Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koutou katoa. This is our vision, our hope, and our commitment—a river is not a drain. “Exceptional circumstances” do not include the permanent use of a river as a drain because it is cheap and it is convenient. What about jobs—I hear the mantra. Well, let us ask the FIRST Union—it submitted on my bill—because we can have clean rivers and we can have jobs. Crime can create jobs. Environmental crime can create jobs but not good jobs. We can do a whole lot better than that.

This bill is about section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act, which is arguably breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi in terms of its abuse of rivers and river peoples, especially when you are comparing up to 150,000 tonnes of black, foaming, sewage-contaminated chlorinated pollution from the 1950s with the current dirty brown effluent now contaminated only with pine resin acids and bleach chemicals of unknown effects in 2014. Therefore, this bill represents the Greens’ commitment, and my personal commitment, to cleaning up the law and to cleaning up rivers. We have waited a long time, as have the people of the Bay of Plenty and the people of Tai Rāwhiti, to make sure that section 107(2)(a) is amended to put a time limit on the phrase “exceptional circumstances”. We are committed to pursuing this irrespective of the outcome—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! One and half minutes has been consumed. The member’s time has now expired.

I welcome the opportunity to stand and speak to this member’s bill in the name of Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I thank her for bringing this issue to Parliament and, indeed, to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We do have some bad news for her, though. Although she put this bill tirelessly to us—and the select committee certainly did a tremendous amount of work on it, hearing 27 submissions, holding hearings in Whakatāne and Wellington—as a committee we came to the majority belief that, in fact, this legislation is not necessary. So National will not be supporting it in the second reading here this evening.

National does not support this bill. We understand that the purpose of this bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued, when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances, to 5 years. Those circumstances were exceptional in all the cases we investigated. The Environment Court confirmed this and we see no reason to change the law.

People understand pretty clearly in New Zealand that National does know how important the environment is to New Zealanders and to our quality of life. It is central to our international reputation, our primary sector, our growing tourism market, and, of course, our economy. We are delivering on our promise to make the Resource Management Act a law that better balances environmental protection and economic growth. The Resource Management Act is not a tool for extreme environmental activists to stop growth, to rid the country of jobs, and to involve themselves in economic destruction. It is an important law. The key factor behind our ongoing Resource Management Act reforms is a drive to ensure enduring outcomes while reducing the time, costs, and uncertainty involved in the process. That is, of course, what we are doing.

So we came to this bill as a select committee and we received and considered 148 submissions from interested groups and individuals, as well as three form submissions comprising 18 individuals. The committee heard 27 submissions, as I said, in both Whakatāne and Wellington. We have examined the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and we recommended that it is not passed. That is where I will be casting my vote this evening.

In regard to the water quality issues, which were the sort of high-level issues that we examined, we were not persuaded as a committee that this bill is the most effective way, in fact, of improving water quality. Rather, initiatives at a national level such as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management are more likely to be effective in driving regions, districts, local communities, catchments, and individuals into making good decisions about what they do in their environment, which eventually leads to effects on water quality.

On the exceptional circumstances issue that was raised at the select committee and by the member Catherine Delahunty, it was questionable whether exceptional circumstances were a good reason to allow discharge permits. Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act has been used only a few times, and in each case the Environment Court has actually applied a stringent test and considered time frames. Each case has also involved detailed discussions about what constitutes exceptional circumstances, including these considerations: something out of the ordinary or unusual or not typical, a substantial investment, projects that involve a regionally or nationally significant resource, projects that of their nature rely on the use of a waterway, and projects that will contribute to resilience to national hazards.

That gives a very broad scope of consideration indeed. To narrow these things down simply to direct environmental consequences is not wise, particularly when many of these discharge permits are brief and due to unforeseen circumstances. The committee also believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and ensure adequate long-term investment.

In summary, the Government’s resource management reforms are about ensuring that we manage our resources more effectively and efficiently to deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations. It is a balance. That is why we are a centre-right party. We look at both sides of the argument. We are looking for a way through to solutions and a balanced approach. We are not part of sort of an extreme movement on one side, driving only one agenda. We are the type of party that you would like to run your country or your business or your family. We are not sort of mad-out on one side.

The Government is currently in the second phase of its Resource Management Act reforms, and addressing whether this particular section needs to be amended should be part of a well-thought-out Resource Management Act reform package. Section 107(2)(a), which this bill seeks to amend, is rarely applied in discharge or coastal permits, as I discussed before. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately or in a widespread manner. I mean, case law examples of where the permits have been brought before councils and the courts are very few. It was so easy for our committee to dissect them, because they were so few in number.

Where section 107(2)(a) has been applied, there have been only limited instances where permits issued under the section have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. In each case, the Environment Court has applied a rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances definition and reaffirm conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. In other words, when the permits issued were tested on appeal to the courts by litigants concerned about what was going on, sensible people sitting in the judicial hierarchy looked at all the information and arguments and the science and took it upon themselves to make a decision that essentially said that all was well.

In addition, this proposal to limit the time frame for consents issued where section 107(2)(a) applies would have no effect on current consents. So there is no way to use the legislation in looking back retrospectively to consents that are already granted that the member claims there are problems with. This is not the tool for Catherine Delahunty to fix problems that she perceives to be in existence at the moment under current permits, because it cannot do that. It cannot do that retrospectively. In addition, it is not likely to affect many consents in the future, given the current limited use of the section. As I expressed, historically consents under these permit conditions are not often sought and not often given.

