Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill

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.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation and we do support it, but we support it with one caveat, and Dr Smith has alluded to this; we just need absolute clarification before we’re going to take it all the way through. That is that it will depend on ensuring that there is documentary evidence to demonstrate that the eight iwi affected by this bill will have formally endorsed it. Under the Treaty settlement, these eight iwi have been given the first right of refusal, as Dr Smith alluded to, on land covered within this bill. Therefore, the expectation from Labour members is that the sponsoring member of this bill and the Tasman District Council will provide evidence that formal endorsement has been received from the eight iwi boards.

The House needs to be assured that it is not creating a new grievance or potential breach of a Treaty settlement by supporting this bill. I’m assuming—I’m hoping—that this will be very easy for the honourable member to obtain and that he will present it to this House, because the honourable member did outline the fact that this needs to pass before Christmas. That is obviously up to the—

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Iwis up.

Iwis up? OK, well, that sounds good. My colleague Rino Tirikatene has said that that has come through, but we just need to see documentation, that’s all. Not that we don’t trust you, at all, but we just need to ensure, as the honourable member will be well aware, that this is actually signed and sealed and we’re not going to end up in a position we don’t want to be.

A lot of our places and a lot of the really beautiful, sunny places around our country—the rural places like Hawke’s Bay, like Tasman—grow fantastic wine, have brilliant tourism, the highest sunshine hours in the country, but also because of those variables we have industries that require a whole lot of water. In these regions, there are, basically, three things that we have absolutely no control over. One of them is the climate, the second one is commodity prices, and the third thing is exchange rates. Again, Nelson’s very much like Napier. If the climate is right—i.e. you get the right amount of rain, there’s no frost—if exchange rates are favourable and commodity prices are high, then the regions absolutely boom, and it’s fantastic. It’s happened in Hawke’s Bay in the last couple years and it looks like it’s going to happen again.

But the problem is, if you get those variables, if there’s no alignment or if even one of them is out of sync, then it can have quite a significant effect on the domestic economy of the particular region. Now, if we can mitigate the risks around climate, then what we can at least do is mitigate the risk of a regional slump, because what happens is horticulture, you know, can’t—you get a drought and basic things don’t grow. That’s the bottom line. This is mitigating that risk and that’s why we support it. The Waimea Plains is one of New Zealand’s major horticulture areas highly dependent upon irrigation and, currently, freshwater resources, I understand, in the Waimea Plains are approximately 64 percent over-allocated.

It doesn’t matter whether you get one or two or three years of sufficient rain; that is just not sustainable. It is just not sustainable. So if we can do something that is economic—you know, we can’t create a millstone around the neck of ratepayers—and environmentally friendly, because, again, we can’t end up building something that destroys the environment or has an adverse impact on the environment, and also creates jobs, then we should be looking to do this. I think this is one of those schemes that have great potential to tick all of those boxes.

Without the dam, based on the potential cuts to water allocations, the productive, irrigable—sorry, irrigatable land, I apologise—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Irrigatable or irritigable?

Oh, it depends if it’s Dr Smith or it’s—yeah. It’s estimated to possibly reduce from 3,800 hectares down to 705 in a worst-case scenario. So we’re talking about business as usual down to a significant drought, and if we believe climate change is real, and I absolutely do, and obviously Dr Smith does—

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: What about Ruataniwha?

Do you want to talk about Ruataniwha? Am I allowed to address that, Mr Speaker?

💬 SPEAKER: Well, there was an interjection, but as long as the member doesn’t take too long over it.

The member makes a good point. The thing about Ruataniwha is that there was no economic business case that said that this was going to be sustainable. There was no economic business case. If there had been an economic business case that said “Yes, this is going to create value, it’s going to create jobs, and it’s going to be good for the environment.”, then we would have supported it. I was asking for this for five years and no one could give me a simple business case that said “If this is not going to create a massive debt that the ratepayers of Hawke’s Bay are going to have trouble”—

💬 SPEAKER: OK. Now back to the bill.

OK. Now back to the bill. Dr Smith alluded to this as well. The Hon Shane Jones, the first—whatever he calls himself—member of the regions or whatever—

💬 Chris Bishop: Matua Shane.

Matua Shane. We were after forestry. One of the things we know about forestry—and you just have to go down to the wharf here in Wellington, let alone any wharf around the country—is that there’s a whole lot of logs heading across without a cent of value being added. I have visited Nelson Pine Industries probably three or four times, and it is an exemplar of how to take raw logs and add significant value. They employ over 200 people, even though it’s a state-of-the-art mill. It is a fantastic piece of regional infrastructure, and it shows that you can do things incredibly well in the regions—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: If you do it properly.

If you do it properly—good point, Ruth Dyson. What they have said is that without the dam—and, again, we’re talking worst-case scenarios, but in this era of climate change and, certainly, inconsistent climate—they face up to 100 days a year with insufficient water to operate. You don’t have to dig very far or have a vivid imagination to understand the impact that would have on the region’s economy, let alone a major piece of regional infrastructure, let alone on wood processing.

I do think that perhaps Dr Smith glossed over a little bit of some of the significant criticism that the select committee heard on this—because there was criticism, and let’s be open and honest about this. The criticism came from the fact that there were people who believed that the council had not adequately consulted. It’s my experience that it doesn’t matter what councils do, if someone is against a project or there is a group that are against a project, it is a very easy charge to throw out there that the council hasn’t consulted. What I do understand, though, is that the council has said that they held over 200 public meetings and, let’s be honest, there has been about 17 years of consultation on this. So there’s been a lot of consultation. It’s been through the wringer more than once—in fact, as we know, the council actually voted this down. I think, on 28 August this year, they voted it down. There was such a hue and cry that the council thought “We’d better take another look at this.” They came up with another funding model and then it snuck through with a whisper.

