Dean Jacqui: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17624. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I too commend Catherine Delahunty for bringing the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill to the House. I think the member brought the bill to the House with an obviously genuine desire and love for the Tarawera River a love for the communities and a deeply held belief that the current regime around perhaps the practice of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill and the legislation as it stands was failing that particular waterway. I hope I am encapsulating what Catherine Delahunty brought to the House.I have to say that National will not support this bill and I will seek to set out my interpretation of the reasons why. I think the member who has just resumed her seat Moana Mackey with her comments around the time frame really came to the crux of the matter. We believe as the National Party that a 5-year time frame inserted into section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act where discharges are allowed under exceptional circumstances—if that time frame were narrowed down to 5 years that would place those companies affected by it in an untenable situation.Again we can have that discussion about whether economic activity outweighs environmental concerns. Yes absolutely we can have that discussion. I would argue that that discussion is very much part of this Government’s work around reform of the Resource Management Act and is very much at the forefront of our thinking. In fact wehave made several legislative changes to make the Resource Management Act more responsive more timely and more efficient and its operation smoother so that we can address concerns like this.But we have got to come back to theKawarau River because that is the genesis of this member’s bill and it is a good member’s bill because it has been brought to the House with a genuine desire to make a situation better for the water quality of that river. A number of members of Parliament as well as the normal procedure that we go through when considering a member’s bill received and heard submissions in various places around New Zealand. A number of members variously took visits to have a look at the river. I with a number of colleagues spent some time on the river having a look at water quality and discussing with representatives of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill its response to those concerns around water quality and how it was dealing with those concerns both as a company in terms of the company practice but also in terms of compliance with the permit it had under the Resource Management Act.I acknowledge and agree that the Tarawera River was formerly described as a “black drain”—have I got the terminology right? A “black drain”—and I believe that it was. I believe that all sorts of toxins were being discharged into the river from the various industrial activities along the course of that river as well as some other naturally forming pollutants further down the river from the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I recall there was an outfall as you head looking up the river on the right-hand side—some geothermal discharges. I might not be quite right but there are some other natural pollutants going into the river.Catherine Delahunty: Yeah that’s right.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you. The member is helping me from way over on the Green side. So it is acknowledged by everyone that formerly that river was very much abused as a result of industrial activity but also by human habitation and some natural pollutants. Yes it was a “black drain” and yes the water quality was appallingly bad much to the detriment of the local communities along that river. The river is their home. The river is where they live their lives and they have their familial ties. The local communities feel very strongly about their river where they catch eels fish and have their recreation and swimming. It is their river. Of course they had been concerned about the previous state of the river but I also believe that that was a long time ago and that steadily over the years water quality in the Tarawera River has been improving.We also observed on our trip from the mill down to virtually the mouth of the river and then back up again the varying levels of water quality which are largely these days down to the amount of tannins occurring as a result of the industrial activity at the mill but also occurring naturally because of the nature of the surrounding countryside and theleachates going into the river. There was certainly a colour variation. The water was at various stagesyellower than at other stages but it was explained to us and demonstrated to us that those colours were tannins and non-toxic. However—Catherine Delahunty: Ha ha! Non-toxic!JACQUI DEAN: —yes the member is laughing at me; OK. They were naturally occurring tannins but still of concern to the local community. So we saw for ourselves that yes this stretch of water—possibly not unique in New Zealand although luckily not common in New Zealand—absolutely has been badly affected by the economic activity which by the way has also provided many jobs to the local community over a number of generations. So although we are considering water quality in this bill let us not forget that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has provided jobs for a number of generations in that community as well. Let us just keep that in our minds. It is not a reason not to clean up the river but it is something we should always keep in our minds.To the bill itself—section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act which allows discharges into water under exceptional circumstances is a provision that has been very rarely used in New Zealand. It is not a provision of the Resource Management Act that is in common usage and indeed the number of years for which there can be exceptional circumstances allowing discharges is never very clearly defined. In fact permits can be for as long as up to 35 years which generally is about the common term in a discharge permit.In this bill Catherine Delahunty seeks to narrow the length of time for a permitted discharge down to 5 years and that is a laudable aim except for a couple of things. In the case of the Tarawera River the current Resource Management Act permit and the conditions imposed on the owners of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill require them to have a constant steady and aggressive programme of improving water quality. So if the aim of this bill is to improve water quality then yes it does but so do the current provisions in the Resource Management Act. For mainly that reason it was believed on this side of the House that this bill laudable though it is in its aims would do more harm than good.Let us go back to those jobs. Let us go back to that economic activity that has been carried out for generations in that small part of New Zealand that is working so hard to attract business into its area. I say and I believe that it has to be acknowledged that a focus on water quality is happening now under current rules around the permit that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has. So on balance we could call it 15 years and there is a Supplementary Order Paper for that on the Table Supplementary Order Paper 422 but actually even 15 years does not give enough certainty for anyone who wishes to start up a business and has this provision in the Resource Management Act hanging over their head. Well hang on a minute. You might invest $10 million into an activity but in 5 years’ time that is it—you are going to have to pack up your bags. That is a disincentive. I do not believe that we should do that because I do not believe that it is necessary.The National Party does not support this bill but does congratulate the member on bringing the bill to the House with a genuine desire to do what we all want to do and that is improve water quality in New Zealand.