Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill for Nelson and for the Waimea Plains. I was lucky enough to be one of the members of the Governance and Administration Committee who travelled to Richmond to hear submissions for one full day from the community in terms of those that were going to directly benefit from this scheme and also those who were opposed. So I'm thankful for that opportunity and for those of the community who took their time to come forward and give their views. On the day it was interesting to hear the background of this piece of legislation and the fact that there have been low water flows for some time in that river catchment which is well known as being the fruit bowl of one of the main areas of Nelson and has sustained through those aquifers many agricultural industries over decades and decades within Zealand. It is those aquifers that are we are advised under threat as a result of water depletion and that provides a threat not just to residential households having a security of supply of fresh water but also a lot of those agricultural businesses which people rely upon for jobs and much of the community relies upon strongly over a long period of time. So this bill enables the construction of a dam that would enable that water to be built up and to replenish those aquifers. In fact 13.4 million cubic metres of reservoir are located behind the dam and that can be in fact released in a controlled manner during periods of high water demand and of low and natural river flows. It's intended to be able to I guess replenish the Waimea Plains over that time. It has been noted already today that the expert advice we received indicated that this was beneficial for the long term of that security of freshwater supply in that area. In the transfer of land it's interesting to note—and my colleague Stuart Nash has already mentioned—that there is an impact on iwi that still requires final confirmation. So the iwi affected within Te Tau Ihu are Ngāti Kōata Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Ngāti Kuia Rangitāne o Wairau Ngāti Toa Rangatira Ngāti Rārua Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. Those eight iwi need to have full written consent provided back to the Government to make sure that when you transfer land as this piece of legislation provides to do from Crown ownership which has a right of first refusal that can be triggered. So that land is being transferred to the Tasman District Council and the right of first refusal will be transferred along with it to local government. So we need to be reassured that those eight iwi are comfortable with that transfer and that that does not provide any side issues or any other concerns around Treaty rights in that space. It was really interesting to sit in in Richmond during that day and hear the full range of submissions and I would like to say that it was a pretty charged-up day. There were some pretty fired-up people there—and the Hon Dr Nick Smith's nodding because he actually took on a few difficult people who were not so happy with the bill on that day. I was surprised he was still smiling at the end of the day; there was some pretty rigorous opposition to the construction of the dam in that area. So the main argument made in support of this bill was the fact that it sustained the strong agricultural base that has been operating within this area for a long period of time and that that would be addressing critical water shortages. That was seen by submitters as the best solution to provide security over the next 100 years and more in that area. The economic cost to the region of not proceeding with this scheme was also highlighted by a range of submitters and the concern that many of those businesses—orchards apples—would not be able to continue to thrive without that security of water supply. Also a clear point that was made was ensuring that the needs of stakeholders in improving water quality would be reassured—that by having the dam in place and replenishing those aquifers it would ensure that there was a high quality of water. Another point made by I think Fish & Game if I remember correctly was that while this legislation provides to transfer conservation land the Crown land it is relatively small and of limited conservation value. One of the changes that was recommended and has been carried out is to ensure that there is access to the public. That was raised by submitters on that day and we've made sure that all possible actions are taken to ensure public access to that land. It was interesting to hear from farmers who had been third and fourth generations who had continued to make a living on that land and to hear their concerns that they wanted to make sure that their businesses would continue to thrive in the future. There were views from those who had businesses that there was adequate consultation carried out by the Tasman District Council but that funnily enough was the main protest point of those who did not want this bill to proceed. There were deep concerns that the consultation process undertaken by the Tasman District Council was insufficient and 67 submissions in fact raised concerns about that consultation process. There was very strong opposition to the fact that people did not want this dam to proceed and I acknowledge those who took the time and were really passionate about this for the area not wanting to see it proceed. A key component of that concern of not wanting the dam to proceed was opposition to the financial impact of the dam. So submitters note that in recent years the estimated cost of building has surged from $26 million to $102 million and they are concerned that that will be borne by ratepayers who won't directly benefit from the construction of this dam. In the words of some it was seen that those farmers on the land were benefiting from the ratepayers' contribution to a dam that they would not see a direct benefit from. The Waimea scheme is for the benefit of urban and commercial water supply and will have economic and environmental benefits for the local community particularly within the Tasman District Council area but also in the Nelson City Council area as well. We take the view that if the Tasman District Council wishes to proceed with this and this is a local issue which has been voted on it is for the local community to determine the best way forward. So the Waimea scheme has been controversial—that's well noted and I saw that up close and personal on the day especially as to that cost. But Labour's position has been that the future of the scheme is in local hands with it being over to the Tasman District Council and other local interests to decide whether the scheme proceeds or not. This has been resolved by the Tasman District Council vote and I note that two votes were taken: on 28 August 2018 councillors voted by a narrow margin to abandon the project over the ballooning price but on 6 September 2018 councillors voted 9:5 in favour for the dam to proceed in light of the new funding model that had been reached after working with investors.So the Government's financial support for the scheme is subject to normal contractual conditions being met and to financial close as has already been noted being reached by 15 December and details need to be reached to work through this. So it will be interesting to see whether we can continue to get all the paperwork completed in time and the final requirements for this bill done in the final members' day of this sitting session. So without further ado I wish all of the people in Tasman and the Nelson area all the best for the future with this exciting proposition. I think it holds great promise for jobs for industry and for those that have farmed the land for a long time. I commend this bill to the House.