Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : As I commented very briefly at the closing stages of this debate last evening, National will cautiously support the Maori Fisheries Bill, only because of the significant changes made during the select committee process. I say at the outset that this is one of those cases when the select committee process has been very worthwhile, and I am pleased that the Minister of Fisheries has agreed to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee’s changes. This is in sharp contrast to the situation regarding the next bill on the Order Paper, the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), where the Minister has chosen to ignore completely the work done by the select committee.

The bill is before us today to further progress the deed of settlement signed in 1992 between the National Government of the day—represented by the Rt Hon Sir Douglas Graham and the Hon Doug Kidd—and Māori as a means of progressing grievances around Treaty of Waitangi issues. There was a unique opportunity 14 years ago, when a brief window of opportunity was available to an imaginative Government, which was supported, as I understand—although I was not in Parliament at the time—by Parliament almost in its entirety. At that time a very significant investment conglomerate, Brierley Investments, determined that it wanted to exit its shareholding of Sealord’s fisheries, a very large, Nelson-based fishing company. I understand that this agreement was cobbled together in about 3 weeks, with an acknowledgment by all signatories that it would then take some time to devolve a way of moving the assets out to the various Māori themselves, so that they could control the resource and better it for themselves.

I have to say that in recent discussions I had with my former colleague Doug Graham I learnt that he certainly did not envisage that it would be a 14-year process. But we are today supporting this bill because at least it moves that process forward quite significantly. The legislation is still not perfect, but it is important to get this step under way so that the resource ends up with its rightful owners, Māori, with the benefits being delivered to Māori themselves.

It is appropriate at this particular time to comment on the deed of settlement and the Government’s extraordinary attempts to extend that document. Only last week I listened with huge interest to the Hon John Tamihere, who gave an amazing rendition of his interpretation of the deed of settlement of 1992. It was the most incredible account I have ever heard of that document. In fact, it was nothing more than a desperate attempt to widen the deed of settlement beyond what was ever envisaged 14 years ago. For Mr Tamihere to come into this House and argue that the deed of settlement now extends well beyond New Zealand territorial waters, into international seas, is a huge stretch of anybody’s imagination, including the Hon John Tamihere’s. The Government should be very careful when attempting to rewrite the deed of settlement of 1992. To do so will do nothing to further race relations in this country, and will put us back many, many years in terms of the grievance settlement process under the Treaty of Waitangi.

I want to comment on a couple of the significant changes made by the select committee that mean that the legislation is now presented back to the House in far better shape than it was when it went to the select committee. There was the issue of recognition of individual iwi and their ability to get control of the assets as quickly as possible. In this regard, the select committee has recognised a process whereby those who are operating significantly in their own right as commercial entities do not have to jump through a series of hurdles to try to establish their credibility with the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. In my area, NgāiTahu has to now be recognised as the largest commercial entity in the whole of the South Island, and it was therefore quite illogical for the previous Minister of Fisheries, Pete Hodgson, to have suggested in the original drafting of the legislation that it be required to jump through hurdles and hoops to prove its commercial expertise. The select committee has sensibly recognised that, and has acknowledged that any such iwi, provided that they satisfy three criteria, will receive recognition. Those three criteria are that they are formally structured and accountable to their members, that they have established an asset-holding company, and, finally, that they have already been accepted by the Crown as having a mandate for Treaty of Waitangi settlement processes. NgāiTahu clearly fits that bill.

The second significant select committee change was around coastline agreements and the ability or inability, because of disputes, to progress allocation of resources. In many cases these issues of who has jurisdiction over particular pieces of coastline, and who therefore has entitlement because of their association with that coastline, have been largely agreed, but they have not been totally agreed. The select committee resolved that where majority agreement has been reached, distribution should be allowed to occur on that basis, but that the area still in dispute should be held back and not distributed. I think that is a very sensible position taken by the select committee, and I congratulate the members of the select committee on reaching that decision.

Of course, this legislation is about compromise. The issue of distribution of assets has been an ongoing argument and disagreement amongst Māori as they decide who is entitled to what. This legislation has sensibly suggested that, in the main—but not entirely, I might hasten to add—inshore fishery distributions will be on the basis of affiliation to coastline, whereas, in the main but not entirely, offshore fisheries will be distributed on the basis of population of iwi. The select committee has facilitated distribution, and I applaud that. The last thing I want to see, as a member of Parliament, is this legislation simply being a replacement of what we have had in the past, with assets still being tied up and with various iwi still unable to have their opportunity to do something with them.

My final comments are about Helen Clark and her apparent decision to reshuffle Cabinet in the not too distant future. This legislation, messy as it was, was presented by the Hon Pete Hodgson. Helen Clark sensibly sacked him as the Minister of Fisheries, but I am afraid she has now replaced him with David Benson-Pope, and his track record so far is just as disastrous. So I implore the Prime Minister that when she does the reshuffle—I know that talent is thin on the other side of the House—she takes note of the importance of the fishing industry to the New Zealand economy. Will she please attempt to find somebody within the thin ranks of talent on the Labour Government benches with some ability to understand the importance of legislation, and to get it into the House in a far less messy state than the Maori Fisheries Bill was when it entered Parliament?

In closing, I take this opportunity to thank the select committee for delivering back legislation that is a substantial improvement on what it was when it went to the select committee.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : I move, That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996, as well as the Fisheries Act 1983 and the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2) 2004. Part 3 of the bill was reported back separately, and received royal assent on Thursday, 12 August 2004 as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4).

It is essential to progress the matters in this bill. The Supplementary Order Paper 246 reflects many of the concerns raised by the Primary Production Committee in its report back to this House. This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the 1996 Fisheries Act so that it can better achieve its purpose, which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. These improvements include providing more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries, improving the way quota is allocated when a species is brought into the quota management system, revising the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries, removing the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of our fisheries resources, extending coverage of the quota management system to provide for improved management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries waters, and enabling the introduction into the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area GLM9 on 1 October 2004.

This bill provides for improvements in the way fisheries resources will be managed, so that the purpose of the 1996 Fisheries Act can be better achieved. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : The National Party will not be voting for this bill. It is not because we are short of information; indeed, we had submission after submission telling us of the holes in this legislation. But we should be lacking information, because during the Committee stage yesterday and last week the Minister took only one call over 3 hours of debate, and just now he spoke for a total of 93 seconds of what should have been a 10-minute speech. It is absolutely appalling to see a Minister of Fisheries in the chair during the Committee stage not take more than one call, and then give only a 93-second speech in the third reading. That was made worse by the fact that a 17-page Supplementary Order Paper, drafted by the Minister’s officials, was presented during the Committee stage. The bill as introduced was substantially only 32 pages long. In other words, the amendments were half again the length of the bill. So I am disappointed in the Minister in respect of addressing questions about the bill.

National opposes the third reading and we have four substantive concerns. The first is the Minister’s intention to manage fisheries outside New Zealand waters. This Minister intends to manage highly migratory species—in particular, tuna species—in the seas of Fiji, the seas of China and Madagascar, the Indian Ocean, and off the coast of South America. It is absolutely nuts. When I received the consultation papers in the Primary Production Committee, I saw no submission from the Chinese Government. I saw no input from the Fijian people. Those living in India seem to have no say on the matter. I would like to put to the House that this Minister of Fisheries wants to manage fish species in territorial waters of other countries, and the people do not even know about it.

Worse than that, he intends to give 20 percent of quota caught in those fishing zones—in the territorial seas of other countries and in the high seas—to Māori. I do not know whether Māori historically had any intention of catching tuna off the coast of Madagascar, Fiji, or any other country in the South Pacific or throughout the rest of the world. I cannot see why Māori should be given 20 percent of that quota.

We were misinformed in the Parliament yesterday, I think by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and others, who said that National signed the 1992 Māori fisheries settlement and intended at that time that Māori would receive a proportion of fish quota caught in the territorial waters of other countries. That is not the case. We signed an agreement that would see Māori receive 20 percent of quota that enters the quota management system. We agree they should receive 20 percent of any species that go into the quota management system. But it was never the intention that a Labour Government in the future could shift the quota management system to include the territorial waters of other countries, or that it would shift the quota management system to include species in the high seas. In that case, Māori would be on the tail end of that and receive 20 percent of the fish caught in the seas around Fiji, China, India, South America, and Madagascar. That is one major reason why we oppose this bill.

A number of fishing companies have come to us and said they are simply going to fish under another country’s flag—in other words, income generation through catching highly migratory species in the waters of other countries, and the benefits will go to other countries, not return to New Zealand. We are very comfortable about voting against those aspects of this bill in relation to highly migratory species.

The second reason we oppose this bill is the absurdity of putting mussel spat collected on Ninety Mile Beach, into the quota management system. We know the Ministry of Fisheries, and certainly the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, have no idea where the mussel spat comes from or where it goes to. All they know is that it moves around the oceans and washes up on Ninety Mile Beach in great volumes. Most of what is not collected lays there and dies in the sun. The amounts that are collected are distributed to the marine farming industry throughout New Zealand as seed stock. Clearly, the mussel farming industry is able to build a significant business for this country with that seed stock. Yet this Government wants to put that mussel spat, which would die anyway, into the quota management system; thereby restricting the catch, ratcheting up the price, providing a monopoly supplier to the marine farming industry, and in that way, again holding back the aquaculture industry in relation to mussel farming. That is the absurdity of putting mussel spat into the quota management system, and certainly National opposes that move.

The third reason we oppose this bill is our concern about the schedules, and I refer members to new schedule 4C in particular. New schedule 4C lists the fish species that will go into the quota management system in the near future, based on catch history records, presumably those between 1990 and 1992. The expectation of commercial fishers is that all fish species will go into the quota management system, based on catch history between 90 and 92 years. Yet the Labour Government has decided that it will restrict what species will go in and what species will not. Those species listed in new schedule 4C will come under the quota management system with that expectation, but species left out will not. Many, many species have been left out of that schedule. The Seafood Industry Council, the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission, and a large number of submitters across the country told the ministry what species should be included in that schedule, but they were completely ignored. I do not know how that Minister can ride roughshod over an expectation of property right, in the way that he has.

The final reason we oppose the bill relates to kahawai. There was the opportunity through the amendment put forward by United Future to not introduce kahawai into the quota management system on 1 October this year, as is currently gazetted. National wants kahawai to go into the quota management system, because that is the best system to manage kahawai, but we do not agree that it should be under the total allowable catch and total allowable commercial catch conditions that the Minister has specified. Now we see that in area 1, which ranges right through the Bay of Plenty, Coromandel, and Northland, the commercial catches can be almost as high as recreational catches. In area 2, the other main area that goes around Hawke’s Bay down to Wellington, commercial fishers can catch more kahawai than recreational fishers. That is absolutely wrong. We are quite concerned and disappointed that United Future’s amendment, which we supported, did not go through.

For those four reasons we unreservedly oppose this bill. They are four substantial concerns, and we certainly do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : The member from, I think, Whangarei, who has just resumed his seat, actually had five issues, not four. I know that it is tough for members in the National caucus to count, particularly when they taking a vote on who will be the boss.

I shall comment on two particular issues before commending the bill to the House. The first concerns jurisdictional issues in terms of the right, under the world’s growing oceans policy, to take wild species—for want of a better term. Kiwis can conduct themselves, as all other nations do, in the international domain of international fisheries. That is what we do, and what everyone else does. The beauty of our quota management system is that it is world-leading edge. It is an unfinished manual that is continuing to be written, and this bill continues to conduct a wonderful process that everyone acknowledges is world leading.

The opportunity Kiwis have to fish in the international domain is beyond repute and beyond reproach. That is why Mr Heatley would not have had a submission from the Chinese, the Taiwanese, or the Fijians. He will have to get his simple, limited mind around the opportunities that we have. He should not come to this House and bleat on like that. [Interruption] The chief whip over there groans like a little bloke all the time when one tries to voice very valid concerns about speeches made by members on the opposite side of the House. The member should grow a bit of a backbone.

My final point is about the 20 percent. In 1992, when Douglas Montrose Graham and Jim Bolger constructed the settlement agreement—also known as the Sealord’s deal—20 percent of the quota management system was put across to Māori. The reality is that a National Government put that in place in 1992. Now the National Party tries to recant, tries to resile from what it put in place. End of story—National put it in place. It is constitutional, it is entwined within it, and that is the way it will stay. The reality, for those members who are really upset about it, is so sad, too bad!

I commend the work of the Minister of Fisheries for bringing this legislation to its conclusion. I commend the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) : New Zealand First is unequivocally opposed to the passage of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). Unless other parties come to their senses and see the bill’s serious and dramatic flaws, New Zealand and New Zealanders will again be presented with poorly conceived legislation that will have damaging implications for recreational and commercial fishers alike, and will have a detrimental impact on our society and our way of life. At some time very soon in the future this House will be debating new legislation that will be required to address the inequalities that are being established here today. No doubt they will be described as unintended consequences.

It is intended that the expansion of the quota management system will lead to Māori receiving an allocation of 20 percent of highly migratory species. How can businesses conduct their affairs internationally in an environment of such uncertainty when they are from New Zealand? Why would any commercial enterprise invest in the development of a fishery if subsequent legislation is likely to alter the conditions of that fishery? The Crown’s obligation to allocate 20 percent of any fish species that is being included in the quota management system arises from the 12-year-old deed of settlement of 23 September 1992, signed by the previous National Government. It is an obligation that contemplated new species, but not new areas, and I emphasise that. It contemplated new species, but not new areas.

Through the whole debate the Minister of Fisheries has claimed that he had legal opinions. He said he had three of them. Frankly, he had one opinion twice from the same person in Crown Law. He would not, and still has not, produced the third legal opinion. Frankly, on examination of that legal opinion, I do not believe it is worth the academic paper it is written on. Clause 1.3 of the deed makes a specific exclusion in respect of new areas. It states: “This Deed embodies the entire understanding and the whole agreement between the Crown and Māori relative to the subject matter hereof and all previous negotiations, representations, warranties, arrangements and statements (if any) whether expressed or implied (including any collateral agreement or warranty) with reference to the subject matter hereof or the intentions of any of the parties hereto are extinguished and otherwise are hereby excluded and cancelled save the Treaty of Waitangi itself.” That is what the deed states. All fisheries management areas were limited to New Zealand fisheries waters.

It has been argued that to extend the quota management system as proposed would advantage Māori by a side wind, disadvantage the fishers who lose that 20 percent of the quota, and create further uncertainty.

Why should a company go off shore, create a fishery, and lose 20 percent of the quota to Māori, because of an arbitrary, in-house arrangement made by the Labour Government in order to try to save its Māori members? It is not based on any law, or on any matter of equity and fairness. The Government has just decided to do that, even though Māori, through the Māori Fisheries Commission, could themselves be building up that resource off shore and thereby gaining a certain percentage internationally. What is fair about that? It is not fair, and it does the Māori people a grave disservice. Crown Law opinions to the contrary are based on fallacious arguments, and again I challenge the Minister to make those opinions available in their entirety. The least that he can do is to provide some transparency in this exercise.

