Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12010] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Responding to Mr Connell’s remarks is always a bit of fun. The last press release he put out concerning this issue about a month ago accused me of not paying attention to meetings that were being held in my electorate at which Ministers were present. Mr Connell obviously was not there because I was chairing the meetings. 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s their rocket scientist. 
DAVID PARKER 
 He is. The lack of ability shown by that member really defies belief. How he got here I do not know but he is here so I will respond to some of the suggestions he made. First of all the suggestion that this bill empowers or speeds up Project Aqua is arrant nonsense. Were this legislation not before the House and had the consent applications not been called in by the Minister the applications for Project Aqua would be under consideration now and finished within the next few months. The single and only appeal to the Environment Court would probably have taken place later this year and be finished towards the end of this year or at the start of next year. This process is far slower and has far more protections for those who are either in favour of or opposed to Project Aqua. 
I thank the members of the committee who worked very hard over a short time frame to turn this legislation into better legislation. I include in my thanks the National members Sandra Goudie and Nick Smith the New Zealand First member Jim Peters Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens Larry Baldock from United Future and my own colleagues from the Labour team. I think we all worked very constructively to produce what is high-quality legislation. 
The legislation does not change underlying Resource Management Act principles—it changes processes. It is necessary to do that because there are at present around 60 applications to take water from the Waitaki River. If they were all granted the Waitaki River—one of New Zealand’s biggest rivers—would virtually run dry. There is no water plan for the Waitaki River despite the fact that it is one of New Zealand’s largest rivers. About now those planning decisions would have been taken by a planning authority in the absence of the guidance that ought to be provided by a water plan. Both of the regional councils agree that some statutory intervention is necessary. So do many of the submitters and it is interesting that since this legislation has been reported back to the House even some of the vehemently opposed interest groups like Waitaki First have come out and said that they approve of this legislation. 
I also think that people should judge the cries that this is empowering Project Aqua against the position that the Green Party has taken on the legislation. The Green Party has been very clear that it is absolutely opposed to Project Aqua and that is its right. Yet despite the Green members’ strident opposition to Project Aqua they agree that the legislation is appropriate. They would not be agreeing if they thought that the effect of this legislation was to fast track or empower Project Aqua. 
In terms of the rights of Meridian Energy Ltd the suggestion that this bill somehow favours Meridian Energy should be judged against the criticisms that that company has made of the legislation which it says does not adequately protect its existing rights—including its rights in the upper catchment. One of the recommendations of the select committee which the Government is adopting is that clause 31 in the original form of the bill be deleted. Arguably that clause did in a minor way further entrench the rights Meridian Energy already holds concerning power stations in the upper catchment at Benmore Aviemore Waitaki Ohau etc. The committee recommended the deletion of that clause so that the underlying Resource Management Act principle applied without any modification. 
As the local member I am absolutely satisfied that I have protected the local interest well against being overridden by the national interest. There were a couple of words in the purpose section and also in clauses 20 and 42 that caused submitters concern. Those words have been removed. The purpose clause concerned the strategic allocation of water and clause 42 dealt with the national perspective. Submitters had concerns that the effect of those words was to give some hierarchy to economic outcomes that might flow from Project Aqua to the detriment of environmental values or indeed other irrigators. Those concerns have been addressed by the removal of those words. 
The select committee has also limited the powers of the Minister to give directions to the boards that hear these planning issues so that there can be confidence that these Environment Court - like panels are not subject to political influence. I am absolutely satisfied that this is appropriate legislation that protects my electorate and is far better than the status quo that existed before it.