National’s reform programme has been about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act processes, providing stronger central government direction, and addressing problems in areas such as infrastructure, water, aquaculture, and agriculture. We are not in the business of making resource management law more complicated and more difficult for environmentalists, businesses, and Joe Kiwi to understand. We want the process to be simple and accessible, not more complex. I am afraid that introducing legislation like this to the House makes things more complicated and difficult for people. That is not what this Parliament supports and certainly not what voters supported when they put this Parliament together to form a National-led Government with a particular view. I do say that we will be voting against this bill in the second reading. I cannot commend the bill to the House, although I acknowledge Catherine Delahunty’s work.

Contrary to what the previous speaker, Phil Heatley, just said, I do not think that the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill is a very complicated piece of legislation at all. I do not think that changing a time frame in a piece of legislation is particularly complicated. It might be complicated for Mr Heatley, but, in fact, it is quite a simple change in that regard.

This bill does amend section 107 of the Resource Management Act and it aims to limit the period for which a consent can be issued in what are called exceptional circumstances to a 5-year maximum from the current maximum of 35 years in the Act. Thirty-five years is simply the default position in the Resource Management Act, so if you do not define another time frame, then in the Act it is automatically 35 years. So 35 years was not chosen for any particular special reason; it is simply just the default provision of the Resource Management Act.

As Phil Heatley said in his speech, the way this particular section 107 of the Resource Management Act has been applied has been upheld by the Environment Court. I find it very interesting that Minister Heatley said we should therefore never ever pass legislation where a court has made a determination, because I sincerely hope, and my colleague Ruth Dyson would agree with me, that the Government continues to uphold the board of inquiry decision on the Ruataniwha Dam, which would have turned the Tukituki River toxic. I sincerely hope that it is going to abide by Minister Heatley’s comments—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: No, no, he’s not a Minister now.

—oh, sorry, the former Minister Heatley’s comments that we should just stand by these decisions and not overturn them, and that we will not see any legislation from the National Government in this House that overturns the board of inquiry decision on Ruataniwha, in much the same way as it overturned the court decision on paid family caregivers. But consistency has never been one of Mr Heatley’s strong points, so I am prepared to let that slide.

This bill came about—and I want to commend the member Catherine Delahunty not just for the bill but for the years and decades of work that she has actually put into the issue of the Tarawera River in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Of course, this bill, if it passes, will not impact on the consent that the mill on the Tarawera River has been given. It still has another 21 years to run of a 25-year consent. It applied for 35; it got 25. That was 4 years ago, so there are still 21 years to run. This bill will not impact on that consent, but it could potentially impact on future applications for consent.

It should be acknowledged that the Tarawera River has gone, basically, to hell and back, really, in terms of what a river can cope with. In 1954 there was an Act of Parliament that was written that actually had the explicit purpose of enabling the mill to discharge waste into the river. It really is unthinkable that Parliament would pass that kind of legislation today, but it did in the 1950s. Before I came into Parliament I was a team leader of a persistent organic pollutants laboratory. We tested organochlorines and we tested a lot of product from mills around the country to make sure that the kinds of chemicals that were being used in the past that persist in the environment for a long time—which are very expensive to remediate and which are damaging to human health and to the health of animals and to anyone who uses the river—are not being used again.

In 1954 that Act of Parliament was passed, and the river did, basically, as it was called, become a “black drain”. In 2004 the Bay of Plenty Regional Council actually came up with a catchment plan for the river, because of the concerns. It was not just the mill, actually, in this river; there was the Kawerau waste water, which was all going into the Tarawera River at the time. There is geothermal on the river, as well as natural geothermal vents in the river that do affect water quality. There were still broken pipes leaching into the river from the Edgecumbe earthquake. There was runoff, obviously—nutrient runoff, and also forestry. So all these things were impacting on the health of this particular river.

In 2004 a catchment plan was developed. The health of the Tarawera River is very different today from when it was considered a “black drain”. Even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that it is no longer really valid to call it the “black drain” any more, because there has been significant improvement in the river, although, as with all these things, there is still a way to go. In 2004 the catchment plan was put in place. In 2010 the mill applied for its consent under section 107 of the Resource Management Act.

Members have talked about—and I just want to put it on the table that I was very sorry that I could not get to the submission hearings in Whakatāne, as were members of the Labour Party. We were not able to have any members there because that was, of course, the week of our colleague Parekura Horomia’s tangi, so all of the Labour members were in Ūawa. That was actually very unfortunate because I think we would have benefited enormously. We acknowledge that we were not able to be there to hear the submissions, and so that has made it more difficult for us to make a determination on the bill or to hear all the points of view, particularly from those people who live around that particular river.

Sorry, I should have said at the outset that we will be supporting this bill at the second reading. I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 422 in my name, for the Committee stage, around the time frame, and I will come to that when I discuss the time frame a little bit further on.

This bill is not about whether or not there should be an emergency discharge provision in the Resource Management Act, because this bill does not get rid of the emergency discharge provision. This bill is about the maximum allowable time frame for that provision to be accessed. As we have said before, it takes it from a maximum of 35 years down to 5 years.

As environment spokesperson, I have to say I get a little bit nervous around a piece of legislation as important as the Resource Management Act and about making wholesale changes to it from Opposition, particularly when we were not able to hear submissions, because there may well be unintended consequences. We went to the member in charge of the bill, Catherine Delahunty, and said to her that we are a bit nervous that 35 years to 5 years might be too strict, but we would be prepared to go to 15 years as a maximum right now, because that allays our concerns that there might be unintended consequences. It gives us that wiggle room when there is uncertainty. So Supplementary Order Paper 422 in my name is to change the maximum time frame in the legislation from a maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 15 years. We believe that going from a maximum of 35 years to 15 years actually is a significant improvement.