The non-Government parties must act as Opposition parties, and oppose this bad legislation. Unfortunately, in some ways they have been seen to lose their way. What those parties seem to fail to realise is that the application of the 20 percent Māori share of the stock to the new area means that catch history ceases to be the basis for quota allocation. In other words, it brings into question the very legitimacy of the quota management system. Our quota management system, which has been touted as one of the most successful in the world, will lose its legitimacy, and thus our conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. Future generations will not thank us for once again being so careless with our assets.

We in New Zealand First cannot stand by and watch that happen. What sort of message is the Government sending to business in this country? I will tell members what the message is. It is that businesses should not take the risk of making new investments and should not put their capital and technology into a new enterprise, because if they do, one-fifth will be given to somebody else who made no investment in the first place. It is a modern-day confiscation of property rights, and it is anti-business. I repeat the comments I made in previous speeches regarding mussel spat—it has no place in this legislation. But its inclusion is consistent with the madness that is embodied in other clauses of the bill.

Lastly, I want to say that it is terribly unfortunate that the inexperienced and politically naive Mr Baldock put forward Supplementary Order Paper 247, and expected people to back it. In fact, he told me that he had the backing of all Opposition parties except New Zealand First, and he asked for our position. When I made some enquiries, I found out that was not true. It was not true of the Greens or of ACT, so what on earth was Mr Baldock talking about? More important, putting such an inappropriate Supplementary Order Paper in a badly drafted bill—which this bill is—is not something that New Zealand First can support, although we support the sentiments behind the Supplementary Order Paper. That is why we abstained. But let me make this very clear to Mr Baldock, who seems not to understand this: if New Zealand First opposed all aspects of this bill and every part of it, and opposed the second reading and the Committee stage, how can it be said to have supported anything other than kahawai not being in the legislation or in the quota management system? Mr Baldock seems to have a problem with logic. But then again, naivety is what United Future and Mr Baldock, in particular, are famous for. Where was this issue, for example, in the 2002 manifesto of United Future? It was not there, at all. Did the United Future leader mention it in his discussions with Labour about the coalition and United Future’s support of the Government arrangements? In the 1½ pages of motherhood and apple pie, can we find anything about this issue? No, we cannot.

Mr Baldock is just a naive, silly, inexperienced politician, who will be gone before the 1 year of grace that he asked for in his Supplementary Order Paper is over. He will be gone from Parliament by then. Mr Baldock had the temerity to put out a press statement at 9.30 this morning that is blatantly defamatory. I emailed him just a short while ago to say that if he does not withdraw the penultimate paragraph within 24 hours, I will sue him—and we will. We will not allow people to go outside this Parliament, make defamatory statements, and get away with it.

Hon Member: Another one on the rack!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Another one on the rack? Well, we used to have an understanding here in this Parliament about what was defamatory and what was not—but not that clown. He put out a statement attacking all and sundry: the Greens, ACT, and New Zealand First—

Simon Power: What did he say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I cannot read it to members because it is utter drivel, but he threw in a paragraph that is defamatory. I think I am getting pretty good at dealing with that, so let us see what Larry Baldock’s lawyer is like, and let us see what his bank account is like. Let him put his money where his mouth is. If I were the United Future leader, I would say to Larry Baldock that unless he withdraws that statement, I will fire him. He cannot go around doing that, but the problem with United Future is that it has no leadership. How can a party leader allow members who are as naive as Mr Baldock to make such silly statements, and then to slag off every other party?

Here is the point: had Mr Baldock got kahawai in, he and his colleagues were going to back the bill, were they not? Oh yes, they were. There is not a mutter, not a syllable, not a sound, and not a murmur from the United Future members. They were going to back the bill if they had got kahawai in. For how long was kahawai going to be outside the quota management system? For 1 year, by which time Larry Baldock will be gone from this House. He will no longer be here. I say to Mr Baldock that he should withdraw the penultimate paragraph of his press statement, or I will sue him—that message is on his email right now.

Larry Baldock: You sue everyone.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And I am suing that member. He cannot go around telling a tissue of porkies, and get away with it. He will not get away with telling porkies inside this House or outside it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot accuse another member of telling porkies. He will withdraw that comment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: OK. I withdraw and apologise. But the member should know that he cannot go around being a mendacious sybarite and get away with it. He cannot go on being a mendacious sybarite inside and outside Parliament, and get away with it. That is why, if we do not see the withdrawal of that paragraph within 24 hours, we will start legal action, and we will see what that member’s defence is.

What New Zealand First said was that we did not believe that kahawai should be in the quota management system at this point in time. We made that statement—and Supplementary Order Paper 247 stated that it should be in that system, but a year from now. That is what it states. So who is telling fibs to the recreational fishers? If someone shows those guys in United Future a gun, they get carried away. The gun lobby will back them to get totally carried away, and show just how demonstrably inexperienced they are. Thank God New Zealand First does not have any members like that!

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I want to pick up on the theme of Mr Peters’ speech. It does seem to me that what United Future said to the ACT party was that if we supported its amendment, United Future would support the Government. I ask Mr Baldock to run that by me again. If we, the ACT party, supported his amendment, United Future would support the Government—is that not a good deal! I ask Mr Baldock whether I have “Stupid” written across my forehead. No, I do not want him to answer that, but I think the reaction from the members on the Opposition side of the House actually told him something about the logic behind his proposed amendment, which got what it deserved.

I do not disagree with the sentiment that was behind the amendment. Of course we want to preserve kahawai or any other fish stock for the recreational lobby, but the reality is that this Labour Government has decided to ignore the recreational fishers in this country and their rights. The Government is protecting the rights of Māori—their so-called rights—with 20 percent of the allocation, under the deed of settlement. It protects those rights and it protects, of course, the rights of commercial fishers, who have a property right—and rightly so, too. But what about the recreational fishers? I have asked in the House on past occasions why, if the Government—and, I suppose, successive Governments—are genuinely concerned about the lack of fishing opportunity and the lack of quota for recreational fishers, that issue is not mentioned in this bill. The Government could have bought on the open market the property right that the purse-seiners have—that 3,000 tonnes. The Government could have bought that right; it could have gone to those people and said it was making an offer they could not refuse. The Government has done that on a number of other occasions. When it wants to settle a land deal or whatever else it wants to settle, it can do that. On other occasions it opens the chequebook and does that, but it did not do so this time.

I want to move on to the substance of this No. 3 bill, and I think I speak on this bill more in sorrow than in anger. The prime focus surely should be to get the important fishing industry out of acrimonious debate and out of the litigious situations that seem to dog it constantly, and get it into a secure property right concept, which the quota management system does give. I will not stand here and say that the quota management system is perfect in every way, shape, or form. Nor, I think, could anybody stand in this House and say that democracy is fantastic in every way, shape, and form. But the alternatives—and that is really what we are talking about—are a darn sight worse. As other members who have spoken have indicated, the quota management system is by far and away the best system that we, the human species, have come up with. We are moving forward under that system, and certainly it is a concept that has been picked up internationally.

When mentioning the word “internationally”, I think it is fair to say that the Primary Production Committee, which studied this bill at great length, tossed it out of the boat, figuratively speaking, because it was seen to be so bad. There may be an international agreement. Hopefully, maybe, we could or may—those are the sorts of words that surround the language of this proposal of the Minister—have some sort of international agreement surrounding migratory species. It may be in 1 year, in 5 years, in 10 years, or in 20 years—goodness knows! But the Minister required New Zealand fishers to control their catch effort while the process of negotiation was being carried out. That is an absolute nonsense, which was pointed out and, I think, accepted by all members of the select committee, including of course the Labour Government members. They saw that it was totally ridiculous for New Zealand fishers to restrict their catch effort, while the Taiwanese and the Venezuelans—it does not matter who the fishers were—went for dear life in the South China Sea, catching the fish that they wanted to. Back home we would be standing out in the cold and saying that we were wonderful, because we were so tremendously concerned about sustaining the fish stocks that we were not going to try to catch any while those guys did their damnedest out there. That was an absolute nonsense argument, so the select committee came to the conclusion that this bill should not proceed. That was the expectation of the committee.

The purpose, I am sure, of a select committee is to determine whether a bill that is sent to it should advance. In most cases a bill does advance, with some minor adjustments and with a lot of help from Opposition members, as well. That is the proper process, and so it should be. But when a bill comes back to the House with a recommendation from a select committee that it not proceed, surely that is what should happen. Yet the Minister came up with Supplementary Order Paper 246 literally 5 minutes before the bill was due to be read, and tried to change the thinking of everybody. It was, as has been mentioned, a very, very substantial technical amendment. There were 17 pages—it was half the size of the original bill—and members of this House were expected to absorb it in 3 or 4 minutes. The reality is that Supplementary Order Paper 246 should have gone back to the select committee for further consideration.

Hon David Carter: Hear, hear!

GERRARD ECKHOFF: I know that Mr David Carter, the chair of the committee, promoted that concept, as I did. That would have been the sensible thing for a sensible Government to do. What did this Government do? It just ignored that. It is part of the arrogance that we find from this Government from time to time. Well, it is not just from time to time; increasingly it is all the time.

I have dealt with the migratory species, but one of the issues that concerned me the most was what appears to be the capture of the ministry, even by an organisation like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. On the subject of mussel spat, the rationale for bringing it into the quota management system was to stop people from driving down Ninety Mile Beach in a rush once the spat was running, or whatever they do. The concern was expressed that vehicles would be pouring down the beach as everybody rushed out to catch the spat, and that is why the society wanted to bring it into the quota management system. That was a concern of the society, and it was picked up by the Minister. Gracious me! If that does not show the naivety of the whole process and the capture of the ministry by an outside organisation, then I will go he.

This was a really bad bill. It should not have been introduced, and it should not have been debated. We should be back at the select committee, tidying up this Government’s mess yet again. It will come as no surprise that the ACT party will not support this bill. There were some aspects that could have been tidied up, but because the bill is such a dog’s breakfast we will let that slide. We will not vote for this bill.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I rise today to voice United Future’s opposition to the third reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). This is not the position we initially wanted to take but it has been forced on us by a Parliament and a Minister who were either unwilling or unable to assess the big picture accurately and then act in the best interests of New Zealanders. After the Primary Production Committee voted to discharge the bill, United Future, after discussion with industry stakeholders, recognised that it still had some value, and we undertook to work with the Minister to bring this bill into a form that was more acceptable to us, so that we would be able to support it.

We did make several useful changes. We discussed the issue of tuna and the highly migratory species coming into the quota management system within the 200-mile zone, and not on the high seas, as was requested by industry. We addressed the issues of the by-catch for tuna, which was out of sync with the catch history years, and got agreement that that would be addressed through a preferential tender so that fishermen would be able to access the necessary by-catch they needed when they were allocated quota for their tuna.

We dealt with schedule 4C and schedule 4D in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper relating to some of the other species that needed to have their catch history recorded so that property rights would be withheld for those who had catch history in 1991 and 1992. We addressed the whelk and the geoduck issues. We addressed the pipi issue, but cockles was not dealt with because it was retroactive and we could not see any point in dealing with that, but that is something perhaps the Green Party was able to pick up on when it began to enter into negotiations with the Minister. All these agreements were agreed to.

We then moved on to an outstanding issue, that of kahawai, which we had a great deal of discussion about. There was another issue within the bill, around the green-lipped mussel spat. We had a great deal of discussion with industry and found that there were conflicting opinions within industry about whether this should go into the quota management system now, or whether it should go in in a couple of years’ time. Finally, we resolved that there was a majority acceptance that it was going to happen, and that it was not an issue that should delay the other good things in the bill that needed to be passed.

The outstanding issue concerning kahawai was about the recreational species being introduced into the quota management system at a level that makes commercial purse-seine fishing economical. All we asked was that either the level that was made available for commercial fishers was reduced now, and not later, or else its introduction into the quota management system be delayed until more scientific research could be undertaken and a better decision made. It was clear to us that it was impossible to revoke a Gazette notice by the Minister once it had been gazetted, without an Act of Parliament. This bill provided an opportunity for Parliament to express its will over and above the Minister’s intention through the , which would have freed the Minister from any comeback from the industry, had that occurred. It seemed to us a sensible step to follow, so that time would be bought in order for further discussions to take place.

We clearly are still of the opinion, as Gerry Eckhoff has expressed, that the commercial sector needed to be compensated if it was going to lose out through those negotiations, but it would give an opportunity for the Government to do that prior to the quota being issued, and it would be much cheaper for the taxpayer because of that. Once the quota is issued, I believe it would be more expensive to buy it retroactively and then settle for the benefits of the recreational fishermen. Unfortunately the Minister did not agree, and craven political opportunism on the part of the Greens, New Zealand First, and ACT won the day. The support for my Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage, which could have led to the outcome we sought, was defeated.

As this bill approaches the end of the long journey to its third reading, I do not believe that the Ministry of Fisheries can be blamed for everything it has been accused of during the long process of this bill. People or organisations are seldom as black as they are painted. But this bill, and all the controversy that has surrounded it, has highlighted one clear, undeniable fact. The Ministry of Fisheries does need serious attention to improve its management of our fisheries resource. It needs accountability, and it needs a culture change in order to be more responsive and receptive to New Zealanders.

It would be a huge advance for the ministry if it acknowledged that it does not know everything about our fishing stocks, and that those who spend their time out on the sea, day in and day out, both commercially and recreationally, have a very good knowledge of what is going on, and should be listened to more carefully when Ministry of Fisheries officials are making decisions about people’s recreational activities or livelihoods. I have had conversations with frustrated industry participants, even as recently as today, who are giving up and leaving the industry, or even leaving New Zealand, because of the frustrations they experience with ministry officials. Recreational fishers are also incredibly frustrated because they do not want to have to fight for their rights in court, as they did several years ago with snapper. Now, it seems, they have no alternative but to do so for kahawai.

Recent fisheries legislation has been fraught with fall-out from, at best, extraordinarily poor, and, at worst, downright negligent, actions by the Ministry of Fisheries and its predecessors. We do not want to see similar tragic or messy situations emerge with regard to kahawai. For this reason, we want no further part in perpetuating the flawed fisheries policies of this Government and of the Ministry of Fisheries, and as a gesture of support and in an effort to stand up for the hundreds of thousands of recreational fishers throughout New Zealand, United Future opposes the passage of this bill on its third reading.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I have, this afternoon, been given some correspondence and information from a mussel spat farmer in the north of the North Island. He wrote to Phil Heatley.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Whereabouts?

JILL PETTIS: Around about Kaitāia. He wrote to Mr Phil Heatley. I will share it with members. It starts off with a Freudian slip: “Dear Pil. Further to our conversation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Say that again—that’s no mistake.