The fact that it wasn’t unanimous on the council—in fact, they lost the initial motion on 28 August by one vote, and I think they won it by one vote when they re-voted. So there are a number of councils who, you would argue and you would hope, are incredibly engaged in this, who have got all the information in front of them and who have gone through all the modelling. There were still a number of councillors who had reservations to the point where they did not vote for this bill, but what we do know is that the select committee said they accepted the fact that there had been enough robust consultation to satisfy, in their minds, that it didn’t need to go back any further. So that was good to hear.

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was opposed to the bill because of concern over the precedent around the use of conservation land—obviously, they had a big win at Ruataniwha. This does set a precedent, but I’m not uncomfortable with that. The reason I’m not uncomfortable with that is that we need to, where practicable, take a pragmatic approach to this—i.e. if the conservation land is of significant value, then we don’t want to give that away. There is no doubt about that. But where it’s conservation land and it can be supplemented with other land or swapped, or where there is a pragmatic solution, then we should always look to find that common ground, especially when we’re talking about a scheme that is going to enhance economic productivity and growth in the provinces. Of that there is no doubt, but I understand Forest & Bird’s stance. They came in and said “We’re not against this”—which was good of them—“but there’s the principle behind this.” They are a very principles-based organisation. The committee heard their view. The council heard their view and decided that, OK, this needs to move forward from that perspective.

There were others, of course—Fish & Game New Zealand. Dr Smith said that Fish & Game were for this. They did have concerns about access to the land—and, again, I know that at Ruataniwha it was one of the major concerns as well—is the public going to have access to land that, perhaps, they had access to beforehand? [Speaker yawns] Sorry, I hope I’m not keeping you up, Mr Speaker!

💬 SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s fair to say that the member’s not very exciting.

I’ve spoken for 10 minutes on this. All I would like to say is that we are supporting this bill. It is a pragmatic bit of legislation. As mentioned, my fellow member Rino Tirikatene said that condition had been sorted. That’s all good. Let’s get this through and let’s get Nelson humming.

I hope that my contribution will excite you! This is a very exciting bill; it’s well worth a read. I just want to follow up on some of the comments that Stuart Nash has made. It’s ironic that he’s so positive about this scheme when, right now, in his region, they’re crying out because of a shortage of water. We know, on this side of the House, that in New Zealand we only collect and store about 2 or 3 percent of the rain that falls in this country. So water storage has got to be a way forward, but the politics about this particular issue are that the coalition Government doesn’t support projects outside of this one. The reason they support this one is that it was already pretty much contracted and they couldn’t weasel their way out of it.

Importantly, I want to acknowledge Dr Nick Smith for supporting this local bill on behalf of his council and his community. The Waimea project has been around for 18 years. I want to acknowledge Julian Raine, Murray King, and other leaders in the community who have stuck with this project, because water storage projects take an incredibly long time until the first drop of water comes out of the pipes. The significant point about this project is that it pretty much touches all of the important aspects of water storage. It is not well understood.

The first one is the economic considerations, and those are real. This area in the Waimea Plains and around Nelson is pretty much the fruit bowl of the South Island. They produce apples, hops, and other berries. They generate about $400 million. But, of course, what happens in the summer is that there are significant water restrictions placed on them. This project will generate an extra $100 million for that region. The other important aspect is social. So this water from the Waimea dam will support those communities—i.e. drinking water. The other aspect is environmental, and what was really telling is that any water scientist in New Zealand could come and submit on this project. You would expect the critics in New Zealand about water quality to line up in their droves and submit against this project. Not one water-quality scientist submitted in a negative way towards this project—i.e. they came in and said, “This ticks all the environmental boxes.” So that is a huge positive for this project.

Two other very important points: I acknowledge Crown Irrigation Investments, who have worked tirelessly with the council and the community to get this project across the line. They’ve moved their terms of the contract—it’s about $35 million—to get it across the line. I acknowledge those leaders in the community for staying with it right through to this point.

The final comment I want to leave you with is David Parker’s contribution on the first reading of this very important bill—actually, Stuart Nash touched on it right now, and that is the land swap to do with the Department of Conservation (DOC). The Minister David Parker acknowledged in his first reading speech that the Parliament is going to have a look at these issues one day. Well, actually, they need to have a look at them now because to get water storage projects across the line, often it requires a land swap deal with DOC, and that process needs to be better than it currently is. We’ve just heard from Stuart Nash, who said that there needs to be a pragmatic solution found and it needs to be based on common sense.

So with those comments, I support the bill. I acknowledge Dr Nick Smith for bringing it through, and it’s been a good, robust select committee process. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill for Nelson and for the Waimea Plains. I was lucky enough to be one of the members of the Governance and Administration Committee who travelled to Richmond to hear submissions for one full day from the community in terms of those that were going to directly benefit from this scheme and also those who were opposed. So I’m thankful for that opportunity and for those of the community who took their time to come forward and give their views.

On the day, it was interesting to hear the background of this piece of legislation and the fact that there have been low water flows for some time in that river catchment, which is well known as being the fruit bowl of one of the main areas of Nelson, and has sustained, through those aquifers, many agricultural industries over decades and decades within Zealand. It is those aquifers that are, we are advised, under threat as a result of water depletion, and that provides a threat not just to residential households having a security of supply of fresh water but also a lot of those agricultural businesses which people rely upon for jobs and much of the community relies upon strongly over a long period of time.