The member in charge of the bill does not agree, and that is absolutely her right. I completely respect her decision and I thank her for engaging with us and negotiating with us in really good faith. We were not able to come to an agreement, but this is an issue. The health of our waterways is an issue, so we did not want to just vote against the bill because we did not come to some agreement with the member in charge of the bill. We want to be able to support it at second reading and say that in the Committee stage we will test the House on my Supplementary Order Paper 422, which extends that time frame out and allows more time for those resource consent conditions to be met.

I also want to point out that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who supports this bill, did make the point in her submission: “Clearly there can be cases where it will take time and a great deal of expenditure to treat discharges to an acceptable level. But if it is not practicable to meet a particular standard at the end of 5 years, there is nothing to prevent an application for a second consent.” That is absolutely correct, and that is really, I think, kind of the crux of where this bill is at. It is possible that there will be times when a 5-year consent period is too strict. Sure, a company could come back and apply for another 5-year consent. Our concern with that is that it may actually be cheaper for it to up sticks and leave, and leave a polluted river for ratepayers and taxpayers to clean up, than to potentially go through the process of trying to access the capital that it needs, often from overseas, to remedy the problem.

That was one of our concerns—that the 5-year time frame might actually result in us being left with rivers to clean up ourselves if it is easier and cheaper for a company to say: “Well, you know, we can go and invest this money in New Zealand on these environmental matters and then within 5 years we may have to apply for another consent, which we may not get. Part-way through we may have spent money that ends up being stranded.” So from our perspective, we thought that if you went to 15 years, you do not have that issue as you do with a 5-year consent period.

Again, I would say we were also nervous about just plucking a time frame out of the air without being able to, from Government, actually look at all the reasons why you might pick a certain time frame. So we have gone from 35 years to 5 years. I note that when the Green Party made its submission on the resource consent, it called for 10 years as a maximum for that particular consent. I get a bit nervous about just plucking figures out of the air and saying that this is the magic number, particularly when it comes to a piece of legislation as important as the Resource Management Act. But as I have said, I congratulate Catherine Delahunty on bringing this bill to the House and for her work on the Tarawera River.

If this bill is to pass tonight through its second reading, as I said, my Supplementary Order Paper 422 is on the Table. It takes the maximum consent period from 35 years to 15 years, which I think is very reasonable. It allays a number of the concerns the National Party was outlaying, but it also would give far more certainty for the environment, and so I urge members to support that Supplementary Order Paper.

I too commend Catherine Delahunty for bringing the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill to the House. I think the member brought the bill to the House with an obviously genuine desire and love for the Tarawera River, a love for the communities, and a deeply held belief that the current regime around, perhaps, the practice of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill and the legislation as it stands was failing that particular waterway. I hope I am encapsulating what Catherine Delahunty brought to the House.

I have to say that National will not support this bill, and I will seek to set out my interpretation of the reasons why. I think the member who has just resumed her seat, Moana Mackey, with her comments around the time frame, really came to the crux of the matter. We believe, as the National Party, that a 5-year time frame, inserted into section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act, where discharges are allowed under exceptional circumstances—if that time frame were narrowed down to 5 years, that would place those companies affected by it in an untenable situation.

Again, we can have that discussion about whether economic activity outweighs environmental concerns. Yes, absolutely, we can have that discussion. I would argue that that discussion is very much part of this Government’s work around reform of the Resource Management Act and is very much at the forefront of our thinking. In fact, we have made several legislative changes to make the Resource Management Act more responsive, more timely, and more efficient and its operation smoother so that we can address concerns like this.

But we have got to come back to the Kawarau River because that is the genesis of this member’s bill, and it is a good member’s bill because it has been brought to the House with a genuine desire to make a situation better for the water quality of that river. A number of members of Parliament, as well as the normal procedure that we go through when considering a member’s bill, received and heard submissions in various places around New Zealand. A number of members variously took visits to have a look at the river. I, with a number of colleagues, spent some time on the river having a look at water quality and discussing with representatives of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill its response to those concerns around water quality and how it was dealing with those concerns, both as a company in terms of the company practice but also in terms of compliance with the permit it had under the Resource Management Act.

I acknowledge and agree that the Tarawera River was formerly described as a “black drain”—have I got the terminology right? A “black drain”—and I believe that it was. I believe that all sorts of toxins were being discharged into the river from the various industrial activities along the course of that river, as well as some other naturally forming pollutants further down the river from the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. I recall there was an outfall as you head looking up the river on the right-hand side—some geothermal discharges. I might not be quite right, but there are some other natural pollutants going into the river.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Yeah, that’s right.

Thank you. The member is helping me from way over on the Green side. So it is acknowledged by everyone that formerly that river was very much abused as a result of industrial activity but also by human habitation and some natural pollutants. Yes, it was a “black drain” and, yes, the water quality was appallingly bad, much to the detriment of the local communities along that river. The river is their home. The river is where they live their lives and they have their familial ties. The local communities feel very strongly about their river, where they catch eels, fish, and have their recreation and swimming. It is their river. Of course they had been concerned about the previous state of the river, but I also believe that that was a long time ago and that steadily, over the years, water quality in the Tarawera River has been improving.

