Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): We don't have that many local bills coming to the House and I think it's useful just to reflect at the outset on the fact that this is a local bill and it's a bit different from the others that we often speak about. So the first thing that I want to do is just acknowledge that before this bill has gotten to the House it has had to have been supported by a territorial local authority which in itself has had to go through a great deal of work in terms of consultation in terms of planning to develop the proposal that is inherent within this bill. So I would in the first instance want to acknowledge that work from the territorial local authority—the Tasman District Council in this case. Also I say that I think that when these local bills do appear before the House it behoves all of us—no matter which side of the House; no matter which party we come from—to give some respect and some consideration for the fact that our colleagues in local government have done some of the groundwork before it lands before us and to give it some genuine consideration which I believe that all parties have been doing in the debate so far. It is a bill that requires careful consideration and I would echo the comments of my colleagues earlier in this debate the Hon David Parker and Deborah Russell who made the point that we shouldn't simply sign off on these sorts of things when they come before us because some arguments are put up about economic development. One of the real problems that we have in this country that I think most of us are aware of and certainly most New Zealanders are aware of is that we have suffered a significant degradation of the quality of our waterways over the past generation or so. That is a matter of considerable concern to many of us in this House and many people in our communities and a big part of that has been our interference with many of those waterways for the purposes of economic development. We have on the whole been too loose in this area and so I think it is important that we give serious consideration to ensuring that where we enter into these water storage schemes or where we at this end of Government support those water storage schemes they are sustainable and the decisions that have been made are wise and that we are stewarding those resources well. I do take issue with some of the comments from the other side of the House to the effect that any water storage scheme is good that any water storage scheme that facilitates agricultural intensification must be good and must be supported. I don't support that position; we must have a better framework for making these kinds of decisions.What I want to put to the House is that actually a useful framework for considering this particular proposal is the Living Standards Framework as developed by Treasury and that the Government is doing significant further work on at the moment. It actually provides a nuanced structure for considering the types of investments and types of decisions like this from a whole range of different lenses. There are four capitals which feed into the Living Standards Framework. I think two of them are relevant in this respect: that's natural capital and physical capital; the social capital and human capital considerations I don't think are quite as relevant. But certainly when you pass this project through the lens of natural capital and of physical capital I believe that it does pass the test.So let's just have a look at some of those factors. The first is on the natural capital side. We've heard some of the arguments in the debate so far. In the first instance this is a river which does have issues with its water flow particularly in the dry months. We know that one of the chief causes of the degradation of many of our waterways is when the water flow becomes too low. So the impact of this scheme in terms of ensuring a minimum water flow during the dry seasons is certainly one of the boxes that we can tick there.We've heard that there are problems with saltwater inundation—that that has a significant impact on the health and the well-being of this waterway and that the scheme will assist in that regard. One of the very interesting points that did come up in debate earlier on was the fact that quite possibly this scheme may act as an incentive for the kind of horticultural development in the area and possibly a shift from some more intensive forms of agriculture to horticulture that may actually be gentler on our environment and gentler on our waterways in the long run so that's something to be encouraged as well.If we look at physical capital—that is the well-being—the assets that we have that contribute to the well-being of our people to their livelihoods to material living conditions then again there are strong arguments for this project. It will ensure that we have a stable urban water supply to support our growing communities. It will support horticulture and industry in the area and as I've said potentially do that in a more sustainable way.So overall I do think this is a project which passes the bar in terms of enhancing the well-being of our communities through looking at all of those capitals that enable us to make a wise decision and it's certainly one the Labour Party and I wish to see proceeding further. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.