Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I rise with pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to express support for this bill. Can I thank the Hon Nick Smith for bringing this bill—Hon Nathan Guy: That's good!Hon DAVID PARKER: We have piping up somewhat sarcastically the former Minister for Primary Industries saying That's good!" We've actually supported this all the way through and actually for many years despite considerable local opposition from some subsets of the population. In the Labour Party we have actually consistently advocated for this with the council and are pleased that at long last it is being brought into being through this legislation if passed. There is a temptation as is shown sometimes by the Hon Nathan Guy that when you're in Opposition you criticise everything that the Government does. This would actually have been a very easy project for us to criticise and to rark up public opposition to but actually we didn't do that in the Labour Party. We have consistently supported this for the reasons that the Hon Nick Smith has outlined.I actually don't know of a better water augmentation scheme in New Zealand than this one. Despite the fact that it is one of the most expensive for those who are purchasing the water at the end of this it is one of the best schemes and I absolutely agree with the sentiments that were expressed by the Hon Nick Smith that in order to get a better minimum flow in summer and in order to reduce the pressure on the aquifer which is being mined down by current levels of take—and that is in turn having an effect on minimum flows in the river—this water augmentation scheme is necessary.It was tempting when we came to office to say "Well we disagree with the somewhat generous allocation of funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund that the prior Minister managed to achieve." And I did go through the paper trail of that and looked carefully at the appropriation and I concluded that it was just within appropriation and notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't recommended by his ministry and was a late addition to the scheme put on by the Minister for the benefit of his own locality actually we in the end chose not to criticise it but rather to support it.The funding from central government here is very generous—very generous. There is in addition to the grant of $7 million a $35 million loan from Crown Irrigation. Now when we came to power we said we were going to bring an end to large irrigation schemes and we had a number of exceptions to that. We said that we would honour a number of existing investments but we also made it clear that we were most worried about schemes that were going to increase the intensity of ruminant agriculture in catchments that are already over-enriched. This actually is a scheme that doesn't do that; it's one that supports horticulture as well as reticulated water supplies in the city.I respect the right of people to have different viewpoints in New Zealand and to have a different view as to what should happen but I am personally convinced that this is a good scheme that it should proceed and that we in this Parliament should facilitate that through the passage of this legislation to get over the complexity caused in respect of that small amount of land that is stewardship land. I further expressed the view that I think Parliament is going to have to perhaps look at those issues again one day. The range of discretions that are open to the Minister of Conservation following the Ruataniwha decision and the legal analysis that lies around this case show that the discretion of the Minister to give a concession for what we in Parliament are agreeing is an appropriate thing to do here looks like it might be unduly narrow. But that's an issue for another day. In the meantime we of course are all bound by the law as it stands rather than what we might think it ought to be.The effect of this on improving instream values on enabling irrigation to continue to support local industry is good. When subject to appropriate minimum flows and protection of instream values we ought to be maximising the economic value that we can get from our abundant water resources in New Zealand. I agree with that. I just don't think that some of the larger schemes that were being promoted through the Crown Irrigation scheme well-structured though they were—I admit that the unit was doing a good job to spend that money if it was going to be spent on those projects. We just didn't think that generally we should be adding pressure to the load of rivers through more intensive forms of ruminant production.Of course as the Hon Nick Smith has already mentioned here more land in this area will actually over time convert from sheep and beef to horticultural uses partly because it will be horticultural uses that are higher value land uses and thereby will be more able to meet the high cost of water that comes out of this scheme. That's a good thing. That's progress for New Zealand and shows that actually with the right planning including at times Government interventions to assist with smaller irrigation projects—and we haven't closed our minds on those issues; some of those will be able to be funded in the future through the Provincial Growth Fund—we can actually find a way through I think that is more profitable for our country as well as has a better environmental outcome.In respect of the difficulty that the Tasman District Council had to get this through again that's local democracy in action but I was pleased to see that in the end the leaders there did stand up and enough of them led to get this across the line. I would have been quite happy to get the money back for the Crown to be honest; there are plenty of other good things that the Freshwater Improvement Fund could invest its money in around the country because we do have some water quality problems in different parts of the country that are worse than they are in this area. None the less it's been such a long journey. I'm very pleased that eventually the leaders in that community managed to get it across the line.Can I also mention John Palmer; the local mayor Mr Kempthorne; and also Morgan Williams who I think played a good hand at the end. Also it is worthy to note that some of the wiser heads in this actually have a bit of grey—Brett Hudson: Hear hear!Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha! And a bit of hair. And it was interesting to see that they rolled out Sir Geoffrey Palmer to say that look actually it is proper in some of these decisions for councils to actually reflect on what might be the consequence of the decision that has been taken and to have a think about it and reflect upon it because if this hadn't gone ahead the effect on the local area would have been dire. It would have put real pressure on the economy. There would have been a decrease in output from horticulture. The minimum flow would have been enforced without the water augmentation and therefore a haircut would have had to be taken rather than a route through found. And actually I believe also the advice that I had from the district council was correct that over time local water supply costs would have been more expensive because they would have had to augment sources of freshwater for their municipal water and they wouldn't have had these egregious subsidies from central government to do so.Brett Hudson: You're sounding like us almost! Come across!Hon DAVID PARKER: Ha ha!Hon Nathan Guy: This is a speech that should be given from this side of the House.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well sadly you're in Opposition.Hon Nathan Guy: This is the best speech I've ever heard.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well you obviously haven't heard me speak very often!With those comments can I also reflect on the support of Fish & Game New Zealand and the Department of Conservation who really did test the environmental case for this going through and concluded that this was not just economically sound; it was environmentally responsible. Indeed overall the environment will be better as a consequence of this project.Finally can I mention the saltwater intrusion issue. If this hadn't been funded the regional council—or the councils because it's a unitary authority—would have had to do its duty to the environment and actually stop what is causing those saltwater intrusions which is excessive extraction from the aquifer in dry seasons. That's a lesson that is difficult for councils to implement but it is their duty to do so where the law requires them to. So with those comments I support the passage of this bill at first reading."