JILL PETTIS: “Pil”! He states: “Further to our conversation recently, I have since read comment made by yourself relating to mussel spat during the second reading of the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3).” He quotes Mr Heatley here: “ ‘Thirdly, we have no idea why the Government wants to put innocent little mussel spat, which drifts around the ocean minding its own business, into the quota management system in order to feed the coffers of three families on the west coast of the north of the North Island.’ You are obviously referring to myself in those ‘three families’, who, incidentally, not that you seem to care one whit for the truth of the matter, would not be the only recipients of quota, should mussel spat be entered into the quota management system. You would obviously rather tender the quota when it inevitably enters the QMS and hand the property right to big business, against whom we could not financially compete. I find your arrogance and ignorance relating to mussel spat absolutely astounding.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I didn’t hear that last bit.

JILL PETTIS: He was concerned about Mr Heatley’s arrogance and ignorance. He goes on to state: “Had I known just how narrow your blinkers were set, I would not have wasted my time talking to you today. I have been an admirer of Mr Brash’s style, but the trash you have been spouting lately will definitely result in a rethink of my position. Mr Brash’s judgment must be brought into question if he chooses to surround himself with people of your calibre.”

I have to say that that is a letter from somebody who really understands the industry, quite unlike Mr Heatley, who is a boy on a man’s errand. What is happening with this bill is that the Government is providing leadership to protect the future of our quality natural environment, and we are working in partnership with the commercial and recreational needs of the sector. Heaven help the oceans and the fish therein if Mr Heatley got anywhere near the decision-making process! But those of us who have been here a year or two know that hell would freeze over before that ever happened, because he is just a mouthpiece for others in that party opposite. We know that Mr Heatley will never, ever be anywhere near any decision-making process, so the fish are safe for a while. I am pleased to participate in this debate.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : I will comment on the issue of mussel spat shortly, except I will say that I suspect that if Ms Pettis had given us the name of the person who wrote that letter, we would find that he is one of the persons about to receive a substantial property right via the allocation of mussel spat into the quota management system. That person is about to become a very, very wealthy man.

I start by acknowledging, as we debate the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), that it would be hard to imagine that the new Minister, David Benson-Pope, could have got himself into a bigger mess if he had deliberately tried to do so. This is the first piece of legislation that the new, inexperienced Minister has had the opportunity of presenting to the House. It was presented to the House and, if my memory serves me right, it was supported by most of the House. It went off to the Primary Production Committee, where we started to examine its content in detail. It became evident very, very quickly that this legislation was a huge mess. The Minister had clearly been totally captured by his officials. He had either not had the ability or had not used his own ability to question the officials’ rationale for putting this legislation before him, so the select committee then had to do the sort of questioning we would have expected the Minister himself to do before presenting such legislation to the House. For the first time that I can recall in the last 5 years, the Government’s legislation was lost at the select committee. The select committee voted for the legislation not to proceed further.

What members need to appreciate is that that select committee is very diverse in its make-up. The National Party, New Zealand First, ACT, Labour, and the Greens are all represented on that committee. We found that the majority of those members voted strongly against the legislation, and said that it was such a dog that it should not proceed any further. During the select committee process I felt a little sorry for the four Labour members, Janet Mackey, Clayton Cosgrove, Harry Duynhoven, and Dover Samuels.

Shane Ardern: They were rolled.

Hon DAVID CARTER: My colleague Shane Ardern says they were rolled. They sat there through the select committee process and realised that the bill was an absolute mess. What was most interesting was that they voted with very weak voices that it should proceed, knowing full well that the select committee had the numbers for it not to proceed.

It is of interest to note that to date Janet Mackey, as the deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee, has not taken a call. Clayton Cosgrove, who normally rushes to the House to speak on legislation, has not yet taken a call. Harry Duynhoven has not yet taken a call. I will guarantee that Dover Samuels does not take a call either.

I want to refer to one other member whom we have not spoken about yet—the Green member, Ian Ewen-Street. I am waiting for the Green member to take a call, because in the select committee he voted for the legislation not to proceed, but I understand there is a little whisper going around Parliament that this legislation will pass today with the support of the Greens. This is the party that runs around the country saying it is the party of integrity. It gets a chance to examine legislation in a select committee and votes against it. Mr Ewen-Street stated at the select committee that the bill was a dog, yet he sits meekly in Parliament, not prepared to take a call. In half an hour’s time when we vote on this legislation it will pass because his political party has changed its mind. How is that for gumption? He sits in a select committee, does the work, votes against it, then realises that that would not be helping his Labour Party mates, so votes for it.

The real issue is not the embarrassing position that the Government is in, or the very embarrassing position that Ian Ewen-Street is in—it is David Benson-Pope. Fancy advancing legislation that tries to extend the quota management system around the rest of the world! The Labour Party members look incredulous and say that it does not do that—but it does. This legislation proposes to put highly migratory species—and what that means in simple language is species that swim all around international waters—

Jill Pettis: Fish can’t read prosecution signs.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Jill Pettis said that fish do not know whether they are swimming into international waters or territorial waters. That is exactly the point. The Labour Party should not try to put those species into the quota management system, which is a very good system that was designed for New Zealand territorial waters. The arrogance of the Minister and the Labour Party in thinking that they will impose the quota management system on the rest of the world, frankly defies belief.

I will speak very briefly on three particular submissions that came before us. I will talk first about Westhaven Shellfish and Sea-Right Investments, because their situations were similar. They had huge problems over permitting issues with the ministry. They went to court, took the Ministry of Fisheries on, and won. This legislation effectively nullifies their win in the courts, and I object to that. Ian Ewen-Street also strongly objected to that throughout the select committee process, but in an interjection a couple of days ago in the House he said that the Minister had given him his word that those matters would be addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. Ian Ewen-Street should wake up. Those issues are not addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper—the Green member has been conned.

The other issue regards the cockle fishery. Again, we had a very interesting submission from Mr Brierley speaking on behalf of Westpac Mussel Distributors Ltd. Eight fishers had organised themselves and earned catch history under the 1986 legislation. National’s Minister of Fisheries through the 1990s, Doug Kidd, gave these fishers the opportunity that if the quota was held in their own personal name and they wanted to corporatise and form a company, then they would be allowed to do so. Quite stupidly, in my mind, the officials of the ministry gave them a double allocation—allocation in the fishers’ own names as sole traders, and in the name of the company they then formed. That has resulted in five of those fishers getting a double allocation to the detriment of the other three that have not bothered to corporatise.

That is wrong. The select committee acknowledged that it was wrong, and again Ian Ewen-Street tells me that that grievance is corrected in the Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Green member again, wake up—it has not been addressed. Those people have been dicked by the Labour Government, and the Green member is about to support that.

In the closing minutes of my speech, I want to make sure that the industry finally gets a Minister with some competence. We have had Pete Hodgson as the Minister of Fisheries. He was sacked because he was absolutely incompetent. We now have David Benson-Pope, to whom the industry was prepared to give a chance. His first bill has resulted in the select committee saying it should not proceed, yet the Government is ramming it through with a Supplementary Order Paper.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I rise to take just a short call. It has been a very interesting evening to observe as we head into the third reading of this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). The Opposition has accused the Greens of going soft and voting with the Government. I think the Greens have shown that they have minds of their own that are rather intelligent because they are working with this Government, which has worked with the sector. We have actually worked with the industry—the commercial and recreational fishers of this country. It has been an interesting phenomenon to see the Opposition spokesman for fisheries completely outstripped and outspoken by David Carter on this issue. David Carter, who has been having a spat with Winston Peters over scampi, certainly has not helped the New Zealand First - National Party relationship. That has been immeasurably damaging. I think National needs to look at itself over this. Tonight I am pleased to support this bill. It shows that this Government, yet again, is providing leadership to the industry. I will be thrilled when this bill is passed tonight.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : As I said last night, here in New Zealand for the first time in 150 years of this Parliament’s history we have a Minister of Fisheries who has absolutely floundered. He has come a real gutser over this bill. The Prime Minister should put him out of his misery. She was experimenting with this new Minister, and the experiment has been a total failure. She should say that occasionally she gets it wrong and that this Minister must go. Because this bill, from the beginning to the point we are at now, has been a complete litany of failures. I will start with a few points that have been raised in the debate so far.

Firstly, the Minister states in his bill, and confirms in the Supplementary Order Paper—although one would not know that, because it is written in a way that ensures nobody will ever study it closely, but it may be confirmed in there—that we are going to introduce mussel spat into the quota management system. Many times in this House the request has been put to the Minister to take a call and explain where the science is in the notion that a very migratory species in the form of mussel spat, which drifts around the coast of New Zealand, can be introduced to the quota management system. Some years there is a lot of it, other years there is very little of it, and there is absolutely no science whatsoever to say what a sustainable management programme for it would be. The Minister has failed so far to answer that question. He has completely failed, and we know why—because he cannot. He has even had a legal opinion on it, as he said to the House, although we have had no evidence of that, which I think backs up the fact that that is so. There is no science, there is no research, there is no knowledge, and therefore it cannot be done in a credible way.

Further, one of the bottom lines of a Government—any Government—is to protect citizenship against rorts of property ownership or the theft of property rights. In this bill, the Government is doing the reverse. It is giving to, I think, nine people a windfall that most of us could only ever hope for.

Hon David Carter: It is like winning Lotto.

SHANE ARDERN: It is like winning Lotto, as my colleague says. It was interesting to note that the senior Government whip, Jill Pettis read out a letter about one of my colleagues that we could not describe as being complimentary. It is the only letter she has received all year, and I have to say to the member that we get hundreds of letters—thousands of letters. I would not bring down to the House and read out some of the letters I have had on her, because I am sure they would be unparliamentary and ruled out of order. In kind terms, some of the language that is used to describe the member for Whanganui could only be described as “colourful”. There are a few letters in my bottom drawer about that member.

All I can say to the member—and I say it to the Minister and to Madam Speaker, as well—is that no matter how good the strategy may be, occasionally one must look at the results, and the results of this are not good—they are not good by any measurement. So regardless of the fact that that was the first letter the member has received all year and it is not complementary to one of my colleagues, I say to the senior Government whip that she should get one of her colleagues on the select committee to take a call and explain to members what they found out through the process.

The deputy chair, Janet Mackey is a very good member of Parliament. She represents provincial rural New Zealand in a Labour Government, which has almost put her in danger. In fact, I think it has run her out of Parliament, but she represents rural New Zealanders, regardless of what the socialists say. She stands up for them, and I think she is a very good member, but will she take a call on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3)?

Hon David Carter: Is she allowed?

SHANE ARDERN: Well, I would suggest she would not take a call on this bill, and I can understand why. As has been said before, the very good and very senior member Clayton Cosgrove, who is another member of the select committee and a very outspoken member, has kept his head down and has not been heard in this debate, and there are very good reasons for that. I am sure he would make a very good fisheries Minister, because he listened to the facts and he would change the silliness that is going on in this House.

Of course, Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels were probably wheeled into the select committee to make up the numbers at times. There is no way that I can comment on whether Harry Duynhoven and Dover Samuels have a handle on this bill, because I simply do not know, but I suspect not—I substantially suspect not.

Further, this bill introduces migratory species into the quota management system. The system has been recognised internationally as a fine, sustainable management system for managing a fishery, and I see a couple of Ministers on the other side of the House who would know that. They know that this is so. So introducing migratory species into that system means that our quota management system, which now extends to the coast of Brazil, or Fiji, or Hawaiki—it depends on where the first waka came from; there has been a lot of debate about that, but it does not matter—or the system extends around the world, and those members know that this will severely damage the international reputation the system has. They know that; yet they are still allowing this bill to proceed.

I now move to the honourable member Ian Ewen-Street, who was on the select committee and is himself a victim of by-catch. There is no question about that. If we study what happened in the select committee process, Ian Ewen-Street became a victim of by-catch; there is no doubt about that. I am not sure whether he will be introduced into the quota management system under this bill, but he probably will, because he is certainly an endangered species, and there is no question about that. I sincerely hope that that process and the fact that he became a victim of by-catch will do something about fixing up the migratory species that moves up and down his tie in this House, and will save the rest of Parliament from having to constantly be in danger from it, but it has not. It has not achieved that, and certainly the member Ian Ewen-Street, who was a victim of by-catch, voted against this bill and spoke strongly against it at length.

When the chairman would not give him a slot to speak, he would take it anyway. He would speak over the chairman to say: “I must make my point in this select committee. I want it recorded. I am very opposed to this approach.” He said that time and time again. He went through the detail, he did a lot of work on it, he was well informed, and he was opposed—vigorously opposed. We come into the House today and we suspect that this bill may pass, and we know that United Future, New Zealand First, and National are voting against it, so who is left?

Phil Heatley: ACT is voting against it.

SHANE ARDERN: ACT is voting against it, and those members have spoken at length against it. They will not support it. They made a very fine contribution on the select committee, and they will not support it. It must have lost—but something has happened. Let us look at the 17 pages of Supplementary Order Paper, and see whether we can find the deal that has “clause for the Green Party” on it, but there is not a sign of it. Those members have not been bought by the loaves and fishes—I mean, United Future might have been bought with a few loaves and fishes, but not the Green Party; I know that—and given that they are victims of the by-catch, but—

Phil Heatley: Why the U-turn?

SHANE ARDERN: —why the U-turn? It is the question we are all wondering about, and maybe a Green member will take a call and explain it. We just do not know why it could have happened, but it has happened. That is what we suspect has happened and it is what has happened, and the fishing industry will not thank them for it.

As for sustainability, let us go back to the core principles of the Green Party. Sustainable management and environmental protection will not be enhanced by what they are doing—not today. Those members have gone against the basic principles that they campaign for around this country and get 2 percent of the vote, from rich and poor alike, on the environment and environmental issues.

Hon David Carter: Don’t forget integrity—Green integrity.

SHANE ARDERN: I would never use “Green” and “integrity” together in one sentence. I think that would be a highly dangerous approach. But those members campaigned with a bottom line of environmental protection and they have absolutely gone against that basic principle that the misguided 2 percent of New Zealanders around the country—and around the world now, of course—who vote for them vote on. I just say to the Green Party that I do not know what deal the Government has done to buy them out on this, but whatever that deal was, it is misguided.

Hon David Carter: I know, it’s about the next ambassador to London.

SHANE ARDERN: Well, it could well be.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) : What is required is the protection of our quality natural environments for future generations, while working in partnership with the sector to reasonably address its commercial and recreational needs. That is what leadership is about, that is what was required, and that is what this Government has done.

Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) : I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : We start the Committee stage of a bill that has been a botch from day one. There is now a Supplementary Order Paper before the House that further guts a bill that has already been substantially gutted by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill pales into insignificance when compared with the bill that Marian Hobbs brought in, in a great rush, in November last year.

In Part 1, the bill effectively reverts to taking a “do-nothing” position—with one exception, which I want to cover in detail. Gone are the provisions for setting up a special panel. Now, all Part 1 effectively does is require the Canterbury Regional Council, through the allocation board, to set up a process that is perfectly contained within the Resource Management Act.

I challenge the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, on this Government’s woeful record in respect of the Resource Management Act. Five years ago a National bill was before the House, and the way that bill was managed was an absolute sham. The select committee did its job diligently, but the bill sat on the Order Paper for over 2 years and then, suddenly, the Government tried to rush it through.