So this bill enables the construction of a dam that would enable that water to be built up and to replenish those aquifers. In fact, 13.4 million cubic metres of reservoir are located behind the dam, and that can be, in fact, released in a controlled manner during periods of high water demand and of low and natural river flows. It’s intended to be able to, I guess, replenish the Waimea Plains over that time. It has been noted already today that the expert advice we received indicated that this was beneficial for the long term of that security of freshwater supply in that area.

In the transfer of land, it’s interesting to note—and my colleague Stuart Nash has already mentioned—that there is an impact on iwi that still requires final confirmation. So the iwi affected within Te Tau Ihu are Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui. Those eight iwi need to have full written consent provided back to the Government to make sure that when you transfer land, as this piece of legislation provides to do, from Crown ownership, which has a right of first refusal, that can be triggered. So that land is being transferred to the Tasman District Council, and the right of first refusal will be transferred along with it to local government. So we need to be reassured that those eight iwi are comfortable with that transfer, and that that does not provide any side issues or any other concerns around Treaty rights in that space.

It was really interesting to sit in in Richmond during that day and hear the full range of submissions, and I would like to say that it was a pretty charged-up day. There were some pretty fired-up people there—and the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s nodding, because he actually took on a few difficult people who were not so happy with the bill on that day. I was surprised he was still smiling at the end of the day; there was some pretty rigorous opposition to the construction of the dam in that area.

So the main argument made in support of this bill was the fact that it sustained the strong agricultural base that has been operating within this area for a long period of time and that that would be addressing critical water shortages. That was seen by submitters as the best solution to provide security over the next 100 years and more in that area. The economic cost to the region of not proceeding with this scheme was also highlighted by a range of submitters, and the concern that many of those businesses—orchards, apples—would not be able to continue to thrive without that security of water supply.

Also a clear point that was made was ensuring that the needs of stakeholders in improving water quality would be reassured—that by having the dam in place and replenishing those aquifers, it would ensure that there was a high quality of water. Another point made by, I think, Fish & Game, if I remember correctly, was that while this legislation provides to transfer conservation land, the Crown land, it is relatively small and of limited conservation value. One of the changes that was recommended and has been carried out is to ensure that there is access to the public. That was raised by submitters on that day, and we’ve made sure that all possible actions are taken to ensure public access to that land.

It was interesting to hear from farmers who had been third and fourth generations who had continued to make a living on that land, and to hear their concerns that they wanted to make sure that their businesses would continue to thrive in the future. There were views from those who had businesses that there was adequate consultation carried out by the Tasman District Council, but that, funnily enough, was the main protest point of those who did not want this bill to proceed. There were deep concerns that the consultation process undertaken by the Tasman District Council was insufficient, and 67 submissions, in fact, raised concerns about that consultation process.

There was very strong opposition to the fact that people did not want this dam to proceed, and I acknowledge those who took the time and were really passionate about this for the area, not wanting to see it proceed. A key component of that concern of not wanting the dam to proceed was opposition to the financial impact of the dam. So submitters note that in recent years the estimated cost of building has surged from $26 million to $102 million, and they are concerned that that will be borne by ratepayers who won’t directly benefit from the construction of this dam. In the words of some, it was seen that those farmers on the land were benefiting from the ratepayers’ contribution to a dam that they would not see a direct benefit from.

The Waimea scheme is for the benefit of urban and commercial water supply and will have economic and environmental benefits for the local community, particularly within the Tasman District Council area but also in the Nelson City Council area as well. We take the view that if the Tasman District Council wishes to proceed with this, and this is a local issue which has been voted on, it is for the local community to determine the best way forward.

So the Waimea scheme has been controversial—that’s well noted, and I saw that up close and personal on the day, especially as to that cost. But Labour’s position has been that the future of the scheme is in local hands, with it being over to the Tasman District Council and other local interests to decide whether the scheme proceeds or not. This has been resolved by the Tasman District Council vote, and I note that two votes were taken: on 28 August 2018, councillors voted by a narrow margin to abandon the project over the ballooning price, but on 6 September 2018, councillors voted 9:5 in favour for the dam to proceed in light of the new funding model that had been reached after working with investors.

So the Government’s financial support for the scheme is subject to normal contractual conditions being met and to financial close, as has already been noted, being reached by 15 December, and details need to be reached to work through this. So it will be interesting to see whether we can continue to get all the paperwork completed in time and the final requirements for this bill done in the final members’ day of this sitting session. So without further ado, I wish all of the people in Tasman and the Nelson area all the best for the future with this exciting proposition. I think it holds great promise for jobs, for industry, and for those that have farmed the land for a long time. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise in support of this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. Actually, I’d like to thank and congratulate fellow members on the Governance and Administration Committee for their very ready agreement to travel to Richmond to hear directly from local people their views on the bill. Most people, we are aware, are supportive of the scheme, but it also gave an opportunity for those that are less favourable to it to have their voices heard as well. We chose, as we have done several times, to not only hear submissions in the provinces but also to do so on a non-sitting day, and I’d just like, by way of quick reference, to thank the Business Committee for on another occasion recognising the work that our committee is doing and permitting us to attend a hearing in another part of New Zealand on a sitting day.

I think this approach we have been taking really does open democracy up to New Zealanders right across the country, and where we have visited other places—Richmond being the case in point here, but also Thames, Coromandel, and also Gore recently—we’ve been warmly welcomed, and it’s been very clear from those submitters that they appreciate Parliament travelling to give them a local voice.

