Barry Maggie: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBarry Maggie: Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17629. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. As others have said this is a member’s bill that is commendable because the member who has brought it Catherine Delahunty has done so with enormous conviction and with a lot of energy and application. Also as others have mentioned this is not a bill that is being supported by the Government. There are a number of reasons for that and I will go through them. The purpose of the bill just to reaffirm is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years so limiting it to a 5-year duration when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances. I will go on to look at what “exceptional circumstances” means how it is being defined and the attitude of the Environment Court to that. It is a very well-intentioned bill but in the opinion of the Government it will not deliver on its aim. That is why we are not supporting it.The Local Government and Environment Committee of which I am a member received a number of submissions—148 of them from various interested groups and from individuals as well. The committee heard 27 submissions and then heard hearings inWhakatāne as well as here in Wellington. Having examined this in some detail it was the view of the committee that this bill was not to be passed. I acknowledge that that is a great disappointment to the member who has presented it but let us look at why.When we look at water quality as other speakers from all sides of the House have indicated it is a very important priority to many of us. National in particular has spent a lot of time effort and money since we took the Treasury benches on ensuring that our water quality and safety and so forth have been properly looked at and examined. As the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams has said many times if you cannot measure it you cannot manage it. So we have put a lot of money into that sort of thing and a lot of rigorous processes around that as well.When we looked at the initiatives that are being looked at on a national level there is the Land and Water Forum as well as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management back in 2011. It was the view of the committee and certainly the Government that those were more effective vehicles to achieve the outcome. Nobody wants to have the dirty water and the long-standing problems that some waterways have had. But when water goes wrong it goes really wrong. It takes a very long time to put that right. It is not a quick fix in any way shape or form.Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act which this particular bill seeks to amend is very very rarely applied in discharge or in fact in coastal permits. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately. Where that section 107(2)(a) has been applied there have been only very limited incidents where permits issued under this section have resulted even in appeals to the Environment Court. In each of those cases when the Environment Court has heard them and applied a rigorous test to validate these “exceptional circumstances” which by its nature is a very narrow definition the Environment Court reaffirmed the conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. So when various cases did get to the Environment Court and were tested under exceptional circumstances it was still found to be not applicable. When we look at limiting the time frame for consents issued where that section 107 applies as proposed by this bill the feeling the belief and the analysis was that this would have no effect on the current consents and in addition to that it is not likely to affect many consents in the future given that current limited use of the section.As members of this House know only too well the Resource Management Act is progressing. We are addressing as a Government the problems in areas such asinfrastructure water and aquaculture. There are a number of initiatives coming through at this time. The Land and Water Forum frankly when it was first established under the Hon Dr Nick Smith many thought would be a complete and abject failure. How could you possibly get all of the warring factions together in one place and have them agree? These are people who barely spoke to each other. The notion that they could sit together in one room and constructively work a solution out together was considered a fanciful notion. But as it turned out it has been an outstanding success. The underlying thing is that the people who are passionate about water and believe in the purity and the sanctity of it and the use of it and its long-term sustainability and all the rest of it actually believe that more than they believed in their own political silo positions. So they were able to come together very well and that is why LAWF as it is known—the Land and Water Forum—had resulted in such outstanding achievements including that first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.The recommendations from the forum have worked very well to provide a national scientifically based framework. You always have to come back to the science on things like this. We need to deliver a reform of freshwater management in New Zealand. Yes science is something that this Government believes in very much. That is why we introduced the first-ever National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and we have spent around $101 million on water clean-up. That is just in the first 4 years of the Government compared with I think $17 million in Labour’s last 4 years. It is a fivefold increase. As well as that we have committed an extra $350 million to water clean-ups of various iconic New Zealand waterways. Those are progressing very well when you look at the other areas of New Zealand. Others may think it is not working well but a lot of this is politically motivated. We are doing a very good thing.Getting back to this bill—this bill would not solve the problem either in the local area where it is suggested and mooted for or in any other way. The Environmental Reporting Bill does represent this Government’s commitment to a step change in the way that we monitor and report on the conditions of our natural environment and that is a key manifesto that we fought the 2011—Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought we were talking about the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill not the Environmental Reporting Bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I think the member makes a very valid point.MAGGIE BARRY: Can I speak to the point of order Mr Assistant Speaker?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You most certainly are entitled to speak to the point of order but you have to call for a point of order.MAGGIE BARRY: Speaking to the point of order the reason I am elucidating on these policies is that these are the measures that are working and the select committee that considered the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill did not deliver a solution. The measures I am talking about have so that is why I am talking about them.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that she should try to speak as closely as she can to the intention of the legislation. You can draw inferences from different parts but in the main you must try to speak to the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill.MAGGIE BARRY: Sure. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take note of that.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Refer to the legislation.MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you. When the committee heard the submissions surrounding this particular piece of legislation there were certainly people in the areaand supporters of the member who put this bill forward who believed that this was the solution. But as I said we looked at the number of submissions particularly the 27 submissions and held the hearings inWhakatāne and Wellington. As the Labour members pointed out it was at the time of the funeral of the late Parekura Horomia so they were not able to be there. New Zealand First I think did attend and our members as well. I think Jacqui Dean went toWhakatāne and there were a number of our people who went. But they remained unconvinced. I think when you look at the select committee process and recognise how rigorous it is and how seriously many of us who have members’ bills before the House take the process we can fairly say that we all did our best on this but it was still not possible within the frame of reference that was put forward for us to agree to this. As I said the committee was not persuaded that this bill was the most effective way of improving the water quality but the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management did deliver and would get us around that.Section 107(2)(a) is something that has been used a few times. As I said there are a number of reasons why it should not be repealed. I think that the committee believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and also to ensure adequate long-term investment.Catherine Delahunty: What companies?MAGGIE BARRY: Well there are a lot of companies involved. You were at the select committee and recognised and acknowledged this although of course you were the one person—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! When the member uses the word “you”—MAGGIE BARRY: Indeed. I do not mean to drag you into this Mr Assistant Speaker. But certainly the committee with one exception believed that the shorter duration was not actually going to deliver. When we look at projects that involve regionally and nationally significant resources it is important that we look at something that will work. There has never been any evidence that the section that this bill seeks to repeal has been used inappropriately. Where it has been applied there were only very limited instances where permits issued under this section even got to the Environment Court. As I said when they got there they were not passed or upheld. I think that the findings of the select committee although hurtful to the member who put the bill forward are none the less where democracy sits. We did not agree with it. I do not support the bill the Government does not support the bill and nor did the select committee so I cannot therefore commend it to the House. Thank you.