It is exactly the same situation with this Supplementary Order Paper. Members of the select committee would have welcomed the referral of the Supplementary Order Paper to select committee. But no, Minister Marian Hobbs said that it had to be developed and advanced in a great rush. That was in March. This bill was introduced in November last year in a great rush, in a truncated process, and now—10 months later—we are still debating it and trying to fix the botch-ups that Marian Hobbs proposed.

We on the Opposition side of the Chamber have consistently argued that special legislation is not required in respect of the Resource Management Act. What is required is comprehensive reform, and this Government has consistently failed at that hurdle for 5 years.

I want to draw particular attention to the amendments in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The great purpose of this bill was to have a specific allocation plan, but now the Minister has decided that there will be a regional plan. Well, there are regional plans in the Resource Management Act right now, so why has the Government done a complete U-turn over the course of the last 10 months?

I make the further point that the botch-up in this bill has cost the taxpayers of New Zealand $100 million.

Hon Ken Shirley: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is how much Meridian Energy spent in developing Project Aqua. When Meridian Energy pulled the plug on Project Aqua, it cited the botch-up over the law and the changed rules all along the way as reasons for doing it. I say to members opposite that they are responsible for $100 million of wasted public money, because of their poor policy, poor lawmaking, and the continuous hashes that we have seen in this very important area of law.

Looking at what is left of Part 1, I challenge Government members to put to the Committee why this bill is needed at all. The Canterbury Regional Council is to have elections in only a month’s time, so why does the Minister for the Environment have to override the process under the existing Resource Management Act, to appoint a board only to write a regional plan? What does the Government have against the people of Canterbury? Why will it not trust the elected people who, on 9 October, will take up their role as regional councillors? Why can those people not write the plan for the Waitaki River? Why do we need this special bill at all, now that it has been gutted to this extent?

There is no case for this bill, except one—which is perhaps why the Government is advancing with it—the bill is a botch-up.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) : I would like to take a call early to correct some of the nonsense we have just heard from the previous speaker. First of all, I say to Dr Smith that it is in sorrow rather than in anger that I respond to those ridiculous comments he made.

One of the most characteristic things about this discussion has been, once again, the confusion we have seen from the National Party. Indeed, there has been direct contradiction between the absent Dr Brash and Dr Smith in their undeliverable promises to their constituency, which they used to think was in the Mackenzie Basin. That is clearly not the case. This bill and the difficulties that led to it are the result of a statute introduced by the National Party that was flawed in this regard from the beginning. That led this Government to act as it has in terms of the Project Aqua consents and, subsequently, in terms of the water consents that need to be made. It is unfortunate that Environment Canterbury has not proceeded with what one would hope was its statutory responsibility, but I guess one can lay that directly at the door of Dr Smith, his flawed party, and its flawed legislation. Clearly the National Party—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has the right to take a call in a debate, as we know. Opposition members like a Minister to rise to his feet to take a call, but generally it is to answer questions and to make points.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No—

Hon Ken Shirley: No, you have not heard me out.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. That is not a point of order and the member knows it.

Hon Ken Shirley: The point of order is this—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated.

Hon Ken Shirley: Will you take my point of order or not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have not heard a point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I am ruling on the point of order. The Minister was quite within the bill he was speaking to. That was not a point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A new point of order?

Hon Ken Shirley: It is a new point of order—it is the one I was not able to put just before. The Minister is required to get up and address the bill. He did not address the bill. All he did was to start going on about National Party policy and about what happened over 5 years ago.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. That was not a point of order. The member knows it was not a point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: No, I don’t.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): If the member contests my ruling, he will not be here much longer. The point is that the Minister was quite within his rights. He was speaking to the purpose of this bill.

Hon Ken Shirley: I certainly was not contesting your ruling. I took exception to the fact that you told me, as a member, what I was thinking. When I called out “No, I don’t”, I was actually objecting to the chair telling me what I was thinking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. Nothing the member raised was a point of order.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not surprised that the National Party is embarrassed at the failure of its legislation to deliver what Environment Canterbury should have done. The Government is entirely supportive of this bill. The expectation is that regional councils will fulfil their statutory commitments. Nor am I embarrassed, as the National Party should be, and as the most medicated member of the National Party should be—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am dealing with the matter, Dr Smith. The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A colleague of mine made a similar comment and was instantly removed from the House. The Minister has made a highly offensive remark. I expect you to show the Minister in the chair some firmness and to take exactly the same approach that was taken by Speaker Hunt when another member of the House did that—the member was told instantly to leave the House.

Hon Murray McCully: Madam Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with the point of order, Mr McCully.

Hon Murray McCully: No you have not, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have made my ruling on it. The Hon Dr Nick Smith has made his point. I have made my ruling.

Hon Murray McCully: What is it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise, and he has done that. I have dealt with it.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It shows how much trouble he’s in today. He gets all personal because he can’t defend his bill.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do not need to dwell on the unnecessary personal comments made by Dr Smith, but I repeat that it does not surprise me that he is embarrassed by the failure of his legislation in 1991. What this Government is repeatedly having to do—

Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I look for your guidance on this now. In the 2 years I have been in this House, there has been a clear direction from the Chairperson or the Speaker that any member on his or her feet must speak to the bill. This Minister has made no attempt to do that other than some vague references. We are debating Part 1 of the bill, and the Minister has not mentioned that once.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister has mentioned that. If the member goes back and reads the Minister’s Hansard he will see that he has referred to the bill.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on that point of order.

Hon Murray McCully: I am well aware of that, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Do you have a new point of order?

Hon Murray McCully: I have a new point of order. Am I going to be permitted to put it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order, the Hon Murray McCully.

Hon Murray McCully: The Minister who is on his feet has just been asked by you to withdraw and apologise, having made an offensive remark in relation to one of my colleagues. I would have thought you would require that Minister to show some contrition and remorse in this matter, rather than allow him to continue to compound his offence by attacking the very same member in respect of whom the apology has just been due. If it is your intention to preserve order and to preserve the confidence of the minority parties in this Chamber, may I suggest that you need to inform the Minister to show some contrition and to stay away from that area in future.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member does make a fair point, but I also make the point that there were interjections on both sides. I now ask the Minister to continue to speak to the bill.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am pleased to do so. The legislation tonight, in my view, continues the pathway that we, as a Government, have had to spend a great deal of time on in this Chamber as we correct failed legislation that has come from our predecessors. We are pleased to do that. We are pleased to face up to the issues. In respect of the issues Dr Smith raised concerning the wider issues about the Resource Management Act, I say that he will be grossly disappointed in the next week or two when Cabinet makes decisions about wider changes to the Resource Management Act, because he will find that they make major inroads into correcting the failings that he and his failed Government left in the Act.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : When I first came to the House on behalf of New Zealand First, I called for a reform of the Resource Management Act—not in the real sense of the word, but in the sense that after a decade, there was an obvious need before the next decade to see whether the Act had got it right. That call was rejected and we have gone through several piecemeal changes, of which this bill is but one.

The background to this bill is quite unique. As members will recall, it came to the House in a very unusual form. It was poorly written, and in a very short space of time it caused more anger and concern in Canterbury and, particularly, in the Waitaki catchment basin than any other single piece of would-be legislation. That was one opinion. The other opinion was outlined in a preliminary paper submitted by Meridian Energy, which dealt with matters of water allocation as it saw them. It was the other major player and remained so until the bill collapsed in the House, although it is not quite correct to say that the reformed bill that came from the Local Government and Environment Committee was necessarily the reason for the withdrawal of Meridian Energy from that very ambitious and very costly project. Some would have said that the project was flawed in the beginning in seeking so much land. A very high cost was put to it before the geotechnical work was done. I have no doubt that there are two issues. One of them is, and ought to be, part of this bill—namely, the Order in Council of 1969. In addition, there are the geotechnical issues, plus there was the uncertainty that the bill, once it was enacted, would have brought delays to Meridian Energy, which caused it to withdraw.

I take up the point that I believe there were a variety of issues that could cause any prudent company, especially a company acting on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer, to rethink its position, and I have no doubt that in time to come Meridian may come back to the area again—much to the horror of some people living in Kurow and other places. But the issues have changed since then. Since the bill came to the House in its first form the Otago Regional Council, which impacts in a small way on this district, has prepared a water plan, and, right now, the Canterbury Regional Council has a proposed Natural Resources Regional Plan, which is a very extensive document that looks to give some immediacy to the total region in regard to water. Two chapters within that plan cover both water quality and water quantity.

The third factor is that water is an issue. Water should be an issue in New Zealand, just as it is in Australia. When the bill collapsed New Zealand First gave firm support to bringing a renewed bill back to the House. The simple reason for that was that when we saw the whole application by Meridian Energy, and the wealth of material in that application, it seemed very obvious that if some use was not made of the extensive work done by Meridian Energy and, to a secondary degree, by Environment Canterbury and the Ministry for the Environment, then that value would be lost. But in the normal flow of things, although a regional water plan or, in this case, a catchment plan for the Waitaki catchment area could be developed, under the Resource Management Act that plan would not meet the real issue—the Waitaki River allocation in the bill.

The real issue is “first come, first served”. Although we have heard some people talk about that issue in the past, it is still the current understanding. If we look at the history of the plans over the last decade, and the jurisprudence that has resulted from those plans step by step and Environment Court by Environment Court case, nothing overcomes the fact that “first come, first served” was in. In this case, “first come, first served” for the Waitaki River was Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy was “first come, first served”. It would have had absolute prior rights, and that is the fact of the matter, whether or not members think so. In practice, that is how it works.

Alongside that are a whole number of other issues. We know that in the last 15 years the Canterbury region has more than doubled the area under irrigation. In the strategic plan for the Canterbury region there is a discussion document that states that the region has a capacity to irrigate 1 million hectares. There is huge economic wealth out there that is dependent upon water. If that is to be realised, that plan would do it.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : This bill is now totally unnecessary and the Green Party will not be voting for it. There was a case for it when it was first introduced—when a single application wanted to take 73 percent of the total flow of the Waitaki River and there was no plan against which that application could be tested. However, Meridian Energy says that Project Aqua is off and it is no longer seeking to take that water. So I have to ask why Parliament would legislate for a special arrangement to make a plan for the Waitaki River, which is less allocated than many South Island rivers that also do not have plans, and which has far more surplus water, if Project Aqua is not in the offing, than many South Island rivers.

What we need is integrated catchment planning that deals with the management of the whole river, its associated aquifers and wetlands, and the land that drains into it. There are very good techniques and tools available for that now that have been developed by Landcare, but that is not what this bill relates to. This is a plan simply for the allocation of the water. It is a very, very narrow proposal. We need regional planning for river catchments to be mandatory under the Resource Management Act, rather than optional, so that we do not have any more rivers like the Waitaki River completely without a plan and suddenly facing massive applications to take water.

But that is not the issue here. Project Aqua has supposedly fallen over—or has it? I note that Meridian Energy has never withdrawn its applications. I do not place much importance on the fact that it has not sold its land; the land is making it a good return. It does not want to dump all its land on the market at the same time and depress prices. Meridian Energy is doing very well out of its land at the moment. But it has not withdrawn its applications. My guess is that when the board allocates a certain amount of water for the category “hydro”, then Meridian Energy will again apply for the whole of that category “hydro” for a modified Project Aqua.

The Minister Marian Hobbs answered a question in the House a while ago. She said that Meridian Energy had left its applications in so that it would be able to bring a submission to the board. That was nonsense. Anyone can bring a submission to the board.

We were told this bill was extremely urgent. We were told that the Local Government and Environment Committee had to sit at all hours in order to report it back fast. We did that. Since Project Aqua fell over, months and months have gone by. What has the Minister done in that time? She has changed the word “framework” to the words “regional plan”. That is not a huge job, but it has taken months.

The select committee unanimously agreed on a large number of amendments to the bill. We worked very hard, we listened to a great many submissions, and we took them seriously. We reported back—though I say it myself—a very much improved bill. There was unanimous agreement across all the parties at the select committee. But what has the Minister done? The Minister has issued us with a very large Supplementary Order Paper that undoes a large amount of the select committee’s work, even though she agreed to that work at the time the select committee was doing it.

This is the second time the Minister has done that to my committee. When the first Resource Management Act amendment bill was being considered in 2000, the committee heard 400 submissions. We considered it for a year and discussed amendments. All the Labour members of the committee agreed, and we reported the bill back with substantial amendment. After leaving the bill in the House for 2 years, the Minister then made substantial amendments to it, again without any reference back to the select committee. In my view, it is an abuse of parliamentary process for a Minister simply to wipe what a select committee has done in its consideration and substitute something else instead.

The Green Party will not support this bill. There is no need for it. It may be a back-door method to get Project Aqua away, after all, in some reduced form. There is absolutely no reason why the Waitaki River should be singled out in this way. The other applications for water—60 or so of them have been called in—are on hold. They have been on hold for a long time. They should simply be heard and dealt with.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I concur with the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who has just resumed her seat. This is totally unnecessary legislation. I take offence—and I am sure other Opposition members and possibly some of the Minister’s own colleagues take offence—at the attitude of the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, in the way he has come to the chair and had the temerity to be so arrogant, when the truth is clear for everyone to see.

This Government lead the pretence a while back—possibly a year back now—when this bill was at the top of list and had to be rushed through Parliament. At that time, Government members said: “It’s got nothing to do with the Project Aqua proposal. That is totally ancillary. It is just a mere coincidence that Project Aqua happens to be out there. This is for the whole catchment, and it is absolutely urgent. This is the No. 1 priority.” At the Business Committee we were told that this bill was a No. 1 priority and that this special legislation had to go through.

That was a year ago. Is it not a coincidence that on the day that Meridian Energy announced its discontinuation of Project Aqua, all of a sudden this neutral bill that had nothing to do with Project Aqua was put on the back-burner? Is that not extraordinary? Who actually believes that? Perhaps Mr Benson-Pope is the only member in this Parliament who believes that. It is possible that he is the only member who actually believes the absolute nonsense that this Government has perpetuated in respect of this bill.

I concur with the chair of the select committee and with others who have expressed the view that there is no need for special legislation. There never was. This is nonsense legislation, and the ACT party has said that from the outset. Part 1 is all about the purposes of the Act. It relates to the allocation of the waters in the Waitaki catchment. Again, that point highlights the failure of Environment Canterbury. The Otago Regional Council was quite capable of fulfilling its statutory obligations in bringing down a very satisfactory water management plan, principally for the lands south of the Waitaki River—for a long part of its course the Waitaki River is the boundary between Environment Canterbury and the Otago Regional Council. However, for political reasons Environment Canterbury could not bring down a water management plan. It was for political reasons that it failed to do so. Mr Benson-Pope tried to blame that on the National Party. He has been in Government for 5 long, weary years and has done absolutely nothing other than to bring this nonsense to the House—a bill that does not address the problem that it purports to address.