This scheme is a very pragmatic and sensible scheme for the area. It’s one that will provide security of supply for urban water users as well as, principally, horticulturalists in the area. As other members have said, it’s a way to address possible risks of nature by ensuring that in times of need there is still plenty of water not only to produce, obviously for the local economy, from the land but also to make sure that urban users have the supply they need. Along the way, and along with that, it will also help improve the quality of the river. So it’s a situation where in almost every respect, one would argue that everyone wins.

In fact, on a small but still related piece to that, the commitment the council has made to working to get public access to land around the dam and, indeed, access to that, also goes some way, or a very good way, to making sure that those that wish to use the conservation land and area around the proposed dam have freedom of access to enjoy nature and to recreate the way that they wish to.

So the process itself was hugely beneficial and enjoyable for the committee members. I trust—I hope—that those members of the public that chose to submit in Richmond also got something useful from the process. I’m absolutely convinced that residents of Nelson and Tasman will definitely benefit from this dam when it is implemented and in action, and I commend this bill to the House.

It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I’m much more enthusiastic than I may have appeared just previously when I missed my call, because this is, actually, a really sensible and constructive bill. It does allow that transfer of 1.35 hectares of Crown-owned riverbed and the approximately 10 hectares of Crown conservation stewardship land to be utilised for this Waimea dam, which will have significant benefits for rural and urban people in the Tasman district and Nelson City itself, both economic and environmental.

Of course, it seeks to irrigate some 1,200 hectares of horticultural land, mainly. I believe there are about two dairy farms in that particular area. So I think the widespread concern around irrigation, as has been mentioned by previous speakers—much of it a little bit overblown, but in this case, certainly, there is no particular environmental danger. In fact, the benefit to the health of the river through having this water storage and being able to keep the flows going through the often dry summer months will far outweigh any environmental impact that the dam may have from nutrient loss. Of course, there are very strict regional council rules around that stuff anyway, so it really is a win-win scenario.

I note that all the consents are in process. It does have the combined support of the Nelson City Council, Department of Conservation, Fish & Game, and Forest & Bird. It’s good to hear from our colleague over here, Rino Tirikatene, that iwi are now on board. There was some debate, a little bit, about that, and hopefully that’s the case, because there was just a shadow of doubt there that that was confirmed. But the Tasman District Council, of course, who have led this and have brought this forward, deserve some credit for pulling all those entities together, I guess.

Of course, it hasn’t been an easy political process. It did get the speed wobbles there in the first vote, and I think it was voted down. But, of course, they reconfigured the costs and the way that the costs would be covered, and a few days later they did reverse that decision. I note there is another vote, a final vote, coming up next week, I believe. So the ball will be, hopefully, after this, firmly back in the court of the Tasman District Council.

This has been, I think, close to 20 years in the making, and the Government has contributed pretty strongly here—$35 million in a concessionary loan and $7 million from a pool of money set aside for grants. The $35 million—I just want to emphasise that. It is a loan. Often in these schemes they are considered to be handouts or subsidies to farmers. They are, in fact, not. They are a loan. They’re essentially bridging finance to make sure the scheme can be built so it’s fit for purpose and futureproofed—not nickel and dime.

So it’s actually really good value for taxpayer money to be extending this loan, and, of course, the farmers will pay it back over time, because this is a multi-generational decision—to go into investing in irrigation. The farmers themselves are actually often the very last people to benefit, because they take on vast quantities of debt that they have to pay off, often over a generation. Many of these farmers, I’m sure, as mentioned in Ginny Andersen’s contribution, will be multi-generational farmers who will be doing this for the next generation, not themselves. But the communities themselves, they’d benefit straight away. The earth movers and the builders and the towns, they benefit instantly from this injection—and significant injection—of capital.

Of course, this is the perfect time to invest. I think the Government bond as of this morning was sitting at about 2.67 percent. In fact, interestingly, the US Government bond sits at over 3 percent. So for the first time—and probably almost unprecedented recently, no doubt because of the competence of this Government—we actually see the New Zealand Government being able to borrow money at less than the US Government, which is an absolutely extraordinary circumstance. It is a great credit to us as a nation, our fiscal responsibility.

So this is a good time to be doing long-term infrastructure investments like we’re doing now. The $103 million, it does seem like a lot of money, but in 10, 15 years’ time it will seem like peanuts, and the benefits will be flowing—both economic and environmental—from day one. So New Zealand First is actually a really big supporter of water storage. We have been proactive in that space and have been encouraging the Government to meet its commitments that we made in the coalition agreement, and we have done that.

I would like to commend Mayor Kempthorne. I actually had the pleasure, as a hard-working South Island - based list MP—I was actually in Nelson and Tasman during a recess, meeting with business leaders, the chambers of commerce, and Mayor Kempthorne out at the ports of Nelson, and, to a person, they were enthusiastic about this project. They saw the necessity of it to futureproof not only their horticultural production but also their town water supplies. Of course, this is a fast-growing region with great prospects, so that infrastructure and that water that the infrastructure needed to deliver is going to be absolutely critical for the Nelson and Tasman region to fulfil its potential.

