Davidson Marama; Rurawhe AdrianMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Throughout the whole reading of this the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill the Green Party remain opposed—and also in this the third reading. Actually I consider it a duty and a responsibility to stand and raise the valid concerns and to allow those concerns from community and other groups and individuals of the community to be given a fair hearing in this House alongside the values and the visions of the Green Party which go to why we are opposing this particular bill.I am very very aware—and we all are in this House—that water is life and I want to acknowledge up front the water shortage issues for both people in households and also for the economy of that region. What we are disputing here is whether or not the dam is absolutely the best solution and the longest-term solution that takes everything into account accordingly. So I'm happy to go through a number of the valid concerns raised from various groups and from the Green Party.I cannot stand in this third reading speech without raising the concern of costs to ratepayers that I know has been loud and strong throughout the entire passage of this bill. It was heard in submissions and it was seen in written submissions. Although I am not on the relevant select committee I have continued to receive particular concerns about whether the cost of this will be shared equitably; about whether there are the absolute safeguards in place for any potential blowout to ratepayers that might happen and that we have seen happen on other similar schemes both in Aotearoa and around the world; and in fact questioning whether council is absolutely upholding to the best of its ability its duty to ensure that the costs do not fall unfairly on residents and ratepayers.There are several actions and processes that I have been taken through by several submitters and I am not clear yet whether council itself is upholding the necessary full measure of checks and balances that could be put in place to at least ensure that there are fair and just benefits going back to ratepayers without the unjust actions of further costs on ratepayers; things like simple standard business credit checks of relevant shareholders and things like having a projection of whether adverse weather events—which are a feature in our world more and more—or detrimental effects of a disease on a particular product which we also are dealing with in our country are properly planned for and accounted for. So I'm really happy to raise those points in this House today as a sample of some of the valid concerns that ratepayers have.The issue of land use is paramount to this dam and no one will be surprised that this Government has actually already in fact announced a wind-down to the subsidies of large-scale irrigation projects. So that there is a signal that we ourselves as Government political parties have identified and acknowledged that we really need to think better deeper—literally deeper; below to aquifers below soils—as to the long-term effects of large-scale irrigation and the fact that it has been shown to encourage intensification of land use. What we know from that from decades of that way of making decisions over land and water is that it has not gone so well for our rivers and for our water bodies and our water tables and our aquifers. So those are fair and valid concerns.In one sense this is a plaster. This is actually a plaster to try and address those very real water shortages yes but we should also be going back a step to consider the ongoing decisions that we make about water and land use and land intensification and whether or not this dam will encourage more of those same decisions which have dirtied up our rivers. So I raise that as well.Using conservation land for commercial purposes should always be considered to the depths and the entire strength of our risk assessments—absolutely. I am aware that processes have happened through the Environment Court and that agreements have been made about biodiversity offsets and that plans have come up—I acknowledge all of that. But there is a precedent that people have raised very valid concerns around and that we must I think—to have a balanced discussion and debate—make sure that we understand.We don't know enough. There is growing acknowledgment from the scientific field and from the water community water warriors that we think we know—and I will quote Mr Patterson I think it was who said that we are a water-rich country. Well we should be but actually we have made decisions over generations where now we actually need to think about whether we are that rich when it comes to water. We have paru-ed up our rivers—we have dirtied our rivers—and we still have New Zealand households who cannot guarantee that the water out of their taps is pure and safe enough to drink. Therefore we have a duty to understand more about our water tables and our water aquifers and I don't know if anyone in this House can hand on heart say that we know exactly how long the sustainability of our pure water aquifers really is.Hon Dr Nick Smith: This will improve the river.MARAMA DAVIDSON: So I'm really proud despite the heckling on that side of the House to stand up and make a statement to that fact that we don't yet know the full strength and longevity of our aquifers.What I'm going to be very proud to stand on here today is the fact that we need overall holistic cohesive planning of the entire ecosystem of how we make water and land decisions.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What waffle—just waffle.MARAMA DAVIDSON: No one should be surprised that the Green Party has had to make that statement and I'm also not surprised that the member Nick Smith thinks this is all waffle. That sort of thinking has led us to the degradation that we are seeing in our country today. I'm really pleased to be making a plea that we actually take bigger steps back and have a look overall at the decisions we have made around land and water and soil and they have not done us the best that they possibly could have.That's why the Green Party—well some of the reasons why the Green Party—is standing proud as a sole voice in this debate to oppose the Waimea dam. What I hope for going forward—because I know that this is going through—is that we will continue to monitor the biodiversity impacts of this dam. Even though we think we've got it right that has proven to not be true when we make these decisions. We must make sure that we are not going to heap ratepayers with any future blowouts and that we monitor at every point the passage the build of this dam and the construction of this water infrastructure. For that reason I'm very proud to stand with my opposition today. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call there's a lot of chatter around the Chamber so can we keep that down? I call Dr Jian Yang—five minutes.