We also observed on our trip from the mill down to virtually the mouth of the river and then back up again the varying levels of water quality, which are largely, these days, down to the amount of tannins occurring as a result of the industrial activity at the mill, but also occurring naturally because of the nature of the surrounding countryside and the leachates going into the river. There was certainly a colour variation. The water was at various stages yellower than at other stages, but it was explained to us and demonstrated to us that those colours were tannins and non-toxic. However—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Ha, ha! Non-toxic!

—yes, the member is laughing at me; OK. They were naturally occurring tannins but still of concern to the local community. So we saw for ourselves that, yes, this stretch of water—possibly not unique in New Zealand, although, luckily, not common in New Zealand—absolutely has been badly affected by the economic activity, which, by the way, has also provided many jobs to the local community over a number of generations. So although we are considering water quality in this bill, let us not forget that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has provided jobs for a number of generations in that community as well. Let us just keep that in our minds. It is not a reason not to clean up the river, but it is something we should always keep in our minds.

To the bill itself—section 107(2) of the Resource Management Act, which allows discharges into water under exceptional circumstances, is a provision that has been very rarely used in New Zealand. It is not a provision of the Resource Management Act that is in common usage, and, indeed, the number of years for which there can be exceptional circumstances allowing discharges is never very clearly defined. In fact, permits can be for as long as up to 35 years, which generally is about the common term in a discharge permit.

In this bill Catherine Delahunty seeks to narrow the length of time for a permitted discharge down to 5 years, and that is a laudable aim except for a couple of things. In the case of the Tarawera River, the current Resource Management Act permit and the conditions imposed on the owners of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill require them to have a constant, steady, and aggressive programme of improving water quality. So if the aim of this bill is to improve water quality, then, yes, it does, but so do the current provisions in the Resource Management Act. For mainly that reason, it was believed on this side of the House that this bill, laudable though it is in its aims, would do more harm than good.

Let us go back to those jobs. Let us go back to that economic activity that has been carried out for generations in that small part of New Zealand that is working so hard to attract business into its area. I say, and I believe that it has to be acknowledged, that a focus on water quality is happening now under current rules around the permit that the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill has. So, on balance, we could call it 15 years, and there is a Supplementary Order Paper for that on the Table, Supplementary Order Paper 422, but, actually, even 15 years does not give enough certainty for anyone who wishes to start up a business and has this provision in the Resource Management Act hanging over their head. Well, hang on a minute. You might invest $10 million into an activity, but in 5 years’ time, that is it—you are going to have to pack up your bags. That is a disincentive. I do not believe that we should do that, because I do not believe that it is necessary.

The National Party does not support this bill but does congratulate the member on bringing the bill to the House with a genuine desire to do what we all want to do, and that is improve water quality in New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I join to take a short call in support of this member’s bill presented by Catherine Delahunty, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I join this side of the House and our spokesperson Moana Mackey, who lay out her contribution in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 422, around amending the permits from the 5 years proposed in Catherine Delahunty’s bill to what we believe is a workable solution, which is a 15-year target.

No one is going to argue that the quality of our waters is not one of the critical issues facing everybody in this country. We all have memories and enjoyment of swimming in rivers or in the sea. I hope to do that, and my grandchildren hope to do that. The issue of water quality is a responsibility for all of us, and more so as we make legislation in this House. So I do want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty for her intention to bring a bill to the House that, at the heart of it, is addressing water quality, particularly around the awa of Tarawera. I do want to pay tribute to her for that move she has undertaken. But, like I said, my colleague Moana Mackey has made it clear that Supplementary Order Paper 422 is our attempt to support Catherine’s underline by allowing a bit more wriggle room in terms of the permit period.

I want to say that I am not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. In reading the select committee’s report, I do note that there was a decision by the select committee not to pass this piece of legislation, but, obviously, there was a minority view in there presented by, obviously, the Green members about why the committee should pass it. Can I just make an observation about achieving consensus in select committees and acknowledge the role of the Māori Affairs Committee as maybe a model for the Local Government and Environment Committee to try to tackle what are really critical issues like water quality.

I do not want to go too much into the detail of the bill, because that has been ably covered by my colleague Moana Mackey. Suffice it to say that we are supporting this bill, with the Supplementary Order Paper, to the Committee stage, where we can debate it more. Rest assured that on this side, Labour totally supports water quality. In fact, we want to assure people in the House and those who are listening that we support a comprehensive adoption of the Land and Water Forum recommendation to improve water quality throughout New Zealand, along with looking at resource rentals to ensure that our rivers throughout New Zealand are improved. Kia ora tātou.

Ah! It is the honourable member Andrew Williams.

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 of Norske Skog 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 very day 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 with Norske Skog, 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. Had Norske Skog 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 also ensures that we do it responsibly. New Zealand First believes that the Resource Management Act will meet that adequately. Thank you.

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 in Whakatāne 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 as infrastructure, 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.

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.

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.

Sure. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take note of that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Refer to the legislation.

Thank you. When the committee heard the submissions surrounding this particular piece of legislation, there were certainly people in the area and 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 in Whakatāne 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 to Whakatāne, 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?

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”—

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.

I have seen a lot of people saying on social media this evening: “Why is the National Party filibustering? Why did those members all speak for 10 minutes on the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill?”. The reason is very simple. It is that National Party members do not want to get to Sue Moroney’s bill that extends paid parental leave. It is extraordinary that they are not prepared to do that, because I think they are going to lose the vote when it gets to that bill, and it would be a fantastic thing, particularly for the parents of young children.

💬 Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members opposite were very concerned to bring the previous speaker back to the purpose of the bill. This member has not even begun to mention the bill, and the point she has just made is totally incorrect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just advise the House that whenever there is any debate, it is generally the convention that the Speaker will allow the person a minute or a couple of minutes just to respond to the previous speaker. I think that is what the member was doing. And then she will be coming to order.

