Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4908. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to begin my contribution on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by congratulating the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty on having the good luck to get her bill drawn from the ballot and also the good sense to put this before the House for a discussion. I want to say also that I am extraordinarily impressed at the large amount of public interest there appears to be from the members of the public who are in the gallery listening to this. I did not realise how many people were actually so concerned about the situation in and around Kawerau but I think it is excellent to see that. I understand that there is actually a long queue of people who are waiting to get here and I certainly hope that they are able to make it into the public gallery before Catherine Delahunty does her concluding speech. I want to say that it is great to see so much interest in Kawerau and I am sure the locals will be really really impressed. 
I have to say that I am disappointed with the local member of Parliament Todd McClay who has just resumed his seat. For him to not know or understand enough about his own electorate as to not support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee for a discussion is really surprising. I am amazed. I thought he was a member who would say that he does not think this is an issue any more as he did but if it has an impact in other areas of the country—as it clearly does in Kawerau—why not send it to a select committee and have the debate? It was obviously of much concern previously for the issue to go to an Environment Court hearing. 
I listened to my colleague Moana Mackey in her contribution prior to the dinner adjournment. I just want to say what good news it was to hear a member of Parliament praising their democratically elected regional council and saying how committed Environment Bay of Plenty is to the partnership that it has with local communities including iwi and to the standards—not just required but standards that it thinks are better than required—for environmental protection in its area. Actually more than anything what a delight it was to hear about a fully elected democratic regional council. Could we please have one in Canterbury? I do not think it is a big ask. We have not had one for a couple of years. Dr Nick Smith I am sure recalls taking away our democratic right— 
Moana Mackey 
: They’re very good. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Moana Mackey tells me it is very good. We would like a fully elected democratic council in the same way as the entire rest of the country. We in Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for people. I know we have not been able to do it for a little while but we think it is within our area of competence. I am sure that even the National members of Parliament for Canterbury think we are up to the job of voting for our regional council. 
But back to the specifics of the bill. It is of course of concern when an issue as serious as this has gone through the Environment Court process. It is a big process and it is an expensive process and not one that any organisation will take up lightly. The fact that this issue appears to have been resolved in that specific place from what we have heard from other contributions—or at least attempts have been made—through the goodwill of the regional council the company concerned and the local iwi through their memorandum of understanding is good news. But that might not always be the case so the debate that we should sensibly have at the select committee is specifically around the duration of the discharge and the coastal permits. I think it would be a very worthwhile debate to have. 
I just want to make just a few concluding remarks towards the criticism that Todd McClay directed at Catherine Delahunty for what he described as the specificity—the narrowness—of this bill. In 2014—not very long—when Mr McClay is a member of the loyal Opposition of this Parliament— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If he’s high enough on the list. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —if he is high enough on the list—and brings a specific and narrow member’s bill to this House I give him my commitment that I will not vote against it on the basis of it being too specific and too narrow but only on the basis of it being stupid or something I fundamentally disagree with. When you are in Opposition you do not have the resources of a Government department or agency and you do not have the Law Commission to do the preparation of a significant report. You do not have those resources so often members’ bills are—because of the resources available to Opposition members—quite narrow and quite specific. So I give the member that assurance and I look forward to progressing this discussion at the select committee.