Otago’s MP—is allowed to speak on the legislation or whether he has been sent away so that he cannot speak on it but have never seen a member of Parliament refuse to speak on a bill that is so major and concerns a project that runs right through his constituency. Mr Parker is trying to pretend that there is no view on that at all. It is extraordinary that on a bill that does for Project Aqua much the same as previous legislation did for the Clyde Dam—which the Labour Party fought tooth and nail—and that gives a whole new process to the consenting of the water usage rights of the Waitaki Labour is putting up North Island Labour members to say: “This is a good bill” and sit down. Why are they so scared to stand up in the House and fight for the bill? Why is no Maori member prepared to stand up and talk about Ngai Tahu’s view on water usage? Where is Mr Parker? Why is David Parker—the elected member for the area—not prepared to get on his hind legs in the House and speak on this bill? 
Equally extraordinary in this debate has been the behaviour of the Greens who we know oppose Project Aqua. Indeed Jeanette Fitzsimons just told us that a few moments ago. We know that the Greens a week or two ago were opposing this bill. The Greens toddled along to us and said that the bill will not be going to Jeanette Fitzsimon’s select committee. The Government is sending it to the Education and Science Committee rather than the Local Government and Environment Committee which usually deals with this sort of legislation. That is what the Government is going to do. So the Greens cut a deal which was that they would vote for the first reading of the bill if the Government sent it to their select committee which Ms Fitzsimons chairs. They cut a deal. What an extraordinary party of principle the Greens are to be able cut a deal like that! Then we listened to the speech made by Ms Fitzsimons in which she said that the Greens oppose Project Aqua but that they will vote for the bill—which will assess whether Project Aqua will get the water—because it will come to the committee that she chairs and that if she had not done that the bill would not be going to her committee. 
Then there is the United Future party. Well! Just 4 weeks ago that party did a different deal. It did a deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. That is a loose-knit political organisation that totally opposes 75 percent of the water being taken out of the Waitaki river and used in that project. Peter Dunne stitched up a political deal with Outdoor Recreation NZ. He went to the country and said: “Look—I’ve got another party that has joined the great Christian coalition. It’s made us a bit less Christian but we’re OK.” Now on the first bit of legislation that Outdoor Recreation NZ has a stated public view on United Future will vote the other way. It will vote for the first reading of the bill to allow the water to be used even though Outdoor Recreation NZ has a different view. How long will that deal last? I do not think it will last very long at all although I am sure that United Future will go back to outdoor recreation groups and say: “No no. We just voted for the introduction. We’re really with you. We won’t vote for it any more. We will get some concessions.” La-di-da—it is the normal sort of stuff we have heard from them over a period of time. They are the sorts of good weasel words that have got them through another year. 
Quite clearly the National Party opposes this bill. National is opposed to doing little deals for one State-owned enterprise to bypass the Resource Management Act. National believes that if the Resource Management Act is right then we should let it work for everything; if it is wrong—and the Government clearly believes that it is wrong—then the Government should come and fix it for everyone. I was with representatives of Mighty River Power another State-owned enterprise the other day and they are just watching this so closely because—guess what? They have projects they want to do around the country and what do they need to get them done? Oh they need just a little bit of special legislation just a one-off bill to bypass the Resource Management Act—just the same sort of principle we are seeing here applied to them. So how will the Government say no to Mighty River Power Genesis or Contact Energy and say yes to Meridian Energy? That will be an interesting dilemma for this Government. 
I also want to say with regard to Project Aqua that National is not in this House supporting or opposing that project. It is not the job of political parties to sit here at this stage and say that that is the project we should go with. What this nation needs is a decent energy plan and that is just an example of the leadership that this Government is not giving. There is no energy plan. There is no plan about how we will overcome energy shortages. All we have from the Government is a mishmash of environmental ideals and sustainability statements with no plan at all. Now there will be a commission set up and it will be able to regulate impose costs and do a whole lot of other things—and that is another story because that will not work at all. 
The Minister in her speech was extraordinary. Here we have for the first time since 1990—the first time in 13 years—a situation when the Minister has had to come into the House and say: “I have got a project and the Resource Management Act simply won’t meet it and I want to pass legislation similar to what happened with the Clyde Dam. Labour opposed it then but now we want to pass legislation to support getting this project through.” Well I say to the Minister that if the legislation does not work for this project or for the Dobson dam then why not change it for all projects? Why is the Minister going through this charade? Why is she saying in the House that the Resource Management Act is beautifully balanced legislation when she knows it does not work? 
I look forward to the Minister appearing before the select committee to explain why she is supporting this piecemeal and haphazard legislation. I look forward to her explaining that—and she will be invited. National signals right now that we will want the Minister to appear before the select committee to explain the policy principles behind the bill. I wager any member on the Government side that the Minister will not front. She will be as conspicuous by her absence as the member for Otago is today by his. He just will not front. It is no wonder that down in Otago they ask: “Who is he?” He has been here during the week but when the one major bill the only bill that will directly affect his electorate in the whole 3 years of his short political life is introduced my gosh he has suddenly got a haircut in Oamaru and he cannot be here today. Well that member will be judged on that because he will not be able to fool the people of Otago—just as this Government and Minister will not be able to fool the people of Otago on this legislation. If the Resource Management Act is working then the bill is not needed; if it is not working the whole Act should be changed.