Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15286] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I find the course of this debate rather interesting—first with regard to the role of the Canterbury Regional Council. We in New Zealand First support this legislation for the very reasons that were enunciated by the member from United Future. This legislation has the support of the upper hill-country farmers. It has the support of one Stan Scorringe the Mayor of the district at the present time and a would-be National Party candidate. It has the support of a substantial number of the farming body in that district who are very concerned about the Order in Council of 1969 that we hope will be part of certain matters to be discussed in this legislation. 
Secondly with regard to the Canterbury Regional Council we should remember that this very valley was the subject of a major inter-boundary dispute between the neighbouring regional councils. But following that there was no express intention by the residents of that district for a water plan. That was stated to our committee and it is on record. I believe that statement and nobody contradicted the fact that there was no express intention to go beyond the needs of the local community—namely Waitaki—at the time Environment Canterbury was putting together its sequence for water plans. 
Thirdly the Canterbury Regional Council is working through a resource plan at the present time. However with the natural order of things if one went through that plan and through the various steps then moves to the next step—to put together a catchment plan which is what this legislation is about—the time delay would be inordinate. It would take years and years to get to that step. Therefore it is certainly an eminently sensible move to put this legislation and all the material that we had before the committee and which has been accumulated since then in both Otago and Canterbury before a board to decide upon the allocation. 
Before we can come to some of the excellent concepts that have been developed around here about the value of water the first issue is what water is there what water is in the river having a care for the river and whether those matters will form the subject of a regional plan that is now in place of the framework. I can go through all the issues that are involved such as the regulated minimum flows and the flows of levels from which abstractions can or cannot take place. If all the issues that one goes through in a regional water plan—all enunciated in the Canterbury natural resources plan—form the body of the meat as it were before the board and that board comes through in a suitable period of time then the people of Canterbury will be rewarded. 
This party has made a stand in earlier debates on this matter for those who have property rights. In this case a substantial number of those are being respected. We have a regard for the farming community and the prime reason why we are giving this legislation support is because the farming community were telling us as recently as 1½ hours ago that it wants this legislation. When there are discordant voices in the Chamber saying there is no rationale for this legislation I counsel them to talk to the community there and see whether they are in tune. I say to them with absolute certainty that they are not. New Zealand First alongside United Future is pleased to advance the cause of this legislation because putting aside all the baggage of the past this legislation will advance more quickly the best wishes and best desires of the community.