Of course, being a good New Zealand First member of Parliament, I wasn’t just talking to the big end of town. I went to the ratepayers association meeting that night, and I did hear the other side of that debate. That’s something that we should not take for granted: that, especially for those on low and fixed incomes, particularly pensioners, whilst we might see a rates increase of approximately $150 a week—I think for some; $129 for others. I’m not quite sure how it’s delineated. I think it depends if you’re in Tasman or Nelson, and I learnt that Centennial Avenue is quite a significant road, because it’s like Northern and Southern Ireland on either side of that. That $150 a week—sorry, a year—at the top end, is $3 a week, and I think, even though we’ve got to be very mindful of those low-income, fixed-income people, that $3 a week for a significant piece of infrastructure to futureproof your community is a very modest outcome in the grand scheme of things.

I would encourage the Tasman council to be brave. It is hard when your ratepayers are, many of them, on fixed incomes, struggling, but I think you’ve got to look sometimes to the bigger picture.

Of course, it fits in with the coalition’s aims to lift that value in our primary exports, and the horticultural sector is one that is going extremely well. I think we’re nearly at $6.5 billion worth of horticultural exports now. I actually didn’t know that the Waimea Plains was the boysenberry capital of the world—30 percent of the world’s boysenberries, which is really, really impressive, and 60 percent of New Zealand’s boysenberries. So it shows we’re a major player in that market, and Waimea Plains is the epicentre of that. Of course, that contributes to that $932 million that the Northington report showed would be the economic benefit from this scheme. If you look at that over 25 years, my calculation is that that’s somewhere around $37 million dollars a year. If you look at the $103 million that it costs to set up the capital cost, and you’re getting $30 million - odd a year of economic gains from that, that’s a pretty significant return on investment.

I’d just like to conclude by commending, actually, the member Dr Smith for shepherding this bill forward and all the members at the Governance and Administration Committee that, obviously, travelled down to Richmond and heard the submissions. I think it’s great that the Parliament can be behind this bill with a degree of confidence. We haven’t had all the parties speaking, of course. The Green Party, hopefully, will see some merit in this bill, but, if not, hopefully, as a Parliament we’ve got the numbers to pass this very sensible piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 Paul Eagle: Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That was very well observed.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Oh yes, ever observant—the “eagle” eye that I have, Chief Whip. I haven’t used that line before—ha ha ha! Look, it is the second reading. We’ve heard that from every other speaker here this evening. I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee—a hard-working committee if not, probably, the best select committee. No one’s listening—that was a test of who’s listening.

💬 Marama Davidson: Come on, Mr Eagle!

Oh, there we are—there we are.

We’ve got the deputy chair in front of me, and she’s fairly feisty, and she keeps all the members, including those from the Government benches, honest and hard-working. That’s Ginny Andersen, the list MP based in Hutt South.

Can I thank the local member, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. A local bill is important. These are things that are generally not put forward lightly. With my council background, I certainly remember local bills going through. In fact, I can only remember one, and that was for the Wellington town belt. So these are important.

I want to just acknowledge the members of the committee who went down to Nelson and listened to the locals, really. This is the big dynamic when it comes to building big infrastructure at a local level: that, often, locals get nervous. The deputy chair of the committee said that there were some hungry hippies who certainly weren’t too happy with what was going on, but that is expected. I think one of the things you learn in local government—and I can see three colleagues across the House there who have been leaders in local government—is that you do have to make the calls around the big infrastructure. This is core infrastructure too: water. I’m not going to divert into water and the issues with that.

I can well imagine—there was so much competition to travel to Nelson to listen to these submissions that I missed out, but never mind. I do want to say that I can just imagine what some of the conflicts would be from the locals. Those are valid concerns. I think too often we try and play a wee game where we pit the corporates or business versus locals, and I think one of the keys to a good local authority is the ability to strike a compromise.

I note that in some of the progress around Tasman District Council making a decision, the margins of voting have been narrow—they’ve been tight—but, certainly, in early September they were able to vote 9-5. Look, you never get a full vote on these projects. You can imagine that those councillors who are more intimate with their communities or who live in the communities where people have expressed concern about this won’t vote for it. But 9-5 is a good, decent vote that gives the level of reassurance, I think, that, yes, there’s been some conflict around what people want but, overall, that new funding model that was presented and was reached with investors showed confidence. That’s different to the 8-6. Another local councillor obviously looked at the detail, and that’s good, and got the project—positively voted for it.

I just want to note the economic and environmental benefits for the community. Previous speakers have certainly spoken about it, but water supply—I heard the member for Nelson talking about the need for big business. Certainly, I think it was called Nelson—the people make medium-density fibreboard (MDF)—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Nelson Pine.

Nelson Pine—there we are. Thank you. The member spoke about their need to ensure that there’s a constant water supply. Look, when you break that down into simple economics, that’s jobs. That’s ensuring that they’ve got the water supply to make the MDF to make sure that the people who work for Nelson Pine have a job—that they are not laid off or not put into a holding pattern while they sort out core infrastructure.

I can imagine too—look, Nelson is the playground of the Wellingtonian, like Coromandel is, or once used to be, for Aucklanders, and from the Waikato it still is. So I know that that council, Thames-Coromandel District Council, had the same issue with their water infrastructure: just, really, an increasing demand on that core infrastructure supply.

They’ve listed some growing urban communities here: Richmond, Nelson, Brightwater, and Māpua. The comment there is they want to avoid water shortage. You don’t need to remember back far to 2001, when they had the “Big Dry”. Certainly, this will stop that. This will ensure that the water supply will be consistent. And, look, sometimes we forget that it is Tasman but there’s also Nelson, and one of the things I notice on visits down there is that there’s more collaboration between Nelson City and Tasman District, and I think that’s good.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s always a privilege to—

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Make it a brilliant three minutes.