I will come immediately to the bill at hand because I want to commend the member Catherine Delahunty for her work on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, which has a very snappy title. I commend her not just for the work that she has done in bringing this bill to the House but for the work that she has done over decades to promote conservation and environmental values not just in her own community but throughout the country.

Labour supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and, unfortunately, as my colleague Moana Mackey said, we were unable to participate in a critical part of the hearings that were held in Whakatāne, because they were during the tangi of our colleague Parekura Horomia, which means it was a year ago. It has been almost exactly a year since this bill was at the select committee for those hearings. We had some difficulties with some parts of the bill, most particularly a very important part, and that is the length of time that you might allow for a discharge to be permitted. It is on that particular issue that our support hangs or falls, and that is why my colleague Moana Mackey has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 422, which extends the time to 15 years. If that Supplementary Order Paper is supported, then Labour will be able to support the bill and, hopefully, further progress it. I certainly hope that that Supplementary Order Paper is passed and we are able to continue our support.

Another point that was made earlier in the evening was again from my colleague Moana Mackey when she talked about the broader issue of water quality. One of the hot topics of debate over recent months has been that of Plan Change 6 by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in relation to the Ruataniwha Dam on the Tukituki River. One of the rumours that is running rampant around Wellington is that there have been significant lobbying efforts made to National Ministers for them to change the law to overturn the determination of the board of inquiry that considered that Plan Change 6 in Hawke’s Bay. I just want to put it on the record that it would be an outrage if this Parliament considered in the dying days of the current Government a change to the law that overturned a determination of a board of inquiry. The board of inquiry was really concerned about water quality, which is the whole point of this bill, and to have a process that is being undertaken in another part of the country but completely parallel to the intentions of this bill that some National Ministers are considering overturning by law would, I think, be a breach of the morality, if not the process, of the Environmental Protection Authority and the board of inquiry.

I just want to conclude by again commending Catherine Delahunty. She has consistently progressed matters such as are outlined in this bill. I hope that Supplementary Order Paper 422, which has been proposed, is passed and we are therefore able to continue our support for this bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill, for the second reading. I am afraid to say that I find this rather a strange bill because it purports to reduce the effect on the Tarawera River but, of course, it would not have any impact for at least 22 years, because it is not retrospective. Tasman Pulp and Paper got a 25-year consent only recently, so for 22 years it would not have any impact. A lot of the submitters whom we heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee seemed to think that if this bill was passed, something substantial would change within 5 years and were confused. This bill sets out to do something in 22 years.

The other thing is that, ultimately, the select committee was convinced that the bill was trying to provide a solution to a problem that does not really exist, given the utility of section 107(2) already in the Resource Management Act. The advice we were given was certainly that the 5-year limit on consents granted under section 107(2) would not provide sufficient time for investment certainty for businesses, especially in the situation where technology to reduce the pollution further does not yet exist, such as in Tasman Pulp and Paper. The advice we received was that the current ability of the Environment Court to assess each consent on its merits and tailor the consent solutions accordingly is more flexible and fit for purpose than an arbitrary 5-year limit.

It was interesting hearing some of the submissions. One of them was from Contact Energy. The committee was intrigued and very concerned because this bill does not relate just to the Tarawera River and Tasman Pulp and Paper; it would apply right throughout the country. We were interested that Contact Energy had relied on this provision in section 107(2) in the consent of Wairākei geothermal power developments. We asked Contact Energy what it would have done if it had not been able to use section 107(2) and the reply was very illuminating. It said that it had really only two other options. One was greater discharge into the Waikato River as a result of its geothermal power generation, and given the environmental policy of reducing those discharges, that would have been difficult to achieve and not really an option.

So the only other practice was to increase its level of planned re-injection into the field. The problem with that is that it would have put the reservoir at risk of premature cooling because of the likely returns of cooler injectate intersecting the hot production fluid before the injectate had travelled a sufficient distance through the hot rock to reheat it. The net effect—and I will not go into the geothermal details of it—would be the risk that the productive life of the Wairākei Tauhara geothermal system would have been shortened, perhaps by many years, had all the injectate been required to go back into the field. Of course, if that was the case, then, indeed, the whole economics of the project would have been put into question.

Similarly, if this bill had been passed and there was a 5-year limit on any future consents, we asked what impact that would have on geothermal developments. Again, we got a pretty clear response that because each geothermal system is different and responds differently, then it is very difficult in the undeveloped systems of the Taupō volcanic zone to have any great confidence that the elimination options to respond to the characteristics of particular systems would be able to be worked out within a 5-year period. The net result of that would be that a 5-year grace period would be insufficient to enable an alternative to be developed to reduce discharges, so a 5-year limit would effectively be a decline of a consent.

I go into this detail because I think it is very interesting. What we heard here today were speeches by New Zealand First, and for the first time since I have been in Parliament I found myself enjoying listening to one of Andrew Williams’ speeches and I thought he spoke very well on this topic. New Zealand First members were quite strong in their conclusion that they could not support this bill because, first, the current regime was adequate and, second, they did not want to be stopping development in this country. But the surprising thing is that the Labour Party, which generally—certainly in the past—was more mainstream in its thinking about these things, seems to be chasing the Green Party further and further into the extremes of New Zealand politics in support of this bill. So it is not surprising to me that Shane Jones has left. Why would you want to be an economic development Minister in a coalition that does not believe in economic development?

