Williams Andrew: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17627. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. It is always a delight to see you in the Chair.New Zealand First is taking a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill brought to the House by Green Party member Catherine Delahunty. We too commend her for her efforts with this and for her intentions in terms of the quality of the rivers in New Zealand but we are also unable to support the bill. In fact I very much thought that Jacqui Dean had written my speech because the comments that Jacqui Dean made just a couple of speeches ago were very much in unison with the feeling we have that the Resource Management Act adequately provides for this process already. The Resource Management Act is well known internationally and regarded as a very fine piece of legislation. Other judiciaries around the world and other legislative chambers often refer to our Resource Management Act as being a very fine example of covering resource management issues.In that respect I was very pleased to sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee which looked at the submissions on this back in 2012 which included some members visiting the river that was particularly referred to in terms of this the Tarawera River in the Kawerau District. It was most interesting going there. I would like to thank the hospitality of the Kawerau District Council and Malcolm Campbell the mayor there and the councillors who met with me and gave me a rundown on the whole situation. I would also like to thank members ofNorskeSkog and other local industries who were very forthcoming in terms of providing useful information.I went on the Tarawera River from the bottom right up to past the mill. I looked at the river and we took physical water samples as we went and looked at them on the completion of our journey. We also looked at scientific analysis that was provided to us in terms of the river quality. It was most interesting looking at the history of the river that indeed in the last decade and back into the 1990s and 1980s this was a very very polluted river. The old Kawerau pulp and paper mill had considerable discharges into that river which was known in those days as the “black drain”. However that is not the case today. Going up the river it was very noticeable that the river quality today is significantly hugely different from what we saw recorded in the past.It was also interesting to note a side tributary river that came down from Edgecumbe. At the point there where samples were taken the water quality was significantly worse at that junction of those two rivers where the water came down from the Edgecumbe river because Edgecumbe from its earthquake back in the last 1980s had a huge amount of its sewerage system and other piping very very badly destroyed as a result. To this veryday there is still leaching coming from the Edgecumbe area that has been undetected—and it is virtually impossible to find it all—and that is getting into that tributary river and into the Tarawera River. So as a result where often the mill is blamed for some of the past pollution and the state of that river in fact a lot of it is coming out of the Edgecumbe tributary.It is also interesting to note that in terms of this the mill meets the incredibly high standards of the review process specified by the Environment Court in terms of its consents. When the mill applied for its 35-year consent but was given a 25-year consent by the Environment Court the court set very stringent requirements on regular reviews. Those reviews require a constant downward movement in terms of discharges into the river by the mill. We saw again scientific data that showed how that had significantly reduced over the years down to a fraction of what it was back 10 15 or 20 years ago.It was also interesting to note that the mill used to provide the sewerage system for the Kawerau township and that the Kawerau township itself was a major polluter in terms of putting contaminated discharge into the mill’s treatment plant which was then discharging into the river. The mill through good corporate social responsibility built a new sewerage system for the township at its own cost a number of years ago and provided it to the township in conjunction with the district council. So its sewerage system is now completely independently handled by the district council sewerage system. Again that had a marked effect on the overall amount of discharge that was going into the river.It was also interesting to note that very big signals were given in terms of the potential impact that this bill would have on the wider New Zealand economic development situation. If resource consents and permits of this nature were restricted to only 5 years for exceptional circumstances it would have a very adverse detrimental effect on investment and industry in this country. In the situation withNorskeSkog it had just in the last few years invested $50 million in a major new machine at the paper plant there—a very significant investment in a major piece of equipment. HadNorskeSkog not had the extended permits the parent company internationally would probably have made the decision not to invest that $50 million in New Zealand.We heard from the mill management that it was up against equivalent mill management in many other countries that were similarly looking for support from the parent company for investment in their plants and equipment. The investment will certainly not go to somewhere the parent company feels it is going to have the potential for only a 5-year permit and then be required to shut down meaning it would not continue. The parent company would therefore not make the initial investment.That very grave signal to the wider New Zealand industry was certainly alarming for New Zealand First. We are a party that supports economic development and we want to see growth around New Zealand in a controlled and very responsible manner. We see that controlled and responsible manner being via the likes of the Environment Court and via the likes of the Resource Management Act which can put in place the right controls and processes to ensure that such industry and such investments are monitored in the correct way and are reported back on in an ongoing way in terms of the requirement to meet those standards.So New Zealand First will not be supporting this member’s bill. This will not have sufficient votes to be passed by this House. However we do acknowledge the member and her efforts to highlight the issues of water quality in this country. It is certainly commendable and we are all looking to improve the quality of our rivers to improve the quality of our marine environment. But at the end of the day it does have to be done in a responsible manner and it does have to be done in a holistic manner that alsoensures that we do it responsibly. New Zealand First believes that the Resource Management Act will meet that adequately. Thank you.