Absolutely. Look, there’s just still so much to talk about. I don’t want to recap but what I do want to say is that the one thing I will recap on is that this is a major decision for a local authority. I said it was about being bold, and, therefore, it would offend and you will get that. We saw what the voting record was like: 9-6. Later in the year, after getting a better deal or a new funding model, that was 9-5. I think that’s important. They are the elected members of the district. They are taking a risk, but it is core infrastructure, and it’s certainly a risk worth taking. I didn’t want to divert into water, and I won’t, but I will come back to that at a later speech and talk about the importance of getting core infrastructure like water in place.

Often it is the smaller district councils—I said that they had a great relationship with Nelson City. I’d hate to think that I was going to suggest they should amalgamate but I won’t. But there’s no—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will.

The local member for Nelson maybe—that’s for another day too. We had a former chair of the Greater Wellington Regional Council, Fran Wilde—she was an expert at amalgamation; you might want to talk to her. But I digress.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: She’s a goody.

Absolutely. I do just want to acknowledge or echo the words of my colleagues and others who have said “Look we do need to keep with the concerns of iwi.”—keep in mind, sorry. All keen, all for it. As the select committee has gone through and made the changes, I think the real issue here is just making sure that the iwi groups and Te Tau Ihu are aware of what those changes are, what they mean, and they can come back to the table confident. At the end of the day, this is a confidence arrangement where people are saying, “Look, we are partnering. We’ve got a council-controlled organisation in there.” It’s a big deal for the people of the Tasman district.

The member for Napier talked about having documentary evidence—something in writing, really—that and doing the old-fashioned face-to-face and making sure this deal gets across the line. It has been many years. I’m sure someone will remind me how long it’s been to get from someone first saying “We have a problem here, Houston.” to now, where the deal is on the cusp of going ahead.

I’m proud that the Labour Party is supportive. We are a party that is keen on infrastructure. We could talk about housing and a whole lot of other key infrastructure, too—transport, for example. It’s my pleasure to commend this bill, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme)—what a mouthful—Bill to the House. Kia ora.

On behalf of the Green Party, we will not be supporting the Waimea water augmentation scheme bill. I want to acknowledge the merits that have been raised by other members of this House. We simply are a voice for the many locals that have opposed this bill.

I wanted to pick up firstly on the fact that this is its second reading, so I went through the report back from the Governance and Administration Committee. I agree with other ratepayers and citizens who highlighted that it was quite difficult to get an accurate number of exactly how many submissions were opposed and how many were in support. There were, apparently, 137 written submissions, and the report from the committee went through groups and names of organisations who were in support. But I wasn’t able to get any clear understanding of the weight in terms of the locals—and I know some were opposed; I’ve already heard that through some of the members—who were opposed to this. I’m not part of that committee; I wasn’t able to get a clearer sense than that. So I agree with those submitters who went back and also read the report back from the committee and were concerned that they also couldn’t find that clarity.

So there are a number of reasons why we cannot be convinced to give our support to this bill. Yes, there are longstanding water issues in that region, but for the Green Party, we will always ask, “What is the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of those water issues?” We will always want to go back to looking actually at sustainable water supply, water storage, allocation issues, and, actually, the core economic infrastructure that has led to some of the dilapidation of aqua tables and water tables in the first place.

I think that’s part of the admirable position that I’m really proud to be able to take today—actually wanting to look at what is truly, truly behind some of those longstanding water issues. We feel strongly—and, again, I acknowledge the different characteristics and dynamics of this particular dam. Of course, everyone knows that the Greens have been clearly vocal and have it, actually, in our confidence and supply agreement that we generally oppose large-scale irrigation plans. So this will be no surprise to any member in the House. However, we—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Eagle, could you resume your seat. Thank you.

I’m just giving a really, really brilliant speech here, Mr Eagle.

I do acknowledge that certain dynamics of this particular augmentation scheme have been put on the floor tonight, about different reasons why this is particularly different for a large-scale and commercial irrigation scheme. So I am not even going to pretend that I haven’t heard those reasons. However, there are still a number of valid concerns that we hold and that I’m happy to stand here and represent on today.

I did want to pick up on—actually, I will say that I am pleased to see from the Tasman District Council in its submission and in the workings of this bill that the council will make a biodiversity easement, and that the council will make, as part of its resource consent, a condition for the dam around protecting diversity rights. I did want to raise that as one of the wider and longer-term concerns that the Greens absolutely will have as part of this augmentation scheme.

Just recently, we had the UN Convention on Biological Diversity—I think just last week, actually—held in Egypt. That convention and that meeting of parties wants to see ambitious global targets in the next two years to protect the organisms that are vital for global food production, clean water, and the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. I wanted to raise that because with schemes like these, we need to be absolutely clear, without any doubt, that we are not going to continue to contribute to the ongoing loss of plant and animal diversity on Earth. A fundamental worldwide extinction crisis is happening and has been happening. Actually, there’s less awareness of this, I believe, generally, than there is of climate change.

Coming back to the bill, this is what I wanted to raise as one of our reasons for opposing. This extinction crisis is deepening every year, and we are severely impacted by it. In New Zealand, of course—and I acknowledge the council’s biodiversity investment—we’re losing our indigenous biodiversity at an alarming rate. I saw that the council will make these investments, and we will want to keep a check on this. We all want to keep an ongoing monitor of the types of resource consent conditions that the council are proposing they will make—for example, the salvage, propagation, and establishment of at least three new populations of the nationally rare New Zealand shovel mint. These are the sorts of precautions that the Green Party will be keeping an absolute monitor on, and it goes to the core of some of our concerns with this scheme. I know that not many of the other members in the House have picked up on, particularly, the concern for biodiversity. So that was one of the main points that I wanted to raise.