Then you have this extraordinary contradiction in what they are talking about. So we hear a great deal about the Labour Party policies, for example, around power. Members say they are very keen to reduce the cost of power, and yet here we have them, red-handed, supporting a bill that would quite clearly increase the cost of power generation and make it far more difficult to come up with renewable electricity in the geothermal space, because they want to follow everything that the Greens come up with. So I find it hard to reconcile those two sorts of things. On the one hand you are keen to have cheaper electricity, but here, again, is another example of being willing to pass all sorts of legislation and regulation that increases the cost of power. They do not seem to see the contradiction in what they are saying there.

National does not support this bill. We stand strongly behind good environmental regulation for New Zealand. The Resource Management Act is quite detailed in its law. It balances the protection of the environment with economic growth, and streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act is important. But the most important thing in regulation is that businesses that are looking to create opportunities for jobs and economic growth in this country, upon which we all rely, have some measure of certainty and have some ability to cope with complex situations, such as those that you face with geothermal developments. If politicians come in and pass laws that put a straitjacket around all potential development and reduce that flexibility, then the consequence is obvious. It is going to be less investment, fewer jobs, more expensive electricity, and fewer options for New Zealand workers. I do not support that in any way, shape, or form.

I finish by just reminding everyone, however, that although this Government has made a huge amount of progress on water quality issues generally across the country through such initiatives as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011, yes, it takes a long time. These things do not happen overnight, because there is a lot of talk and the issues are not easy to resolve, but at least we are making some progress. Beyond our shores I would like to, in the ocean’s sense—this is the party that brought in the exclusive economic zone legislation where there had been none, and, again, we receive great lectures from the other side about oil and gas exploration. Well, when other parties were previously in Government, they had nothing in place when they were passing all sorts of exploration permits. So I think this Government has a very strong record to stand on, in terms of environmental legislation and the contribution that we have made. But this bill, unfortunately, would not affect anything in the Tarawera area for 22 years. It would affect potential investment in geothermal power, and we do not support it. Thank you.

The question is that the—

💬 Su’a William Sio: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh, you have to be quick. Is the member seeking a call?

💬 Su’a William Sio: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Su’a William Sio. Malo le soifua.

Malo le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker. I apologise for that. I will not take too much of the House’s time in terms of this particular bill, the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the author of the bill, Catherine Delahunty, and accept the fact that the view she is advocating through this bill is genuine. I think that on this side of the House, Labour is also of the view that it is important that as a country we do protect our nation’s rivers and our waterways, and that we ought to be aiming to ensure that the quality of our water is improved. This is one of the reasons why Labour supported this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

I note that a total of 147 submissions were made from industry, from Māori organisations, from NGOs, and from professional groups. A significant number of those submissions were from individuals, but we also had submissions from five local government regional councils. By and large, the two areas of concern that were raised in those submissions were the Tarawera River and the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill. The Tasman Pulp and Paper mill, which this bill focuses directly on, received resource consents under the Resource Management Act, under section 107(2)(a), on two occasions: first in 1995 and again in 2009. In 2009 the consent went to the Environment Court and the High Court. I just want to read from the report: “The Environment Court’s decision took into account the assessment of the effects of a discharge on the river, the long-held and positive economic and social importance of the pulp and paper mill, both regionally and nationally, the critical dependence of the mill on the river for water and as a discharge medium, the significant capital outlay in the industry, including measures to improve the volume and quality of discharges to the river, and that the initial setting up of the industry on that site had been under a special enabling Act of Parliament.”

It seems to me that although there is general agreement on most parts of the bill, the one area that seems to be a bone of contention is really the term, or the years, that the bill attempts to try to address. Although it argues that it should limit the discharge rights to 5 years, the present situation with the bill is that the pulp and paper mill is able to discharge for 35 years, and that has been approved through the courts. So from a Labour Party perspective, I totally agree with the aim of the need to protect our rivers and our waterways, but we also need to balance that out with the needs of the communities in terms of jobs. That is why Labour is proposing a compromised option of a limit of 15 years and has submitted Supplementary Order Paper 422 to reflect this.

As this bill is not retrospective, it will not deliver, in our view, the result that most people in favour of the bill were seeking—that is, a restriction of the Tasman Pulp and Paper mill permit, which will still have 22 years left to go on its permit if this bill is passed. As I said earlier, presently there is a limit of 35 years on the amount of time this permit may be issued for in exceptional circumstances under section 107(2)(a). It does not seem in keeping with the intention of this section that exceptional circumstances include permits of 35 years. However, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said when she submitted on this bill, 5 years would not be a sufficient period of time for all potential users of this section. Although we would regret it, if a compromise of 15 years is not accepted through the Supplementary Order Paper, we would obviously then vote against the bill.

Finally, I just want to say that Labour supports the comprehensive adoption of the Land and Water Forum recommendations to improve water quality throughout New Zealand, along with looking at resource rentals to ensure that our rivers throughout New Zealand are improved. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, e te rangatira, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege and an honour to stand to take a call on the second reading of the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. However, this bill came in prior to my arrival in Parliament. But, along with my colleagues, I would like to congratulate the Green Party member Catherine Delahunty on bringing the bill into the House. I would like to remind our colleagues here in the House that Catherine Delahunty’s mahi amongst the Māori communities is extremely well known, and the mahi that her whānau have done too is also extremely well known and very much appreciated and quite revered. So mihi atu ki a koe mō tō mahi me te mahi o tō whānau hoki.

[So I acknowledge you and your work, and that of your family as well.]

