Delahunty Catherine: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDelahunty Catherine: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17638. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I would just like to finish the debate on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by clearing up a few of the misconceptions and arguments we have heard. One is that I am in any way trying to be amāngai for iwi. This is not about them; this is about the people—particularly Māori but not only Māori—who submitted on the bill in support of me and who have worked so tirelessly since 1955 for a different outcome. That is for whom I am speaking here tonight. I would like to refer to Paul Goldsmith’s uninformed comments on Contact Energy. If he had been aware of what was going on he would know that we negotiated with Contact Energy for a Supplementary Order Paper to protect its right to geothermal discharges but obviously he did not know anything about it. However that is what was about to happen in order to protect its rights to deep-water aquifer discharges. I would also like to talk about the argument that the Resource Management Act is adequate and that hearings have set high standards through Environment Court appeals. A commissioner from the Environment Court who had been involved with some of these river hearings approached me at another hearing and said to me: “Thank goodness for your bill because we did our best but we were incapable of delivering under the law the protection for the river that is needed.” I found that very interesting.However my final comments relate to the debate tonight. I thank people for their kind comments to me personally but this is not about me. This was never about me. This was about the people the river and the rivers across Aotearoa. And I have to say this about the arguments presented: what a load of bollocks. Let us just be completely honest about this for a minute. The parties that want to oppose my bill or want it seriously modified are undermining the future of the rivers because they are worried about upsetting vested interests and losing votes from the business sector or localgovernment leaders who have given up on the environment in exchange for agreeing with everything corporates do. That is the truth of what has happened in Kawerau since 1955. It is corporate blackmail. Since 1955 at Kawerau the companies have always said that if anyone dares to limit their ability to externalise their cost in a serious way they will shut down the mills and the jobs. Again what a lot of disingenuous bollocks. But they have won it every time because people are too scared to stand up to them. Still the Green Party the awesome tangata whenua people who have stood up for the river the environment groups that have cared and the unions that support us will not give up. And just because Parliament has been gutless again those who support us will not give up. We in the Green Party will stand for all rivers. Our connection to water is so intrinsic to our being alive. Our obligation to rivers is not some optional or rhetorical strategy. If the water is healthy and sustained we will be healthy. If it is polluted and degraded so are we.I would like to point out that this debate has indicated the lack of scientific knowledge in a modern context. This is not about whether the river is black or brown—but at the moment it is brown—it is about the invisible and subtle pollution that occurs when resin acids are released from pulp mill effluent when they have been crushed up to make paper and when they have been bleached and they have been put into the river with mill chemicals. If any of the people in this House knew anything about this issue they would know that the synergistic effects of these chemicals are subtle and particularly dangerous in seawater. This is way beyond the understanding of the Environment Court when it never hears from witnesses who know about this but it is also obviously way beyond the MPs from all parties except Mana and the Māori Party which have consistently understood what this bill is about. I would like to thank them very much.I did come to this Parliament to stand up for this bill and I want to honour the commitment and honour the people who came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and told their truth. Whether people attended or not the submissions were available to be read. It is very important for us to remember that people with nil resources have since 1955 through a series of incredible campaigns forced these companies to reduce their pollution. This occurred not only in Kawerau but also in theTaiRāwhiti where section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act was used to allow raw sewage from 40000 people to pollute the bay. I have lived the issues alongside those people. They gave up their time money and hearts to defend this environment. And to talk about the Land and Water Forum and other initiatives has absolutely nothing to do with this and is a convenient excuse for ignoring the reality that virtually everyone in this House except Mana and the Māori Party is unable to support the truth of this which is that rivers are not drains. I would just like to say that this is not over. Kia kaha to all the people who supported this most reasonable and fair piece of legislation and shame on the rest of you who have failed it.