Williams Andrew: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4906. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 How pleased I was that I did not have a split call having had three or four split calls at 6 o’clock in the last few months. I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. We do support this bill. We see merits in it moving through to a select committee. I think there is a serious and significant issue here which needs to be debated and needs to go before the select committee that I am on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
New Zealand prides itself on its image of being “100% Pure”. We have a Prime Minister who is the Minister of Tourism and he is on record as saying how important it is for New Zealand’s image that we do have the “100% Pure” image. We do pride ourselves on what we offer in this country in the South Pacific in terms of our ability to provide a very pure clean green environment in New Zealand and we trade on that logo we trade on that motto and we trade on the fact that we do have something quite special to offer to the world. However New Zealand does have the situation that we must be very mindful of that at times there can be discharges into our waterways into our coasts and into our foreshores and those discharges can be ongoing they can be serious and they can be in place for a considerable amount of time. That therefore must surely undermine the whole premise of our being “100% Pure”. 
It is for this very reason that our member Catherine Delahunty has brought this bill to the House. There have been instances and we have heard tonight in the House of the instance of the Kawerau river where discharges have been ongoing for a considerable amount of time for many many years and continuing. They basically need to be brought to a head and need to be sorted out once and for all. There will be other instances very similar to it around New Zealand that should also be addressed. Any member in this House who is not prepared to allow or any party that is not prepared to allow this bill at least to go through to the Local Government and Environment Committee for further consideration to see what are the real issues here to see what we should be addressing in this country in terms of these discharges I think is doing a disservice to the environment of New Zealand and doing a disservice to the people of New Zealand. 
We in this Parliament are the guardians of the environment and the guardians of what is good and what is bad in New Zealand. In this respect where there are perhaps things going on within New Zealand that are not in accordance with what we would wish whether it is our wish politically party-wise or even personally we should at least have the decency to put the bill through to the select committee to allow it to be fully debated to allow the public of New Zealand to have input into it to allow the businesses of New Zealand to have input into it and to allow a full and frank debate on the issue. If we just brush it under the carpet and if we do not allow this bill to go forward and if we do not allow this bill to have some traction and at least see a reasonable amount of light then basically we are turning a blind eye to the “100% Pure” image of New Zealand and saying we have it but we really actually do not want to own up to some issues that we should be confronting. 
I have been involved in a lot of Resource Management Act issues over many many years through local government. I know what can occur what is good and what is bad in terms of the Resource Management Act and what can occur in terms of good and bad in terms of discharges. There are issues around discharges as we all know. There are situations where discharges are well treated. They are taken care of. Whatever is discharged into whichever waterway or into the sea or into our coastline through our sewerage systems through our water systems through our treatment plants—all these sorts of things which need long-term consents—is fully treated. But where there is a direct discharge into a waterway that is ongoing that is actually a pollutant that is bad for the environment and that is definitely having an adverse effect on our waterways and our coastlines we should address it. This member’s bill does that. It brings it to the attention of this House and every party and every member of this House should be supporting it in order to give the environment the benefit of the doubt in this first instance. Thank you.