It is, however, unfortunate that National will not be supporting this bill. I agree with my colleagues that the support for this bill is not forthcoming on a number of levels, and those have been explained and clarified and reinforced by my colleagues. The purpose of the bill is to limit the time period for which a discharge permit or a coastal permit may be issued to 5 years, when a permit to discharge is deemed necessary due to exceptional circumstances. However, National knows how important the environment is to all New Zealanders. At present we have a very good working relationship with a number of iwi, including Ngāi Tahu and Tainui, to name just two, around this very issue and around the environment and around conservation. Therefore, the policies that we currently have in place are very well suited for iwi in order for them to determine and to define what is relevant for them in their contextual areas and in their space and on their rohe.

We are also delivering on our promise to make the Resource Management Act a law that better balances environmental protection with economic growth. Streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act is an important part of the Government’s programme. A key factor behind our ongoing Resource Management Act reform is the drive to achieve enduring outcomes while reducing the time, cost, and uncertainties involved in the process. We know that to be effective, because of the feedback that we are getting from many of the iwi around the motu.

The Local Government and Environment Committee, as we have heard, received and considered around 148 submissions from interested rōpū and individuals, as well as three submissions comprising 18 individuals. The committee heard 27 submissions and held hearings in Whakatāne and here in Whanganui-a-Tara—in Pōneke. The select committee has examined the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill and, as my colleagues have said earlier, we recommended that it not be passed. The committee was not persuaded that this bill is the most effective way of improving water quality. Rather, initiatives at a national level such as the Land and Water Forum and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 are likely to be more effective vehicles.

Section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act has been used only a few times, and in each case the Environment Court has applied a stringent test and considered time frames. Each case has also involved detailed discussions about what constitutes exceptional circumstances, including the following considerations: something “out of the ordinary” or “unusual or not typical”, a substantial investment, projects that involve a regionally or nationally significant resource, projects that out of their nature rely on using a waterway, and projects that will contribute to resilience to natural hazards. The committee believed that a shorter duration for exceptional circumstances could adversely affect the ability of companies to raise capital and ensure adequate long-term investment. The Government’s resource management reforms are about ensuring that we manage our resources more effectively and more efficiently to deliver both economic and environmental benefits for future generations.

The Government is currently in the second phase of Resource Management Act reform. Addressing whether this particular section needs to be amended should be part of the full, well-thought-out Resource Management Act reform package. Section 107(2)(a), which this bill seeks to amend, is rarely applied in discharge or coastal permits. There is no evidence that this section is being used inappropriately.

Where section 107(2)(a) has been applied, there have been only limited instances where permits issued under this section have resulted in appeals to the Environment Court. In each case the Environment Court has applied a rigorous test to validate the exceptional circumstances and reaffirmed conditions of the permits issued to minimise environmental effects. Limiting the time frame for consents issued where section 107(2)(a) applies, as proposed by this bill, would have no effect on current consents. In addition, it is not likely to affect many consents in the future, given the current limited use of the section.

I would also like to just reiterate here, for some of our colleagues who come and champion on behalf of iwi, hapū, and whānau around the motu—could I just emphasise that iwi, hapū, and whānau are quite capable of championing their own issues, their own take, and their own kaupapa. We—and I say “we” meaning Māori—are more than capable of championing our own kaupapa within the parameters of legislation. In fact, the Environment Court is very well represented by Māori interests. Therefore, I think we should be very careful when we put ourselves forward as a māngai of those iwi, when, in actual fact, iwi are quite capable of representing themselves. Therefore, I stand to debate this bill; however, we do not support this bill.

Before I call the next honourable speaker, I just wish to advise the House that this is a split call that the Greens have agreed to.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill. It is a beautiful 2-hour walk through mixed rātā and pōhutukawa forest from the source of the Tarawera River at Lake Tarawera to the Tarawera Falls. The river has shaped spectacular gorges and deep pools for swimming. Above the falls a torrent of water suddenly disappears underground to re-emerge out of fissures in a 60-metre rhyolite cliff. It creates a very spectacular waterfall. The Tarawera Falls is one of New Zealand’s natural wonders. It is part of a scenic reserve, and the water here is clean and clear. You can see to the bottom. From the falls to some distance downstream the Tarawera is all that New Zealand rivers should be: clean, clear, and beautiful.

Closer to the sea at Kawerau, the Tarawera is a national disgrace rather than a natural wonder. It is a national disgrace because we continue to allow the Tasman Pulp and Paper mills, now operated by Carter Holt Harvey and Norske Skog Tasman, to pollute the river. The mills are responsible for the longest-running industrial pollution in New Zealand. They have turned the river into a “black drain”. Yes, it is improving, but it is still totally unacceptable, and it is what this bill is remedying.

The Green Party wants all of our rivers, from their sources to the sea, to be clean and healthy. We want an economy where businesses use modern technology to reduce their impacts on the environment. There were 148 submissions on this bill; 128 of those supported the bill. Those submitters wanted the river to be cleaned up so people can collect kai, so they can swim in the river, and so the Tarawera River is returned to its pre-1955 state. The Green Party cares about these places and it cares about people.

I am very proud of my colleague Catherine Delahunty for standing beside the community of Kawerau, beside Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Awa, and Ngāti Rangitihi, and working hard for a clean river as well as jobs at the Tasman mills. There is a well-known Māori whakataukī: “Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au.”—I am the river; the river is me. Catherine Delahunty lives that whakataukī. She came to Parliament to clean up the Tarawera River, and this bill is part of her huge mahi for the river and advocating for the community for a clean river.

