Smith NickTASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WAIMEA WATER AUGMENTATION SCHEME) BILLSecond ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a second time.I firstly want to acknowledge MP Brett Hudson and the other Labour and National members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their work in hearing submissions on this bill carefully considering it and unanimously recommending its passage. I wish to also thank the work of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and Department of Conservation (DOC) officials and those of the Clerk's Office in helping the committee with its deliberations. The committee received 137 submissions on the bill and it was good of the select committee to travel to Richmond to directly hear from the people affected both in Nelson City and the Tasman District.This bill is about facilitating the construction of the Waimea Community Dam by enabling the Tasman District Council to purchase 1.4 hectares of LINZ riverbed and to obtain an easement over 9.7 hectares of public conservation land in the Mount Richmond Forest Park. The evidence that was heard by the committee was compelling on the significant water problems in the Waimea River over minimum flows and water quality and that the dam was the best solution. The position was advanced in submissions by both the Tasman and Nelson councils and supported by technical advice from Tonkin and Taylor the Cawthron Institute Landcare Research scientist Andrew Fenemor and former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Morgan Williams.It was actually unusual to hear Fish & Game supporting a water storage dam. The fact that we did not hear from a single water-quality scientist or river ecologist who disputed that this scheme was necessary and beneficial for the river is very telling. The submissions were equally powerful on the economic benefits of this dam to the Nelson-Tasman region. Too few people realise that secure water supplies are needed for major industries like wood processing. Nelson Pine Industries is one of Nelson's largest businesses and largest employers where it processes over a million tonnes a year of logs at the biggest medium-density fibreboard plant anywhere in the world. It processes products into laminated veneer and is dependent on that water. We should not put those sorts of jobs and industries at risk. So too for crucial businesses like Waimea Nurseries which is New Zealand's largest commercial nursery employing over 200 people.Some people may be unaware that the boysenberry capital of the world is Nelson where over 30 percent of global production and over 60 percent of New Zealand's production occurs on the Waimea Plains. So too for apple growers vineyards hop growers and many others who generate millions in exports who are totally dependent on a secure supply of water. The committee did hear from opponents to the dam which were primarily focused on its $100 million cost and how that might be shared between Government council and landowners. It is true that the cost is a stretch but the problem with those submitters opposed is that there was no alternative or credible alternative that was presented for fixing these longstanding problems in the Waimea River and on the plains.The bill has been amended by the select committee in response to submissions from Fish & Game Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand and the Walking Access Commission. Their issue was that we needed to maximise the opportunity to improve public access. This has been achieved as far as it is possible within the constraints of the scope of the bill which is only able to deal with the land that's covered in the legislation. But I would add that as a consequence of the committee's work a letter was provided by the Tasman District Council assuring Parliament that they would go to every effort to further extend public access.The other substantial amendment in the bill is with respect to the date that construction of the dam must begin. My original bill set that down for 1 January 2020 but the committee in response to submissions decided to give the project's advances a more relaxed timetable of 1 January 2025. There have also been technical amendments to the bill which I would describe as belts and braces to ensure that Treaty settlements' first rights of refusal are honoured and that if the dam does not proceed or if it is ever decommissioned in future the land reverts to its original purpose. Now in the changes that have been made around the rights of first refusal by the select committee there is a process of consultation with the eight iwi in the Nelson region and it is my intention to work with officials and with Government members to ensure that those provisions meet the belts and braces definition. What we want to ensure is that those rights of first refusal are not in any way compromised by this bill.Now the rhetoric of some—particularly the Green Party—would have New Zealanders believe that all dams are bad. This is as simplistic and wrong as those that say all dams are good. Well-designed dams in the right place are part of the solution of New Zealand's freshwater challenges. We need reminding that New Zealand has an abundance of a freshwater resource that we only extract 2 per cent of the resource and that our problems with shortages are in quite distinct areas and at particular times of the year. Storing some of the huge water flows from winter and releasing it in summer in cases like Waimea is a smart way in which to improve the environment and secure our economic well-being.The most contentious issue about the dam as I noted is the cost. Some critics claim that the way the $100 million cost is being shared between landowners ratepayers and the Government is unfair. I wish to make four points on this. Firstly it makes far more sense for water projects to be done together rather than the council for its town water supply the irrigators for the water that they need for their horticulture and for that which is required to lift the minimum flows in the river. If each did their own thing it would cost everybody a lot more. A figure I found interesting in the select committee process is that if the size of the dam was halved to a 13 million cubic metre project the costs would actually only drop by 15 percent reinforcing the economies of scale that are so common with water projects.Secondly I know of no council water project that has been as generously funded by central government. I have worked hard to maximise the contribution and I particularly want to acknowledge Crown Irrigation for the way that they have come to the party with funding. Thirdly it is entirely appropriate that the public purse contributes towards the portion of water stored for enhancing minimum flows and the public-good elements like improving fishing. Finally I'd say it's too simplistic when you're working out the cost of these projects to simplistically say how much each party gets of the water because with water as for electricity security is everything. The law states that domestic water suppliers must always take priority over others and that is why it is appropriate for the ratepayers and those householders that enjoy that security to make a contribution.The last issue I want to make is around use of public conservation land. This Parliament needs to be pragmatic. We need to realise that when DOC was formed an assortment of land was allocated to them as much because nobody else wanted it rather than necessarily that it was the highest-value conservation land. If such a dam was being proposed in the Abel Tasman National Park or Fiordland or some other piece of our premium conservation land I would take a very different view. Parliament does need to take a pragmatic response if it's going to be able to deal with issues of infrastructure for tourism and if it's going to be able to deal with issues of water and sometimes transport issues around how that land is used.Finally this bill is on a tight timetable. There are very significant financial contracts for tens of millions of dollars. It is my ambition to try and have this bill passed by Christmas and seek other members' support. Finally can I thank Labour and New Zealand First members for their support for this bill. This is the best opportunity in a generation for the people of both Nelson and Tasman to be able to address these longstanding water issues on the Waimea Plains. I commend the bill to the House and again I thank the select committee for their deliberation.