I acknowledge—and I believe it was one of the original reasons why at first there was a No vote from the council—the concerns about the funding model, and I also understand that because of those very concerns, the funding model was changed, but still, even with that change of the funding model, some locals and people of that region and community are still concerned with the share, the equitability, and the distribution, and who will be picking up the tabs. I acknowledge that over the long scheme of things, we can say it may not seem like a huge, huge amount for individual ratepayers, but I think people are also concerned at the council and ratepayer overall investment. So I acknowledge those concerns as well.

Of course, there is the situation of using conservation land for commercial purposes, and we absolutely want to remain cautious, and very principally so, on that as an issue. I understand that this has been picked up for two reasons as being viable to push through that conservation land: because it is of lesser conservation value, and also because it’s being seen as a pragmatic solution. I just want to make sure that we actually get that balance right—that we actually truly understand the transformation of the economic model that we have operated on all around the country to date and whether or not we have got that right in this augmentation scheme.

So those were some of the main rationales for the Green Party’s opposition to this bill, which I am very proud to put on the floor in this House tonight, and I’m particularly picking on the fact that there was not a clear mandate and consensus from all of the local community, and that there was actually clear local opposition to this bill, and I stand absolutely to acknowledge that opposition and the reason that they raised their opposition. We understand that this bill will make its passage through the House because it’s got the numbers, but we will be keeping check on all of the valid concerns that we are raising, particularly into the future of this development, including the financial monitoring of this budget—whether it blows out or not—and who ends up bearing the impact on that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. I have great pleasure tonight in standing up and speaking in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill in its second reading. I have a great affection for this scheme, and I also share a little bit of ownership with it, because half of the lake is going to be in the electorate of West Coast - Tasman, and it’s going to serve the people of the Tasman area extremely well.

I acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee for the unanimous support of this bill. I think that was a great partnership and a significant step in making sure that this bill actually reaches its desired conclusion. I’d just like to take up a couple of points that the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, made around the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause, and the reality is that the reason that we need this water augmentation scheme bill is because it doesn’t rain all day every day, it rains at the wrong times of the year, and we need to capture the water that falls at the times of the year when there are not as many demands on that water. So in the Tasman and Nelson region—very hot, dry summers with a fantastic horticultural sector there that needs the guarantee and the surety going forward that they’re going to have water.

So the cause of the need for this is purely because we need to ensure that there is security of the water supply. I can assure the former speaker too that there are going to be no shortcuts taken in the monitoring of this development and that the people who are engaged by the Tasman District Council to monitor biodiversity are experts in their field—they’re are highly qualified and we can trust them to do an open and transparent job of the monitoring of this scheme.

The big winner of this bill is the river—the Waimea River. We know that the issues that we have with water quality are when the river flows are extremely low, and so we have the algae build-up, we have the fish dying. This scheme is a fantastic support to that biodiversity and to ensure the river health. I’d just like to quote from a submitter to the process—the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Morgan Williams, who said, “You don’t keep a river alive unless the water is flowing through it. With a dam, it allows you to keep the river flowing, keep the river alive, keep it healthy. And also keep the aquifers topped up. Rivers by definition, if they are going to stay healthy, they need to keep flowing”.

That is what this bill is about. It is about ensuring that we can maintain river flows, but it is also about maintaining the economic biodiversity and the economic viability of established businesses in the Nelson and the Tasman area, and ensuring that those workers who have committed to their roles there and who have moved there to support those industries have a viable future. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I’d also like to pass on my thanks to Brett Hudson, who is the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee on which I sit. As a recent member of the committee, unfortunately I couldn’t travel to Nelson with the committee.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: We missed you.

But it’s important—yeah. I’m certainly there enough as well, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith knows, whose house is overlooked by my parent’s house, but we won’t give away geographic locations.

Back to the bill. So the key point here is that I believe we can have a clean environment and a strong economy. So this Government is certainly focused on improving the infrastructure that we have, and it can be a challenge at times for councils around infrastructure. Water infrastructure is particularly important because water is the lifeblood of any region. The Nelson region—as people in this House who live there know only too well—can be prone to drought. In 2001, there was an extreme drought in that area, and having a dam like this will help to mitigate the risk of droughts like that.

So some of the key points here that I’d just like to highlight, and then I’d like to touch on a couple of the submissions—so the Waimea scheme is for the benefit of urban and commercial water supply. We’ve heard a bit about the urban. In terms of commercial, a key point highlighted there is around horticulture. A couple of submissions came through around this area of horticulture which is absolutely vital for our economy—both the local economy in the Tasman area in which I was born and the New Zealand economy.

So let’s have a look at Boysenberries New Zealand. Boysenberries New Zealand submitted on this bill, and I think they made some really good points here. They said they “support the Bill in its entirety as this enables the Waimea Dam to be constructed and operated. The dam will provide surety of essential water to the community for its ongoing urban, commercial and industrial needs.” Now, Boysenberries New Zealand rely upon water to run their services. They were formed in 1989 as a grower-owned co-operative and they sell approximately 60 percent of New Zealand’s boysenberry crop, and they’ve said quite specifically that this dam is absolutely vital for them to continue to run the excellent business that they run.

Another submission along the same lines was from Nelson Pine Industries Ltd. They mentioned that they are currently dependent on the Tasman District Council water supply to run their plant and that having this dam will give them the surety of operation. Another one is around Fresh Fruit Company of Nelson, who pretty much said the same thing: that the importance of having a secure water supply to these businesses cannot be overestimated. So I’m very pleased that this Government’s partnering with the Tasman District Council in order to provide leadership and to provide that surety of water supply for both urban and commercial users.

