Dean Jacqui: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4910. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I cannot support the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill a bill that seeks to fix a river. I cannot support a bill that seeks to fix a river because the fabric of the Resource Management Act is designed to set environmental standards for water quality throughout New Zealand. 
I also want to pick up on the points that the local member Todd McClay made with regards to the Kawerau River and the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I think of the industry in my own small home town—even smaller than the one Todd was referring to—and Summit Wool Spinners. It is also a company that employs several hundred of the people of the town across many generations actually. There are up to three generations working in this company in my town in much the same way as people are working in Kawerau at the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. The fabric of the town would be torn apart if the mill in my town and if the mill in Kawerau were forced to close. So it is important to the river—yes of course it is—but it is also important to the local community. We should not ever forget that people are very important as is the health of the river. 
I also want to note tonight a few facts. I know that the Tasman Pulp and Paper Co. has got a good relationship with local iwi. In fact it is investing and in the last couple of years has developed very strong collaborative relationships with the three iwi and is concerned with further cleaning up and clarifying the river. The company Tasman Pulp and Paper has signed a memorandum of understanding with the iwi that commits $100000 a year to river projects. To me that says that that company is one that understands the impact of its activities on the river and one that is actively together with the local community and together with the local iwi committing $100000 a year to river projects. I think that speaks volumes about the company’s recognition of the fact that yes it has discharges into the Tarawera River that are causing concerns and certainly do not meet environmental standards but it is prepared to work with the local community. It is prepared to invest money in improving its water quality and improving the rate of its discharges. 
I also note that the mill is continuously working to reduce the discharge. The mill is currently discharging an average of 20 tonnes a day and that is 33 percent below the allowable limit now. Towards the end of the period of consent which was granted 3 years ago and which runs for the next 22 years I understand that the discharges at that point will be something like 80 percent below what has been consented for the period of consent. You are absolutely right: water quality is important. The mill responsible for these discharges has taken that message on board and it is doing something together with the local iwi and with the local community to reduce those discharges. It understands that it has responsibilities to the environment. 
My last point that I would like to make is that given that the consent which was granted 3 years ago runs for another 22 years any impact from this bill will not have any impact on the specific issue to which this bill refers. I cannot support this bill.