Mackey Moana: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4904. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take what I think will be a short call on this piece of legislation the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have to be perfectly honest. I am not entirely convinced that the bill is needed but I do think that there is an issue here that is worthy of investigation. 
I think that the particular circumstances of the Tarawera River case provide actually a really good case study where we can have a look and see whether the provisions that are currently in the Resource Management Act for the extension of these permits out to 35 years are adequate and whether they do provide enough protection for the communities that are concerned about the health of the rivers or waterways involved. I do think this is a very good case study because Environment Bay of Plenty the regional council that issued the consent is a very very good regional council—a very good regional council with good relationships right through its community. So it is not like we would be looking at a case where there are concerns about the quality of decision making in a regional council. This is one where the council has a strong reputation. For example the company Tasman Pulp and Paper came and asked for a consent extension of 35 years. The regional council said no 25 years. It put in place a lot of other conditions including that you could not see the discharge in the river and a number of other things. So I think it is actually a really interesting case study as to whether not having any cap—or not having a 5-year cap or a 10-year cap or whatever it might be—is an issue in the law because this did turn into a very very messy and emotional issue in the Bay of Plenty. I want to recognise all the work that Catherine and her partner Gordon who was my former teacher at school did on the particular issue. 
Certainly as we know looking back through history environmental practices have varied greatly over time. We have become far more aware now about the impact of a lot of these industrial processes on our environment and that is why we have laws like the Resource Management Act in place now which were not there a long time ago. But certainly with this particular river the practices were very distressing for the community and what I think needs to be put on the record of course is that outside of the resource management process there was a memorandum of understanding that was reached with all the local iwi—not just the iwi that took the court case and failed in that court case—where they actually ended up negotiating a really good outcome but it took an awful lot of money for the iwi involved it took an awful lot of pain and anguish getting them there and it was only because of agitation. Now it is not such a big issue because Kawerau is really pleased about the jobs that were created by the extension of that mill and the boiler. As I have said they have been able to negotiate environmental agreements with Tasman Pulp and Paper where they work together on the health of the river. So there is a lot less concern about it in the community now. 
But the point to that is that it is great but it relies on both the company involved coming on board and deciding that it wants to be a partner with the local iwi and the local community and then being able to negotiate that outcome and that is not something of course that the Resource Management Act can deal with. So I think there is a question. This is a very good case study where we could look at where we have had a good outcome. It might not be in every circumstance and I think there are questions around that. I do not think that a sawmill extending or upgrading its boiler is necessarily an exceptional circumstance. I think that one of the key issues is that this was meant to be used only in really exceptional circumstances. This is the kind of thing that goes on with industry all the time. They upgrade they change and they are going to need to alter the terms of their discharge consent approval. Is that really an exceptional circumstance? And I think that is where a lot of the debate comes around. 
So like I said as far as I am aware I think this is the only case in which there has been this kind of extension so it is probably a good time to get in early before there are any others and have a look at it. Like I said I think this will be a really simple matter of getting the regional council and some of the stakeholders in to tell their story. It may be that what is needed is a very simple change. It may be that there is no change needed. But certainly having gone through and seen the anguish and the money spent on lawyers in that community I wonder whether there is not something that could be done. I certainly think that we deserve to give the iwi of the Eastern Bay of Plenty who went through this the opportunity to come and discuss what happened in this case and suggest how they might see things working differently. I do not suspect that it would take up a lot of committee time. As the member has indicated the Government is bringing along some Resource Management Act reforms anyway. Maybe it could be worked in alongside that but I do think actually the committee would benefit from having a look into this case.