The basic problem with this water allocation model is that it is an administrative model, and, by definition, that becomes politicised. That is the inherent problem. That was one of the problems of the Water and Soil Conservation Act. I spent 10 years prior to first entering Parliament administering the Water and Soil Conservation Act. It was all based on those principles of “first in time, first in right”, and “first come, first served”. I am afraid that that concept does not work any more. Water is a very precious commodity and product, and to get the best allocation and use of what is increasingly an intermittent and scarce resource, and also to get the best environmental outcomes, we need pricing mechanisms. Just like every other scarce commodity, we need to put a value on water so that the best use is made of it and we do not waste it. If we want to get the best irrigation techniques and not waste the water, then we need to have a value on the commodity. If it was just an administrative allocation—“first in time, first in right”—then it is a matter of “use it or lose it”, and it would not matter how we used it, even if we wasted it, because we happened to be further up the queue in the politicised allocation model. That has failed all around the world. That is why water jurisdictions have moved away from it.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : I took part in the first reading debate on this bill, and I was as concerned then as I am now about the Government’s intentions as they pertained to Meridian Energy and, in particular, to Project Aqua. No amount of talk from the most despised and despicable member of the Labour Party will convince me otherwise.

This bill’s purpose is all about trying to promote Project Aqua. I see the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, shaking his head. If he believes that that is not the case, then he believes in garden fairies. When I look at this guy, I see that he probably does believe in them. I thought this guy was out of his depth in the fisheries portfolio, but in this one he is absolutely hopeless. When Project Aqua fell over, the Minister for the Environment must have found herself between a rock and a hard place. I do not think it is too big a bow to pull to say that she probably has acted illegally, because one has to have the national interest at heart to call in consents. If there is not a national issue, then what reason did she have for calling in those consents? The only reason she did what she did was so that she could fast track Project Aqua.

I am prepared to say that members of the Local Government and Environment Committee did do some good work, namely the limitations placed on the intent of ministerial discretion around the allocation of water in the Waitaki. But this bill is still ad hoc, and it is a retrograde step. The National Party is strongly opposed to it. We were opposed to it at the first and second reading stages, and nothing I have heard so far in this debate will change my position. Rather than fix the issues around the Resource Management Act, this Government continues to play around the edges. I am not holding my breath for what Mr Benson-Pope is going to announce in a couple of weeks’ time. I can tell members right now, without fear of contradiction, that it will be a bit of rubbing around the edges, because he does not have the conviction, the intellect, or the drive to fundamentally change the Resource Management Act, although it is recognised as the biggest handbrake on growth. Rather than fix that issue, Labour members would rather pervert the provisions of the Resource Management Act for their own narrow purposes.

The greatest concern to me is the amount of administrative intervention and the fact that it takes New Zealand further away, not closer to, some leading world practice around how we should be allocating water. The best and closest example to hand is what is happening in Australia at the moment. Australia has not gone down the track of tradable water rights, but it is looking and, in fact, it has engaged in transferable rights, and I expect it will go to tradable water rights.

Hon Ken Shirley: They have on the Murray.

BRIAN CONNELL: Oh, I stand corrected, they have already gone that far. Here was an opportunity for this Government to think strategically, to think laterally, and to bring to this Parliament some world-class, best practice around how we would deal with this issue of water usage and allocation.

Richard Worth: And did they?

BRIAN CONNELL: They have not done that. What we have is a Supplementary Order Paper that actually guts further the ad hoc nature of this bill as it has come back to the House. It is an appalling mess, and now that we have got down to the technicalities around this legislation, I note that the Minister in the chair is not jumping to his feet. He is clean out of insults. Now that he has to deal with the content of the bill he has not got anything to say, at all. This lack of strategic insight will stop investment in capital-intensive water use, and that will do New Zealand’s economy a huge amount of harm.

The member from the New Zealand First Party talked about Canterbury and its irrigation potential. But unless we have a water allocation process, or a transferable tradable water right mechanism, that investment will simply not take place. One has to ask the question: why would one invest if one did not have some certainty? So that is an issue that concerns me, and it is an opportunity lost by this Government in its rush to get this information to the House.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : A great deal has happened since this bill was reported back to the House and had its second reading. It is true that a great deal of time has gone by since that time, and that is regrettable, because there is a need to proceed with the water allocation plan for the Waitaki Valley and the Waitaki River. That is why United Future will be supporting this bill through the remaining stages.

Many people have said that the bill originally was about the fast tracking of Project Aqua, and I am sure that many people still believe that today. But I am convinced that Meridian Energy certainly does not believe that. I think it is to the credit of the Local Government and Environment Committee members that we were resolute in how we handled this bill to make sure that it was not a fast tracking. The Government showed no intention to pressure anybody there to create an inner track for Meridian Energy to get Project Aqua through. In the end Meridian did pull the plug on a project that was ill-conceived at best, and not very well investigated, as it turned out. When Meridian Energy announced that the dirt it was going to use was not going to be adequate for its purposes, it really left me wondering what on earth it had been doing all along in its analysis of the project. I do not believe the Resource Management Act was to blame for the collapse of Project Aqua at all.

I still share concerns about the post - Project Aqua situation down in the Waitaki Valley. I am grateful to the honourable member David Parker for his assistance in meeting with some of the residents there and trying to resolve some of these issues that are still outstanding. But with regard to the Waitaki and the allocation of water, there are really two communities down there who still seek to have this bill proceed through the House. The upper Waitaki residents have different concerns than the lower Waitaki residents. I even had discussions this afternoon with some from the Mackenzie Valley who are keen to see this bill go through, because it does offer them some hope for the redress of their concerns to get water for irrigation and for environmental concerns in the Mackenzie Basin.

I met recently with members of the community in the lower Waitaki. I have been down a couple of times since the committee finished its work, and I am convinced that the majority of the residents there do want us to proceed with this bill. They are frustrated with the delay, but they have confidence.

Sandra Goudie: Why?

LARRY BALDOCK: They see the need for a water allocation plan to be done. There are a number of very exciting projects there, and they believe that if it was transferred over to the regional council to take care of, it would result in even longer delays than they have experienced up until now. A lot of good work has been done in preparing for this water allocation board to be put in place, which is what Part 1 of this bill is all about, and it makes no common sense to throw all that out and start again and hand it all back to Environment Canterbury. So for that reason we will be continuing to support this legislation.

I do, though, share the concerns that have been expressed about Meridian Energy’s mixed messages since announcing the closure of Project Aqua. The reasons it has given for not withdrawing consents have not satisfied me and I am sure they have not satisfied the community in Waitaki, who have been through so much with that project hanging over their heads for a number of years. But I am convinced that the community does want to see this project proceed. There are many projects down there. There is tremendous potential for viticulture in the Waitaki Valley, and the community will be keen to know whether they will have water allocated to them. There are also irrigation projects that have great merit economically for the area, and it is important that some certainty is found about how much water will be available.

There are also the concerns of those who value the river very much, and there will be a minimum flow established for the environmental, the intrinsic, values of that river. So it makes good sense for this water allocation board to be established, to be able to go through the process with the utmost speed that it can, and to deliver, finally, some certainty to the community down there, which, in my opinion, has been knocked around for a number of years. So we will be pleased to support the bill through the Committee stage, although we will be listening to the debate as it proceeds over the particular changes that will occur now through the Supplementary Order Paper, which are necessary in order to remove the aspects that were related specifically to Project Aqua.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : If ever we needed an example of where the Christians had been consumed by the lions, then clearly that contribution was it.

Hon Member: A classic!

SHANE ARDERN: It was absolutely a classic in that regard. I tell the Minister who has just left the chair, Mr Benson-Pope, that before the dinner break we were discussing the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3), and it was a mess, a complete shambles, and an embarrassment to any Government. Here we are, after dinner, discussing the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, and it is a mess, a complete mess, and an absolute mess. The Prime Minister should take a look at who she has in her ministerial portfolios and do a reshuffle. She must do that. For the benefit of New Zealand that should happen right now—no later. She should put him out of his misery and bring this to an end. New Zealand cannot afford for that to continue.

If ever there was a debate that caught the cliché “Know the price of water”, then this debate must be that. One that follows in tandem to that is “Know the price of lack of good leadership, or good democracy, or good political process”. This demonstrates overwhelmingly what happens, and those in New Zealand who are listening to this debate should take notice. This is what happens when we end up with hopeless Government, either locally or centrally. I ask the Ministers who are in the House, and the members of the Government, what, then, “power of general competence” in the Local Government Act means when one looks at the way in which it is being applied in this debate at the moment.

At the moment central government is saying in Part 1: “Look, you down there in Canterbury are so thick that during the local government election process you will not be able to find, amongst your rank and file, people who will be able, in their regional council, to make decisions in terms of the allocation of water, or any other resource for that matter, in your area.” The Government is telling those people that they are so thick they cannot do it, and that the Government does not trust them. The Government is saying: “We in central government—we, the socialists, the Labour Party minority Government, propped up by the Christians—do not believe that you can do it, so we will pass legislation tonight in the House with that minority support to make sure you get the message from Wellington.” I tell this Government that the people of Canterbury will be sending a message to this Government all right and it certainly will not be in support of this legislation.

Let us look at the history. The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991. By the end of the 1990s, it was decided that there was a need for some major reform. The Owen McShane report came about as a result of that and it recommended 12 substantial changes to the Resource Management Act. The report went to the select committee, which was considering the report when there was an election and a change of Government, and the incoming Minister, Marian Hobbs, put a red pen through the whole lot. All those recommendations were thrown out. They were completely rejected by the incoming Government. Tonight we are debating yet another silly amendment bill that will achieve absolutely nothing with regard to the Resource Management Act. None of those recommendations, or the hundreds of other recommendations to the Government since then, through the second select committee process, has been taken up by way of amendments to the Resource Management Act.

Let us look at the process that took place with Meridian Energy in terms of Project Aqua in this debate with regard to Part 1. A hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money was invested in setting up a hydroelectricity plant in Canterbury, where more energy needs to be produced. That process was stopped, or thrown out, and the primary cause of that, according to the report that came back from that process, was the overwhelming cost of having to go through the Resource Management Act process. So the Government introduced a fast-track—a Clyde-dam kind of piece of legislation—which went to a select committee. The select committee rejected a large chunk of it and made some sensible recommendations to the Government. When the bill went back to the Minister, David Benson-Pope, he threw the whole lot out and introduced a Supplementary Order Paper of about 9 pages to the House, like he did with the fisheries amendment bill, at the eleventh-and-a-half-hour when nobody had time to look at it properly.

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.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I concur with what I am sure is the majority of members in this Committee that this bill is absolutely not necessary. It has been absolutely gutted by the Supplementary Order Paper, as was brought to the attention of members by the Hon Nick Smith. It is just extraordinary how this bill, which had 55 clauses, has been reduced to closer to 34 clauses as a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper. One really has to ask why this bill is necessary.

I note in Environment Canterbury’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that it had notified its intention to do a water allocation plan and had about 33 submissions in support of that being priority work in the ensuing year. Yet the Minister cut across the bowels of everybody and introduced a bill to put forward a project that would bypass the Resource Management Act. After hearing all the speeches in the Chamber, I think most members would concur on that point.

It is just extraordinary that we have now come to the point whereby, essentially, Environment Canterbury could do a water allocation plan without this legislation. It intended to do so and it should be allowed to do so. All the submissions have been put through the process, largely for nought. There has been a huge expense in time, and a lot of anguish, frustration, and heartache about all the different changes and issues that arose as a consequence of this bill. It took some considerable time and effort on the part of all those who submitted, and there was a huge number of submissions. That has largely all been a waste of time. I think that is an absolute tragedy. The quite extraordinary amount of money that has been spent to bring this bill to this stage and to this state is just criminal.

I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee has spent an inordinate amount of time on this bill. Committee members have met with people who have made submissions, and have looked at the area. There was commitment and dedication on the part of us all to try to get this bill straightened up from the sorry state it was in, and all of that has largely been wasted. The bill in its original form noted within it 55 exclusions to the Resource Management Act and 13 inclusions. It was a significant amendment to the Resource Management Act.

One of the predominant concerns was the exclusion of aspects of section 32, but, as has been evidenced by the chair of the committee, that was changed. As the bill was developed, the Minister saw the efficacy of requiring the purposes of the Resource Management Act to remain intact with regard to section 32.

As my colleagues have said, Environment Canterbury should be putting forward this water allocation plan. That has been the purpose of the Resource Management Act. I see that it is trying to sidestep the Resource Management Act to put forward Project Aqua on the basis of it being in the national interest. The Minister is now looking at a better expression of the national interest in changes to the Resource Management Act, although there is some scepticism about whether that will come to pass.

I point members to the considerable effect of the Supplementary Order Paper. It absolutely guts the bill. I really do not know why we are going ahead with this bill. It is a complete waste of everybody’s time. It is just a nonsense that we are wasting our time debating it in the Committee stage. The Minister should have withdrawn this bill and left it to Environment Canterbury to go back to the people to make submissions on setting up a water allocation plan, following the due course of the Resource Management Act. I am certainly glad that National opposes this bill. It has been an absolute disaster from whoa to go, and I think all the exclusions and changes to the Resource Management Act are absolute evidence of that. National opposes this bill.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am the lead Opposition member speaking to the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill, and I note that Mr Jim Peters, whom I respect greatly and who has made two good contributions, represents a party with significantly fewer members than National. I wish to note that I have had only one speaking slot.

Further to that, I had to put up with an extremely derogatory speech from the Minister in the chair, Mr Benson-Pope, to the point where he had to withdraw. I wish to make a further contribution about the very important issues in Part 1, and to respond to the points that the Minister has made. I have had no opportunity to do so.

I point out that in the Standing Orders there is provision for up to three speeches from members. It is the norm for the presiding officer not to allow every member of the Committee those three speeches per part, but it is the practice—longstanding, as you will see if you read the book commemorating the 150th history of Parliament, and very vigorously defended over the years—for bills in the Committee stage to be debated thoroughly. I ask you to reflect on that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for that. I am going to accept the closure motion in terms of the Standing Orders. There are several parts in the bill and there will be ample opportunity to speak to those parts.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : One of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if one challenges any aspect of its programme—[Interruption]

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We just heard the Minister of Conservation casting aspersions on the Hon Nick Smith. He called him ugly. I do not believe that that is acceptable in this Parliament. If the member did not take offence, I certainly took offence on his behalf, and I believe that Minister Carter should stand, withdraw, and apologise for making such a silly and offensive remark.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I certainly heard the member in the first instance refer to the word “ugly”. Did the member refer to that word in relation to a member personally?

Hon Chris Carter: Beauty, I guess, is in the eye of the beholder. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I assume that my time will be taken from the beginning, given the interruption.

My point is that one of the particularly ugly aspects of this Government is that if they are challenged on any aspect of policy and they cannot win the intellectual argument, they simply resort to personal attack. They do it with persons outside the House; they do it within the House. I do not take offence. I take it as a compliment that I am so effective in my role in Opposition that they are not prepared to have the debate on the issues, but resort to those sorts of personal insults.