As others have said, the bill amends the Resource Management Act to put a 5-year time limit on the term of a coastal permit or a discharge permit that was issued under the exceptional circumstances section in the Act. The Tasman mills have operated in Kawerau for more than 50 years. Section 107(2)(a) was inserted into the Resource Management Act specifically to provide for the discharge. It allows the discharge even if it impacts on fish and other aquatic life and even if it causes a conspicuous change in the colour of the river. Thanks to section 107(2)(a), in claiming exceptional circumstances the mills have twice got resource consents that allow them to continue the discharge of pulp and paper effluent, including organochlorines, into the river. The Resource Management Act does not contain any definition of exceptional circumstances. It contains no limit on how long exceptional circumstances can apply. There is no restriction on it being used more than once in relation to the same activity.

This bill would apply considerably more certainty by limiting exceptional circumstances to 5 years. That would provide time for a transition and it would provide a strong incentive to consent holders—in this case, the Kawerau mills—to reduce their impacts sooner rather than later. The submission of Norske Skog Tasman and Carter Holt Harvey was that they were working to improve the colour of their discharge, but there is no commitment to doing that in a timely way or to significantly reducing the other impacts of the mills’ discharge. This bill would change that. It is a stand for a clean river. The work of the Land and Water Forum is not going to change the state of the Tarawera. This bill would, and that is why it should be passed. Thank you.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Mr Assistant Speaker.

Sorry—the member has already spoken?

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was there just speaking to the Clerk of the House, and I referred this to you too, to confirm that Catherine Delahunty could take the second 5 minutes. The Clerk of the House confirmed that that was the case, even though she had spoken initially in the debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is fine—there is no objection. That is fine. There is no objection to that course of action, and, of course, the House is the master of its own destiny anyway. I call the honourable member Catherine Delahunty. Tēnā koe, Ms Delahunty.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would just like to finish the debate on the Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill by clearing up a few of the misconceptions and arguments we have heard. One is that I am in any way trying to be a māngai for iwi. This is not about them; this is about the people—particularly Māori, but not only Māori—who submitted on the bill in support of me and who have worked so tirelessly since 1955 for a different outcome. That is for whom I am speaking here tonight. I would like to refer to Paul Goldsmith’s uninformed comments on Contact Energy. If he had been aware of what was going on, he would know that we negotiated with Contact Energy for a Supplementary Order Paper to protect its right to geothermal discharges, but obviously he did not know anything about it. However, that is what was about to happen, in order to protect its rights to deep-water aquifer discharges. I would also like to talk about the argument that the Resource Management Act is adequate and that hearings have set high standards through Environment Court appeals. A commissioner from the Environment Court who had been involved with some of these river hearings approached me at another hearing and said to me: “Thank goodness for your bill, because we did our best but we were incapable of delivering under the law the protection for the river that is needed.” I found that very interesting.

However, my final comments relate to the debate tonight. I thank people for their kind comments to me personally, but this is not about me. This was never about me. This was about the people, the river, and the rivers across Aotearoa. And I have to say this about the arguments presented: what a load of bollocks. Let us just be completely honest about this for a minute. The parties that want to oppose my bill or want it seriously modified are undermining the future of the rivers because they are worried about upsetting vested interests and losing votes from the business sector or local government leaders who have given up on the environment in exchange for agreeing with everything corporates do. That is the truth of what has happened in Kawerau since 1955. It is corporate blackmail. Since 1955 at Kawerau the companies have always said that if anyone dares to limit their ability to externalise their cost in a serious way, they will shut down the mills and the jobs. Again, what a lot of disingenuous bollocks. But they have won it every time because people are too scared to stand up to them. Still, the Green Party, the awesome tangata whenua people who have stood up for the river, the environment groups that have cared, and the unions that support us will not give up. And just because Parliament has been gutless again, those who support us will not give up. We in the Green Party will stand for all rivers. Our connection to water is so intrinsic to our being alive. Our obligation to rivers is not some optional or rhetorical strategy. If the water is healthy and sustained, we will be healthy. If it is polluted and degraded, so are we.

I would like to point out that this debate has indicated the lack of scientific knowledge in a modern context. This is not about whether the river is black or brown—but at the moment it is brown—it is about the invisible and subtle pollution that occurs when resin acids are released from pulp mill effluent when they have been crushed up to make paper and when they have been bleached and they have been put into the river with mill chemicals. If any of the people in this House knew anything about this issue, they would know that the synergistic effects of these chemicals are subtle and particularly dangerous in seawater. This is way beyond the understanding of the Environment Court, when it never hears from witnesses who know about this, but it is also obviously way beyond the MPs from all parties except Mana and the Māori Party, which have consistently understood what this bill is about. I would like to thank them very much.

I did come to this Parliament to stand up for this bill, and I want to honour the commitment and honour the people who came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and told their truth. Whether people attended or not, the submissions were available to be read. It is very important for us to remember that people with nil resources have since 1955, through a series of incredible campaigns, forced these companies to reduce their pollution. This occurred not only in Kawerau but also in the Tai Rāwhiti, where section 107(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act was used to allow raw sewage from 40,000 people to pollute the bay. I have lived the issues alongside those people. They gave up their time, money, and hearts to defend this environment. And to talk about the Land and Water Forum and other initiatives has absolutely nothing to do with this and is a convenient excuse for ignoring the reality that virtually everyone in this House except Mana and the Māori Party is unable to support the truth of this, which is that rivers are not drains. I would just like to say that this is not over. Kia kaha to all the people who supported this most reasonable and fair piece of legislation, and shame on the rest of you, who have failed it.