I want to systematically go through each of the points the Minister has made and test whether they are true. The first thing he said was that this bill is due to the fault of the National Party and the Resource Management Act. Let us just reflect on that.

The Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 by National, and voted for by the Labour Party at the time. Labour had actually introduced the bill and passed its first reading and a good part of its second reading. Furthermore, National introduced a substantive amendment bill in 1999 that significantly reformed the Resource Management Act. When Labour came to office it threw that bill out. Labour passed another bill just 12 months ago, and at the conclusion of that bill, passed in May of 2003, it said the Resource Management Act was all fixed and there would be no further problems.

Then, lo and behold, Marian Hobbs was sacked, and David Benson-Pope came into the job. He says he will fix all the problems in the Resource Management Act with a bill that he will be taking to Cabinet next week. I say to the Minister that that is a strange sort of record. How can there possibly be any credibility in his claim that it is National’s fault? It does not stand up to scrutiny.

Then we have the claim that this bill, when the Minister introduced it, had nothing to do with Project Aqua.

Hon David Benson-Pope: That’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair says that that is right. Yet the Minister, only 10 minutes ago, when addressing the bill, said it had to be radically changed because Project Aqua had been withdrawn. Are those statements consistent?

Hon David Benson-Pope: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister did. In speaking on Part 1 he said the reason we have this Supplementary Order Paper is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. How can the Minister say in one breath that this bill has nothing to do with Project Aqua, and in the next breath say that we have to have an Supplementary Order Paper because Project Aqua has been withdrawn? That, again, makes no sense.

Then the Minister said the reason we need this bill is that we need a plan for the Waitaki River, and it is the only way it can be achieved. Again, the Minister is very solidly mistaken. All the Government would need to do, and we know from the estimates that the Government has put up $3.5 million for the development of this plan, is to tell the Canterbury Regional Council that it will put up the money, on the proviso that the council delivers a plan under the existing Act. The bill would not be required, at all.

In the substantive question, members on this side of the Chamber ask why the people of Canterbury are going to vote on 9 October for a new regional council, when already this bill will say that the council cannot do the job. Already this Government has decided it has no confidence in the Canterbury Regional Council to do its job and write a plan. The further point is, why a plan for the Waitaki River? Why not the Rangitata River, the Rākaia River, the Ashley River, or the Ashburton River? Why is it this particular river? The Government cannot pass special legislation for one particular river, without giving this Parliament very concrete reasons as to why it is doing so.

If there is a flaw in the Resource Management Act and the Minister believes that all rivers should have a management plan—and there might be some substance in that argument, which was eloquently put by Jeanette Fitzsimons—let us have a bill that requires all rivers up to a particular size to have a management plan within a particular period. That might make some sense. But why just this river, and just this region?

We cannot have the Minister of Local Government in the Chamber talking about the powers of general competence and who says that we trust local government, and then have a bill that takes the powers away, and gives them to a group of people who will be appointed under Part 2. I say to the Minister that it makes no sense. He has been caught out time and time again, misleading the intent of this bill and the reasons for it. I challenge him to take a call and answer some of those fundamental questions that this Parliament needs an answer to if this legislation has any merit.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : I thought the Rākaia River, and recently the Rangitata River, were subject to river conservation orders. The issues raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—

Brian Connell: You think that’s a management plan, do you?

JIM PETERS: No, they are not. What they do is to limit the allocation of water that can be taken, by setting minimum flow regimes. That would be part of the work done by the council—

Brian Connell: Very arbitrary line.

JIM PETERS: It may be an arbitrary line, but I understand that it cost the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Fish and Game Council a quarter of a million dollars to get there. So it certainly was a very costly arbitrary line. But the issue is that the river conservation order process will not be needed for this river, because the board that will be set up will have the ability under Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to develop and approve a water plan that will overcome the issues that there may be with regard to the Rākaia River, the Rangitata River, or any other river in the Canterbury region. That board will go through what would have been done by the regional council, if there had been a water plan. I do not see the local body elections on 9 October as being of particularly great interest. As I said earlier, just to go through the steps that the Canterbury Regional Council is going through, apart from the work that this bill will hasten, would take an inordinately long time. Instead, when the board is selected it will be able to go through those steps.

I will just quickly run over the issues that traditionally make up a regional plan: the minimum flows and the takes or extractions that can take place, the restrictions on the rates of use of water other than that which is required essentially by farmers and for human takes, the blocks of water that can be shared above or below the regulated minimum flows, and restrictions on damming. All the issues that normally form part of a regional plan will be the work of the board. New Zealand First supports that essential core function, which the board will pick up and do in an orderly manner. Previously, I said that we had talked to farmers and to high-country people, and we have done so. The work of the board will take care of the other issues that are very, very important, with regard to people who feel that the Waitaki River is theirs—the recreational users, and the down-valley users of water. They will have their concerns and their issues resolved in the orderly and a transparent process that is a regional water plan. The bill hastens that process.

Again, New Zealand First stands to say that we support this provision, because it will bring a quick benefit to the community. We could go back in history and look at what the regional council did not do, or was not supposed to have done—the strategic things that were mentioned by two previous members. But for my part, I believe that Environment Canterbury has done a sound job in recent years, and I believe it is still doing a sound job.

Last of all, we understand that this bill would not be before the House in this form unless there had been consultation with Environment Canterbury about the core issues. I expect that Ministry for the Environment and Environment Canterbury staff have met on several occasions and have come to the point where, if this bill is passed and is passed speedily, they will be able to make progress. Probably they have already worked on some of the core components of a regional water plan.

New Zealand First supports Part 2, and hopes that the bill will hasten the benefit that the board will bring more quickly and more transparently to the wider community, and not just to the people of the Waitaki Valley.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs contains one sensible amendment to Part 2. Having said that this legislation comprises a comprehensively bad Supplementary Order Paper and a comprehensively unnecessary bill, I do give credit for the fact that it contains one sensible amendment. The bill takes away the silly requirement for the board to apply for an extension of time if it cannot do the job in 9 months. It was absolutely clear all the way through the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings that the board could not do the job in that length of time. All the submissions we had stated that the job was too big for that, and the bill now gives the board 12 months to do its job, without wasting its time by going through special applications and special Gazette notices. So that, I guess, is an improvement.

However, new clause 10A on that Supplementary Order Paper is not, in any way, as benign as that amendment. The select committee was quite appalled at the extent to which the bill, as introduced, created the board to act as a sort of puppet for the Minister and the ministry, which clearly knew the outcome they wanted. It gave the Minister all kinds of powers to direct the board, and it gave the ministry the power to give the board all the information on which it had to base its decision. The select committee got rid of both those provisions. What clause 10A does is to reinsert, with exactly the same wording as before, the old clause 10(1), which stated: “The Minister may … (a) arrange for work to be done for the Board: (b) supply any information to the Board.”—as though the board was not capable of doing that for itself. So the Minister—and for that we should read “the Ministry for the Environment”—will do that for the board and, in doing so, will insert itself back into control of the process. What has not been reinserted, however, is clause 10(2), which had stated that any such work and any information supplied to the board must be made available for public inspection. That bit has not gone back in. It seems that one will have to use clause 13, “Official Information Act 1982 amended”, in order to find out just what information the Ministry for the Environment has given the board and what work the ministry has arranged to have done for the board.

I have been wondering just how the Government was going to get a majority for those arrangements, and I was quite astonished to hear a few minutes ago that United Future supports this legislation. Larry Baldock was a member of the committee, yet he will now vote to have a lot of the work of the committee removed from the bill. I wonder why he is doing that, because he seemed to support that work at the time. United Future also says that it supports the outdoor recreation people. The trout and salmon fishers do not want all that water to be allocated for hydro and irrigation purposes. The people who want to take water out of the river will thank United Future for its support of that, but the fishers—whom United Future says it supports—want the water to be left in the river, and they will remember that. The fishers told the select committee that the river needs to keep the water that it has now. We cannot simply reduce it to a minimum flow—a bit of a trickle—and allocate a whole lot of it to other economic purposes, and still have a good trout and salmon fishery. So I am surprised that the member supports a bill to allocate water, rather than a bill to plan for the best management of the catchment.

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.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : Thank you, Mr Chairman, and I firstly congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair. May I say that it would be splendid if you were elevated to the Chair behind it at some time in the future, too.

I am very pleased that the member for Otago took that call, because I appreciate the sensitive position he is in. But hearing him come out with the statement that he neither supports nor opposes Project Aqua—neither confirms nor denies—I would advise him to talk to some of the union officials. There are plenty on his side. There is the old union song: “Which side are you on, boy? Which side are you on?”. That member needs to determine which side he is on, because his electorate will not thank him if he continues to sit on the fence on a matter that is so critical to it. All one does when one sits on the fence in that manner is upset everyone.

Part 2 is the guts of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. When one analyses the bill and reduces it to its basic, essential elements, all it does is set up a committee. The whole essence of this furore and fuss is setting up a big, elaborate committee. That committee has the job of allocating water. We have had a regional council that has been entrusted with that responsibility since the regional councils were established way back in 1989. They did not do it, for political reasons, so what makes anyone think this committee will have any more success, given that it will face the same problems?

The member for Otago said that Environment Canterbury is delighted to have the body there. Of course it is, because it has abrogated its responsibility for nigh on 15 years, and now the Government has stepped in and has fast-tracked special legislation. Make no mistake about it, it was all about fast-tracked special legislation for Project Aqua.

We have had amazing utterances from the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs. I heard Nick Smith say in this debate that she had been sacked. I have not caught up with that news. I know that she is often missing in action, but I had not realised that she had been sacked as Minister for the Environment. I had not heard anything out of her. The last comment she made was that the Resource Management Act was “beautifully worded and beautifully crafted”. At that point Labour had Mr Benson-Pope do a review of the Act to see just how beautifully worded and crafted it was.

But be that as it may, this bill is a nonsense and it is unnecessary. If one wants to persist with an administrative allocation of water, there is already an existing structure that has had that responsibility for nigh on 15 years. Prior to that, there was the Waitaki Catchment Commission that had that same job. It has done catchment allocation plans in the past. I have looked at them, they are still in existence, and they will not be much different from what this new committee established by this bill may at some point get around to doing.

I will get back to the subject of the Minister for the Environment. The Government claimed that it was not rushing this bill through, but the select committee members will remember that when we were hearing submissions down in Kurow we got a copy of the Ministry for the Environment’s newsletter. In the newsletter the Minister for the Environment was calling for nominations to this allocation board prior to this legislation even being passed. That was over a year ago. I wonder what happened to those nominations. I wonder how many she received. She said that she was not trying to rush the bill through; she did not even have the legislation passed, and she was calling for nominations for this allocation board. That is clearly a nonsense.

Another aspect of this bill was made clear in this debate. It was again about Part 2, with regard to clause 6(2). The initial bill stated that the board must complete its function within 9 months. That was 9 months ago.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : I was delighted to see the mystery member for Otago take a call.

Opposition Member: Who is it?

BRIAN CONNELL: I do not know what his name is. I said he was a mystery member. But I can say why he has only 41 more flights left to Wellington, because a member who stands in the Chamber and says that he does not stand for anything, is not coming back to this place after the next election. If one does not stand for anything, one stands for nothing. It is contagious in the Labour Party—they will not vote on anything. No wonder they call him the “Parker Pimpernel” in Otago!

I also have to take issue with Jim Peters. There are a couple of issues that he has raised. He is well intentioned but I think he is being seduced by a small minority of people. He would have this Parliament believe that he is the only member who has gone to the Waitaki Valley and spoken to the local residents. He is talking to people in the upper Waitaki Valley who are a tiny representation of the people who live along the length and breadth of that great river. Further down the river are a huge number of people who do not want this. They certainly did not want Project Aqua—[Interruption] Jim Peters is calling out about Stan Scorringe. The Stan Scorringe issue is simply about the Order in Council. If that were brought forward we might very well reconsider our opposition to this bill. But let us be clear—this bill is not about that. This bill is a fast-track mechanism for Project Aqua.

The agenda is a moving feast. As Project Aqua has fallen over, the Government has started to change its position. Its latest position is that this is a water allocation process. Mr Peters has fallen for that, hook, line, and sinker. He talks about the farmers of Canterbury. He is not talking about the farmers of Canterbury per se, he is talking about a tiny number in South Canterbury and North Otago. He should at least learn the geography before standing up and representing himself as an expert in my territory, because he is not.

He talks about using the Rākaia River and the Rangitata River to manage irrigation and water allocation programmes down there. I can tell that member that he is wrong, and that is as much as I will say about that. The Opuha Dam is a good example of how people working together in a local community can put water allocation programmes in place without having central government bureaucracy hitting them over the head with a cricket bat. It simply is not necessary.

This bill was Project Aqua in disguise. Geoffrey Palmer, when he introduced the Resource Management Act—and let us be clear about who introduced it: it was Geoffrey Palmer and the Labour Government—said that he did not want the Resource Management Act to be the National Development Act in disguise. But the Government forgot that. It picked up the Resource Management Act and used it to fast track Project Aqua.

I would like the Minister in the chair to stand up and give me an unequivocal undertaking that existing property rights will be protected. Maybe the member from New Zealand First will be interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about that. The commentary in the bill states that existing property rights or consents will be maintained, but I can see nowhere in Part 2, or any other part for that matter, that says that that will be guaranteed. It all sounds very laudable, but there is no explicit recognition or protection of existing rights.

The Minister has been asked to get on his feet and give an unequivocal guarantee that those existing property rights will be protected. I bet he will not. If he does not, confusion will reign and it will result in lengthy delays and more costs as existing consent holders have to defend their consents against those new applicants. This bill does not put that stake in the ground. As it exists now, the rights of electricity generators, farmers, and other users are being undermined, and uncertainty will reign. It is likely this bill will promote, not reduce, this type of confusion.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : Uncertainty already reigns. In June 2003, farmers applied for water rights for 0.002 cubic metres of water, which is, as someone has said, merely a piddle in a bucket. It is absolutely infinitesimal. The Minister used her call-in powers on those applications in October 2003—the introduction of this bill was in November 2003—so those people have had their water rights put on hold as a consequence of this bill, which they were promised would be passed within 6 months. That did not happen. It dragged on until September 2004, and it still has not happened. There is no plan being formed as yet and it will take some time to form one. Those farmers who have applied for water rights are still in limbo, so there is definitely no certainty around that.

The member who recently spoke about Part 2 and said that this whole bill is just about the appointment of a board is absolutely right. That is just about all that this bill does. It sets a few definitions, but it is largely about establishing this board for the regional water allocation plan. The Minister has her fingers in this pie well and truly, because it is the Minister who will appoint the board. As we have already heard, she has already called for applications for this board. I wonder how many she got, how many people she has made promises to, and whether that is the reason that she has to go ahead with this bill and the establishment of a board. Because, as we have quite clearly heard, the only reason for this bill is to establish a board.

With the establishment of this board, the Minister must have regard for the skills of the board. In looking at that, it is about members of the board having an understanding of water allocation, river ecology, the Waitaki catchment, and tikanga Māori. We have to ask ourselves what tikanga Māori has to do with water allocation, and that is one of the bones of contention, I guess, with the Resource Management Act, because there is a definition of tikanga Māori that is pretty broad and could mean just about anything and everything, and it is my understanding that it pertains to the particular tikanga for that tribal group or individual. The Minister, again with her finger in the pie, appoints the chair of the board, although one would wonder why it is not left to the board to appoint its own chair. The Minister also appoints the deputy chair of the board, so one can see quite clearly that the Minister has quite a great deal of influence—far too much influence—on the board’s composition and on who its chair and deputy chair will be, and that is quite unacceptable.

That does not happen in any other situation where there is a regional water allocation plan going ahead. Those bodies do not have that ministerial influence—or interference, it could more appropriately be called. A member may be removed by the Minister at any time, as well, so what sort of independence does this board have, with so much interference by the Minister? It really is extraordinary. If it were not for this so-called board, there would not be a need for this bill. There has been no justifiable explanation from the Minister as to why this bill is necessary, and we certainly will not get it from the Minister, will we? I have not heard anything to date that would even purport to being a justifiable cause.

The other thing about this board is that when it establishes its regional water allocation plan and accepts submissions to that plan, those submissions cannot be appealed to the Environment Court. No submitter can appeal to the Environment Court, because this process still has some exceptions to it from the normal Resource Management Act process. I put it to members that those exceptions are unacceptable, and that if it were not for this board with all this ministerial interference or for those exceptions to normal Resource Management Act processes, there would be a level playing field for all of those participating.

Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : A number of colleagues have—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would ask that my colleague Gerry Eckhoff gets a call in this debate. He is the only South Island high-country farmer in this Parliament. He is the southern man from Otago, and I believe that he has been calling consistently. I would like an assurance that you will not take the closure motion before he has an opportunity to make his contribution.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A number of members have asked in this Chamber why on earth the Government is proceeding with this legislation, and there is one very devious reason for that. It is that the Minister for the Environment broke the law, and now she has to patch it up. Let me set out for this Parliament the way that the Minister did that. There is a very specific provision in the Resource Management Act that allows the Minister to call in resource consents that are of national significance, and there would not be a member in this Committee who would contend that Project Aqua was not a matter of national importance. But the Minister did not just call in Project Aqua. The schedule of this bill lists consents for as little as 1 litre of water per second. One farmer has had a water right for a couple of stock tanks for 126 years, and his resource consent was called in. Is there a lawyer in the Committee, or any member of the Committee, who believes that it is a matter of national importance for a farmer in Kawerau to draw off sufficient water to supply a couple of stock tanks?

At the Local Government and Environment Committee, we heard from Queen’s Counsel who were very clear that the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, had broken the law. I am sure that the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, has had the same advice from his officials, and that the real reason that the Government is proceeding with this bill has nothing to do with protecting the water of the Waitaki River, and has everything to do with patching up Marian Hobbs’ botch-up. The only way that the Government can patch up her illegal act in October 2003 is to pass this legislation. If members had done what they should have done with this bill and chucked it in the bin, the Minister for the Environment would be wide open—absolutely wide open—to be taken to the cleaners in the courts of New Zealand. This Parliament is being asked to retrospectively fix up the Minister for the Environment’s illegal acts. That is right—we are being asked to patch up her illegal breaking of the law, and that is not good enough.

I do not know why the members from United Future and New Zealand First are prepared to patch things up for an incompetent Minister who has broken the law. I challenge any member of the Government to get to his or her feet and describe how the Minister for the Environment could possibly have acted within the law by calling in such small resource consents. That was never what was intended, in terms of matters of national significance. I challenge David Benson-Pope to get to his feet, and tell members what his officials have said. We know what they said to the select committee. They said that the law was doubtful, and that the bill would help to clarify it. What does that mean? It means that the Minister broke the law, and Parliament is being asked to fix that. Well, I say that it is not good enough for Ministers to break the law.

I want to make another point to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope. He has said that Labour wants to fix delays in terms of the Resource Management Act. I ask him how this bill will help to do that. This is a resource management amendment bill, so how will it help with the delays? Will this legislation solve the delays under the Resource Management Act for the poor old cow-cocky? [Interruption] The Minister should get on his feet and speak, rather than do that silly business of pointing in the Chamber. I ask him how this bill will help to deal with delays under the Resource Management Act. I see that the Minister does not want to answer that. What this bill had done for the poor old cow-cocky in Otago who applies for a small amount of water is that it has made him or her wait for a year, while the Government puts this bill through the House. Part 2 will then take another year for the development of a water plan. Then the consents will have to be heard—and that will be at least another 6 months, or probably 12 months—and it will take another year after that if they go to the Environment Court. Does any member of this Parliament believe this bill will reduce delays?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) : I move, That the question be now put.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) : I certainly appreciate being given the call. In my opening remarks, I say to Opposition members that they are being very unfair to the current member for Otago. Gavin Herlihy is a first-rate member. He has worked tirelessly for that area, and I think they are being grossly unfair to criticise Gavin Herlihy’s work. [Interruption] What? I am sorry, do members mean he is not the current member? Oh dear! Well, I see Gavin’s Herlihy’s name a lot more in the newspaper than I see David Parker’s name, so I just assumed that Gavin Herlihy was still the member for Otago. Gracious me, I must be wrong about that.

When I look at Part 2, it just sends a shudder through me entirely. I note that the Minister is to set up a water allocation board. I and everybody else in this Chamber saw the appointment of a ministerial reference group. The group was supposedly fair and representative, and it has come out with a recommendation in its report that has again sent shock waves throughout the country. The group was appointed, according to the Minister, from men and women of outstanding quality. I am sure that individually some of them probably were, but their report is a shocker. I have not the slightest doubt that the water allocation board will be made up of sycophantic political appointees appointed by the Minister.

Hon Ken Shirley: Labour hacks.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: They will be Labour hacks who have had some association with water—because they once drank some with their whiskey, or something or other. That is the most worrying aspect of this legislation. If the names of the board members were known to us all, we could make a judgment call on that, but, quite clearly, the Minister will appoint her people to the Waitaki Catchment Board in order to get the result that she and the Government want. Exactly the same thing applied with regard to the reference group; that Minister certainly got what he wanted.

I emphasise just how hugely important water is. Water in the South Island, especially in the area to the east of the main divide, is as important as the land itself. Without water, much of our farming would not survive. Yet potentially, the board could well take away from the farming community, especially, its ancestral, traditional, cultural, and social connections.

Hon Ken Shirley: What about customary rights?

GERRARD ECKHOFF: Well, it could take away customary rights, as well. Where have we heard all those things before? If those sorts of aspects apply to Māori, then they must apply to the people of the land at Kurow, in North Otago, and in the catchment area of the Waitaki River. Water means a huge amount to the people of that area. We have just seen a real battle on that issue. As my colleague Mr Ken Shirley has pointed out, we still do not know what Mr David Parker thinks. I am told that Mr David Parker is the member for Otago. Apparently, he still has not made any comment on this particular issue, to say whether he is in favour or agin. The people of Otago do not really know that. We constantly emphasise that point.

Quite frankly, the regional council has come out with a pretty reasonable plan for our region; the council has forgotten more than the Minister will ever know about this subject. I personally would not mind this legislation quite as much as I do if the allocation board members were to be derived from the regional council or were to be appointed by it. That would be reflective of the region. But that is not to be the case. This bill is a totally inappropriate way of handling a very, very vital issue to the people of Otago: the allocation of what is known as “blue gold” to the people of our region. The issue is of massive importance.

There is another aspect of this part that is hugely disturbing. I see that the Minister can remove a member of the board for what is called “misconduct”—whatever that may be. Does “misconduct” mean disagreeing with the board, or disagreeing with the Minister? Would that be construed as misconduct?

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) : I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The area of New Zealand that is now under debate is an area that I represent. I have had only one call on this part, and before you take the closure motion I think it is only fair, in terms of the representation of the good people of Canterbury, that I have the opportunity to take one more call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There will be other opportunities for the member to speak.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I want to bring to the Committee’s attention a particularly important amendment that National is moving in this part. The amendment relates to the vital issue, for the people of the upper Waitaki catchment, of the commitments that were made to them at the time of the huge hydroelectric developments that took place there in the late 1960s and the 1970s. That community has seen huge changes in its landscape and in the use of its water. Both Ministers and politicians at that time gave commitments to that community of an allocation, in today’s terms, of 15 cubic metres per second of water for the purpose of irrigation.

The course of the history of what happened after that is somewhat fuzzy. During the select committee stage, members of the Local Government and Environment Committee questioned extensively just how it came to be that the 1969 Order in Council that promised that water for that community disappeared out of existence. There was a very complex legal set of the Water and Soil Conservation Act being repealed, of the Resource Management Act coming into effect, and of the resource consent applications that were lodged at the time by the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand—subsequently overtaken by Meridian Energy. Two things were clear through that process: firstly, there was no deliberate decision by Ministers, by Parliament, or by the community of the Waitaki to surrender the water rights that were promised to the community at the time, and second, nor was there any deliberate attempt to lock up every drop of water in the Waitaki catchment solely for the purpose of electricity generation.

Today we challenge Parliament to put some justice back into what occurred then, by supporting the amendment that is in my name. All that we are asking is that when the board comes to allocate the water in the Waitaki River, it takes into account—it is not absolutely bound by it—the Order in Council of 1969, and the commitments given by Ministers of the Crown at that time to the people in the upper Waitaki River area. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber believe we should support that amendment because it is good environmental lawmaking. All sorts of communities around New Zealand have very difficult and contentious issues when there are major developments, as there were in the 1960s when the huge upper Waitaki scheme was built. It is very important that people can trust the word of Ministers. It is very important that when communities come together and do a deal, people know that those deals will be honoured in the long term. That is why I call on this Committee to do the honourable thing and support that amendment.

The Government wants to play games now—I have seen that in the media, with regard to Jim Sutton and David Benson-Pope. They want to have an argument about the history of what occurred in 1991. I am not saying that we were flawless then; I am not necessarily saying that what was done was right. What I do say is that there is no record of Ministers deliberately taking away those rights to water. There was no deliberate decision of this Parliament, or of any Government, that all the water would be set aside exclusively for electricity generation. If we have any respect for good process, then I invite the Committee to back that small rural community, which has been disadvantaged by the outcome that has occurred since then. I challenge the member for Aoraki, Jim Sutton, and the member for Otago, David Parker, to note what the local people think. There is a choice as to whether the water of the Waitaki River—every single drop of it—will be used for generating electricity for the rest of the people of New Zealand, or whether we will allow a tiny amount, 2 percent of it, which is what was promised to the people back in 1969, to be used for irrigation purposes. Do we think that the promise that just 2 percent of the water of the Waitaki River would be used for irrigation purposes is something that should be taken into account as this legislation comes into effect, and as the water of that great river is allocated?

I make a very honest plea to this Committee: let us do the honourable thing. Let us do the right thing for the people of the upper Waitaki catchment, and let us do something to enhance the reputation of politicians, Ministers, and the Crown. A lot is said about honouring the treaty, but what about honouring agreements with rural high-country farmers? What about making sure that when they have an agreement, it is honoured? I call on the Committee to support our amendment.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) : We have heard some extraordinary things in the Chamber in the last 12 hours or so, and not the least of them has come from the previous speaker, the very confused Dr Smith—the man who told North and South that he had been “screwed” by his leader, and that he was not here in Parliament “to shag spiders”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Well, I have read North and South, I tellDr Smith—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is the second time that this Minister has chosen to simply engage in derogatory personal statements that are not true, and you know, Madam Chairperson, that if a member says something is not true he is to be taken at his word. I think that for the Minister, who is meant to be a Minister of the Crown, to immediately begin a debate of such crucial importance to the people of the upper Waitaki with those sorts of untruths does this Committee no credit, at all.

Lindsay Tisch: That reflection on Dr Smith has continued throughout the debate this evening. I say to the Minister, who has brought those accusations and made those personal statements against my colleague, that that is completely unparliamentary. It is unacceptable under Standing Order 116, and the statements made are untrue. I expect, Madam Chairperson, that you will censure the Minister and ask him to apologise for his conduct.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think that in the interests of good debate this evening, it would be appropriate if the Minister withdrew those remarks.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am happy to withdraw and apologise, and I am sorry if the member has taken offence—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 106, and I think that in this instance it may be the best remedy. Standing Order 106(1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted, misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” I think in this instance that if the Hon Dr Nick Smith were to have another call pursuant to Standing Order 106, that would in part remedy the misrepresentation we have had from the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope. [Interruption]

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. While you were deliberating, Madam Chairperson, the Hon Ruth Dyson has been interrupting. There is meant to be silence during points of order. The Minister was speaking at the time that the Hon Ken Shirley was making his point. You should be deliberating, Madam Chairperson, but we have interjections all the time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is quite correct. I give members a final warning about speaking during points of order. One cannot rule on points of order if there is noise going on. The point that Mr Shirley raised is not pertinent. The material was part of the Minister’s speech.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: What I really wanted to do was to read the even more extraordinary—

Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I would like you to reflect, Madam Chairperson, not on the point of order you have ruled on but on the use of language by Mr Benson-Pope. Unparliamentary language like “shagging spiders” surely cannot be accepted in this Chamber. You did not ask him to withdraw or apologise for the use of that language.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order.

Brian Connell: This is a different point of order; it is about the Minister’s language.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. The point of order was about the member’s language. He has withdrawn and apologised, and that is the end of the matter.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Irrespective of what may have gone before, the most extraordinary statement made by Dr Smith in the last decade is recorded in the Otago Daily Times by David Bruce, the columnist responsible for Otago and Waitaki affairs. Since I had the good fortune to be elected to Parliament in 1999, my respect for the has grown. That is not meant to be a reflection on other dailies, but it may be something to do with the fact of its independent ownership. On matters around the Waitaki and the whole Project Aqua debate, including the debate around the water allocation issues that we are canvassing tonight, David Bruce, who is the columnist in Otago and Oamaru, has gained amazing respect for the way that he has reported very contentious and highly contested issues.

I would like to put into the Hansard this evening a report from the of 24 July this year, the byline to which is: “It reads like a ‘whodunnit’- David Bruce investigates who killed off water to irrigate the Mackenzie Basin.” The article is headed “Allocation never meant to go”. I ask members, while I read this article, to think about what they have just heard from the National Party’s chequered spokesman on this matter. The article states: “The National Party, now championing the cause of Mackenzie Basin farmers, passed legislation in 1993 that took away their irrigation allocation. However, the party’s current environment spokesman, Dr Nick Smith, said the National government in the early 1990s never intended to do that. … Dr Smith was a member of the National government which made an amendment to the RMA in 1993, removing the section of the 1991 Act which had given the 1969 order in council virtual resource consent status. Doing that also removed the irrigation allocation.”

Frankly, I am not surprised, and neither are Dr Smith’s former constituents in the Mackenzie, that he is as embarrassed as he is about that incredible cock-up, as he refers to it later on in that article. However, what does surprise me is that Dr Smith and other members stand up in this Chamber and criticise the establishment of a water allocation board in this legislation. Dr Smith was quoted later in the same article as saying: “National wants a statutory board, being established by the Government to allocate water in the Waitaki catchment …”. I say QED to Dr Smith. He has got it wrong again publicly. It is time he owned up, came clean, and got on board when the Government is trying to fix up yet another shambles that it has inherited from him and his mates.

JIM PETERS (NZ First) : This issue has a long history to it, and a sense of rightness about it. The position of New Zealand First from the very beginning has been that this bill is about water allocation. In passing, I say that the stance taken by the member for Otago is absolutely the correct one with regard to Project Aqua. Whether Project Aqua should proceed is not the rationale for this bill; as far as we are concerned, the rationale for the original bill and the bill before us in its present form is one of water allocation.

But there is the historical issue that has just been raised by Dr Smith—that is, the historical 1969 Order in Council that granted the Electricity Corporation the right to dam, use, divert, discharge, and take water from the upper Waitaki River and lakes. This order, as we all know, followed on the historical dam development going right back to 1928 when the first Waitaki dam was commenced. The 1969 order also provided for specified amounts of water to be granted by the Waitaki catchment authority for irrigation purposes. That comes back to the issue that has been advanced to us by relevant farmers in the district. In 1990, when the Electricity Corporation applied to the Canterbury Regional Council under the Water and Soil Conservation Act for a bundle of water rights, those rights were granted. They were granted on 1 February 1991 for a term of 35 years.

Against that historical background come the legal issues that are before us. We know that it was stated in the Environment Court on 12 December 2003: “It is very unlikely that some residents of the Waitaki catchment have legitimate expectations as to future irrigation water rights based on the 1969 Order in Council.” That decision of the Environment Court has been further before the courts in recent times. Notwithstanding that, New Zealand First gives support to the suggested amendment from Dr Smith, because all that the amendment does—and the farmers would ask for no more with regard to the history of this development, particularly in respect of the legal matters that are yet to be decided upon in another place—is place on record an ability for their case to be heard before the board that is set up in this part. We know that the present Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan will not be operative until 2009 at the earliest. A water allocation plan set up as a regional plan under this bill could be in operation much, much earlier than that, and when it is in operation the interests of that group, which is affected, and still feels affected, by the Order in Council, would need to be looked at again. This bill provides a suitable vehicle to undertake that role—the relevant board set up under the bill.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : The ACT party will certainly support the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Smith calling for this matter to be taken into account. Indeed, my colleague Gerrard Eckhoff, who does a remarkable job serving the interests of farmers throughout the country, but particularly those in the South Island high country and surrounding landscape, has been pressing this point in the ACT caucus, and we certainly accept that situation.

What we have is a clear promise and commitment from the Crown. In 1969, when the Crown was building those Toecap schemes in the Waitaki catchment, we had a clear commitment. What better proof of a clear commitment than an Order in Council providing for that volume of water to be made available for irrigation purposes? We know that an additional metre of freeboard was put on the Toecap structure so that another metre of water would be available in that dam for irrigation. Of course, that is the top metre. When one puts a metre at the top of the freeboard, the surface area of the dam is that much greater. That is an immense volume of water.

The other aspect that needs to be considered is that the irrigators’ demand for water relates to a very confined time. It is really during the maximum point of evapotranspiration—principally January and February, when evapotranspiration is at its greatest. That is not the time of year when we are in a most critical situation in terms of storage levels in our hydro dams—typically, May, June, or July. Yes, one could argue that, given a severe drought, all storage is critical, and that is partly true, but water supply is so intermittent so often that Meridian Energy stores all the water, then spills it all. Meridian Energy stores it through the critical period, when it could be earning hundreds of millions of dollars and enhancing the farmlands of the Tekapō Basin, then spills it down the spillway to sea, because it does not know how intermittent supply will be or how prolonged a drought will be. That just does not seem sensible.

But for the Government now to pretend that it does not have any obligation, when an Order in Council in 1969 gave that commitment, seems rather strange to the ACT party. The fact that this Government is happy to renege on it disturbs me, but we have some precedents for that. Let us think about the West Coast Accord. The Labour Government signed the West Coast Accord, which included the union movement, local government, and all the forest industry. It was an absolute commitment in perpetuity. It was going to provide for a sustainable yield of beech forest in perpetuity. How long did “in perpetuity” last? The accord was signed by Phil Goff, the Minister for the Environment, in September 1987. One of the first things this Labour Government did when it came to office was to tear up that accord. It just tore it up. This Government’s word is worth nothing. It is a bit like its tax policy: it said that only 5 percent will be affected, but we already know that 10 percent is affected.

Brian Connell: 12 percent!

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: That is right—12 percent. That figure was mentioned in question time today. We are guaranteed broken promises from this Labour Government. To get back to the bill, it is a critical issue, and it can be provided for. We do not believe there should be special legislation, but if this board is to be set up, then for goodness’ sake let us at least let the board weigh up the merits and take into account that Order in Council. As I understand it, that is all that Dr Smith is asking for. It is a very reasonable request. How could one possibly vote against it? All that the amendment states is that the Order in Council should be taken into account and considered. Hopefully, we will have a panel of competent experts. I am not too sure that the Labour Minister will appoint competent experts, but let us hope he does—in which case, how could one vote against that amendment? I call upon United Future. How could United Future not support this amendment to make that water available?

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : This is a very important issue that we are debating right now in relation to the Mackenzie Basin. The 15 cumecs of water was promised to the farmers in 1969. It is something that appealed to all of us as we sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard the submissions about this issue. We unanimously agreed that everything possible ought to be done to try to resolve this issue, because it is, clearly, something that Parliament should give its attention to.

We have debated this issue a great deal. If it was simply an issue of legality that could be addressed by giving back rights that were lost, I believe that it would have been in court by now, or would be going to court, and that would be the appropriate way to address it. But we know that that option is not open to the farmers as the 1969 Order in Council has been revoked. There is no way for them to proceed legally, particularly because there is a High Court decision at the moment to do with water allocation in the upper Waitaki, and that decision will have a bearing upon this issue.

I am firmly convinced that the 15 cumecs of water do not pose any threat to Meridian Energy’s ability to generate hydroelectricity, and, any way, a good percentage of it would flow back into the catchment area and be useful downstream. I have worked very hard with the Minister to investigate all the avenues by which Parliament can do the best we can to ensure that the Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board does take this matter into consideration. Ultimately, I believe that the case rests on an environmental issue rather than on the legal issue of the 1969 Order in Council. It is obvious to anybody who visits the Mackenzie Basin that it needs water, and that tonnes of dust every year are blown away as a result of the basin having been deprived of water for a considerable number of years.

The Minister, in response to our concerns, has stood in this Chamber and given an assurance that she will make sure that the water allocation board does take into consideration these issues. All the historical data that is there will be put before the board, all the various concerns of the Mackenzie Basin residents and the issues there will be presented, and I believe that that will resolve the issue. I do not believe any water allocation board worth its salt would ignore the need for water in the upper Mackenzie Basin, particularly given that it is such a small amount—15 cumecs. I would hope that the residents would get much more than that; that when, finally, a decision comes down from the courts about the consents in the upper Waitaki, the water allocation board may allocate more water, because huge productivity is possible up there if water is made available for irrigation.

The difficulty that we face is that if we tamper with the legislation as it currently stands, we may actually create more difficulties than we are trying to resolve. I am confident that the water allocation board will be provided with all the information it needs in order to make a very good decision. I will continue to work very hard on behalf of the Mackenzie Basin residents to ensure that that does occur. Unfortunately, while we are sympathetic to the amendment from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, our having been presented with it just minutes ago means we are not able to give it our support; it is something that would have to be taken to our caucus, and I have not had the opportunity to do that. But I want to indicate to the Committee that we are very, very committed to these concerns, and I believe that we have already addressed them and that they will be resolved by the water allocation board when it is set up through the passing of this legislation.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : In speaking to Nick Smith’s amendment, I admit to some sympathy towards what he is trying to do. I do think that the 1969 arrangements are part of the matters that the board ought to consider. I also do not think there is anything in the legislation at the moment that prevents the board from considering that issue, but I was quite sympathetic to the view that we direct it to do so. However, on looking at the amendment, I do not think that is what it actually does.

The amendment is added on to clause 21, which sets out what must be done in order to evaluate whether the allocation decisions that the board has already reached meet the requirements of section 32 of the principal Act. So that is the section 32 analysis, and as I read the Act, the bill, and Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs, the board has to consider, after it has made the allocation decision, whether what it has done is appropriate, and it has to consider the benefits and costs of its decision. If Nick Smith’s amendment were to be added on to that, then the board would have to consider the Order in Council as part of the process of evaluating whether its allocation decision, which had already been made, was appropriate. It seems to me that the place to consider the Order in Council is in making the allocation, not in evaluating the allocation, so the amendment may tend to tie the board in certain legal knots. On that basis, we may be better to rely on the fact that the bill as a whole does allow those matters to be considered. Possibly the member should have considered amending new clause 14AA, inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 244, which sets out what the board must do in reaching its allocation decision. We have not yet voted on that clause.

However, I do want to comment on new clause 14AA, which is now all that remains in terms of describing what the board has to do in making its allocation, given that clauses 17 and 18 have been entirely removed from the bill. The four matters in new clause 14AA are not prioritised, at all. There is no direction to the board as to whether it should first provide for stock watering, firefighting, and domestic use, then provide for the intrinsic values of the river itself, and then allocate water between different activities, which is what we have all assumed it should do. In fact, there is nothing to stop the board, given the way that the Minister has worded that clause, from providing first for hydro and irrigation purposes, and only secondly considering whether the local farmers can water their stock and fight their fires, and then, thirdly, considering whether it has left anything at all for the river itself.

It seems that new clause 14AA is seriously lacking, in not setting any priorities for the way that those four matters are to be ranked. I think that is a serious problem. There is no help in doing that from the clauses that previously provided quite detailed directions to the board as to the matters it was to consider and that, in fact, turned the process into much more of a catchment management process than simply a water allocation process. But clauses 17 and 18, where the Local Government and Environment Committee put in quite a lot of work and added to what was originally presented to us, have completely gone, and we now have only new clause 14AA. Exactly how it will mesh with the principal Act is still really quite unclear. The board will find itself in some difficulties in trying to interpret what the Minister has given it to do in that rather ill-advised Supplementary Order Paper.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : It has been fascinating listening to the debate in the last few moments. Two members from two minor parties that are known to support the Government have spoken against the Hon Nick Smith’s amendment. Let us look at the events that led up to that point. What we have in Part 2, which was voted on recently, was the setting up of a Labour quango.

Brian Connell: What’s a Labour quango?

SHANE ARDERN: A quango made up of former Labour members of Parliament who no longer have a job after they leave Parliament. Such people will go on a board that decides what happens with water allocation. [Interruption] David Parker, Jim Sutton, and there are a few other candidates, I am sure.

Then Part 3 has screeds of regulation, with clause after clause that restricts the board and tells it exactly what it can do. The Hon Nick Smith has a huge amount of institutional knowledge on the whole history of the Resource Management Act and, particularly, this issue. The Associate Minister for the Environment himself waved a bit of paper around; he gave a bit of the history of it that confirmed what the Hon Nick Smith had said. He did not counter it; he confirmed what the Hon Nick Smith had said, which was that an injustice has been done to a very small group of people, through no fault of any particular Government. It has happened by accident. Nick Smith has a way of amending it. I ask the Minister what harm it will do to have one small amendment that fixes that wrong. The Minister might take a call and explain that to us.

The members of the minor parties have said that they have not had time to take the amendment to their caucuses, and that they cannot consider it in such a short time. We have passed Supplementary Order Papers in this Chamber tonight that were 9 pages long. One of them was 17 pages long—on the fisheries amendment bill. I wonder how much time those parties spent considering that in their caucuses. Yet there is not time for them to consider one minor amendment to one clause, so they cannot support it. It is unbelievable.

Let me say this to the Minister: here is a chance for this Parliament to restore some of the dignity of this Parliament. Here is a chance to do that. It is often said about members of Parliament that they are dishonourable, all of them go with what is popular, and they will not do what is right. People say that all MPs go in whatever direction the wind is blowing. That is unfair. There are some hard-working and dedicated members of Parliament who are maligned by that public perception. Here is a chance for this Minister to right a wrong, and do members think he will support it? Not on your nelly!

The Hon Ken Shirley touched on a similar example earlier on—the West Coast Accord. That was passed by none other than Phil Goff, under a Labour Government. In perpetuity, the Government gave the West Coasters—a minority group, once again—some certainty about their future and what they could do with their own property in their own area. What happened when the next Labour Government came in? It screwed the accord up and threw it out—and it was all done in the national interest, supposedly. Here is another example of a contract that was entered into by Parliament, by the Government—by the executive, the 20 Cabinet Ministers of the day—not being honoured and not being carried out. This Government has a chance to fix that up. Will it do it? The answer is absolutely not. I can almost predict that it will not happen, although the Minister is not saying one way or another.

I acknowledge the contribution made by the honourable member Jim Peters tonight. He is a person who has a lot of knowledge about local government, and a lot of depth of knowledge in a lot of other areas. I listened with great interest to the contribution to the debate from that member. This amendment would allay a lot of the fears that the member mentioned in his speech earlier on. It would fix some of the problems that the member talked about. He understands the concern here, and this amendment would fix it.

So I ask the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, to take a call and explain to this Parliament tonight, to the affected people, and to the people out there who have formed a very bad opinion of what members of Parliament do in this place at this hour of the night, why he will not accept this minor amendment put forward by the Hon Nick Smith, who is trying to right a wrong that came about through no fault of any particular person—that came about by accident. There is a legal opinion—I was unaware of it until just before—that was given to the select committee that backs that up.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will take a call from the Hon Nick Smith, who has put an amendment, but I point out to Dr Smith that there is only about 1 minute to go before I have to report progress.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I will keep my comments quite brief, in terms of the important issue with regard to the Mackenzie Basin. I particularly want to issue a challenge to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Jim Sutton, who is the member for Aoraki. I say to that member that there is a very intense interest in this issue in the Mackenzie Basin. This issue is a test of whether Mr Sutton will put first the interests of his constituents in the agreements that were made by his community with the Government back in 1969—whether he will ensure that the water allocation process puts right the injustice and does a fair deal for the people of the Mackenzie Basin—or whether he will back the Labour Party. That is the real test. We on the Opposition side of the Chamber say to Jim Sutton and to David Parker that they should back their constituents, and should understand that their constitutional role is to do their best for their electorates. It is interesting that not a single Government member has risen to his or her feet and tried to justify that the people of the Mackenzie Basin should be short-changed. Yet, secretly, the Government members are so concerned for Meridian Energy that they are prepared to do that.

• Progress reported.