The committee has recommended a couple of changes to the bill. One of them is around improved public access, and I think this is important because when a piece of infrastructure is owned by the public, like this dam will be, it’s important that the public have access to it. The committee received a number of submissions seeking improved public access provisions, so the committee recommended changes of wording to the easement provisions in the bill over the areas of conservation, and to reverse the presumption in favour of public access, except in the interests of public safety. The committee also amended the date, and there were a couple of technical changes there as well.

We heard a lot of submissions, and I think it was fantastic that the committee travelled to Nelson, and it’s wonderful to see that committees are doing more and more of that, getting around the country. I think this committee also went to Gore recently, which I had the pleasure of being involved in.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Say it properly!

No, I thought I did! There were 137 written submissions and 26 submitted orally. There were a few who were opposed to this, but by and large people understand the importance of having security of water supply, because if we have another drought, there are going to be huge issues in that area, and the surety is obviously important for both residential and commercial users. So in terms of progress, we absolutely support this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I obviously haven’t taken any part in this discussion to date, and I just want to congratulate the Hon Nick Smith on bringing a bill to the House that really will, I guess, last—well, outlast him, for sure, but the result of it will shore that district up for many years to come. I think that’s a pretty significant thing to do.

I want to comment on one or two other things with respect to water storage and related to this bill. I had the opportunity to drive up the valley and through to the West Coast a few months ago and just sort of observe what goes on in that part of New Zealand, and it’s amazing, the amount of opportunity there is not just for agriculture, interestingly, or for food production but for recreation, to shore up the values of that river and to create an amenity and an area that that community will benefit from for many years to come.

I also want to make a comment on the conservation land and the issue we have of using conservation land for what some in the House term “commercial purposes”. In fact, when you use conservation land for a thing like a dam, it’s actually using conservation land for conservation purposes. You could easily argue that, because I think that the value of these types of projects goes way beyond the value that perhaps commercial businesses might get out of it and extend into the recreation and into the amenities of the area and become of huge value to the people that live in those areas.

So I think that it’s a great project. It’s a project that we should be replicating throughout New Zealand, and I think it’s a sad thing that we’re not. It did occur to me, and I was thinking about water storage, and when you look at the greatest water storage we’ve got in New Zealand—you can probably call Lake Taupō that—Lake Taupō, of course, didn’t require a resource consent to build it; it just needed a slight explosion, and, actually, that’s how we got our biggest source of water in New Zealand. So I don’t think it’s any mystery, the fact that we should be looking at every opportunity we can to put propositions like this in place, and I think it should be a much easier process than it is.

When you think of the length of time that this has taken Mayor Kempthorne and his team to put in place, it’s pretty extraordinary that they would persevere for so long, but the result of that perseverance will be significant. I just hope that we can get this type of project operating in many other parts of New Zealand, and perhaps without the kind of grief that we’ve had, certainly, in one or two of the larger water storage proposals of the last year or two.

So I don’t want to add any more to the discussion, other than to congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee, the community, and certainly the member who brought this bill to the House. I look forward to it getting through by Christmas, and I also look forward to the next time I drive up that valley—and I think someone said earlier that it was the biggest boysenberry-producing part of New Zealand. I look forward to going up that way sometime when there are a few boysenberries for sale on the side of the road. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am delighted to add my contribution in support of this bill, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. Yes, this is a very welcome bill. Can I acknowledge the member who brought this bill to the House, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and all the other local members: Maureen Pugh, the Hon Damien O’Connor, and, of course, yours truly—myself—who are local members. In fact, I can proudly say that the entire water storage lake of the Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme is in Te Tai Tonga, my electorate, so I too am very proud to stand in support of this bill.

Can I acknowledge also the Governance and Administration Committee for the thorough work that they’ve done, with assistance of officials, in doing some fine-tuning of the bill at select committee stage, and also being able to hear from the many submitters that took a keen interest in this bill.

This, as we have heard, is a long time coming. This project has been desperately needed in the Waimea district for many, many years, and, in particular, to support and assist the vibrant horticultural sector that is there. I’ve heard many contributions tonight talking about the boysenberries that are produced through the take from the Waimea, and I can attest that they are truly wonderful boysenberries. They are absolutely enormous. If you ever get the chance to go there, they are enormous boysenberries, and they make a pretty nice boysenberry schnapps as well.

There are a lot of businesses—whether it’s in the forests, the wood product processing sector, dairy interests, farms, and also, obviously, the horticultural sector—that will greatly benefit from this scheme. Likewise, the Nelson city, as well, will also benefit—Richmond, and the other parts of the Nelson city. So it’s a long time coming.

It’s a very welcome project. Sure, there has been a lot of opposition from certain parts, but when you think that there have been over 200 public meetings on this project—I think 200 public meetings is a pretty good thrashing of the issue. I want to acknowledge the Tasman District Council, led by His Worship Richard Kempthorne and his team of councillors, for being bold and for moving on, making sure that we can pass this legislation so we can get this project under way.

As the member for Te Tai Tonga, I represent and am very proud to represent all of the Māori that reside in the district concerned but also those members of the great tribes of what we call Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Māui—the prow of the canoe, the waka a Māui. So I’m very, very proud to represent all of those wonderful tribes of the north and their descendants that are on Te Tai Tonga roll, and I want to just highlight the point that, actually, there is only one specific iwi that actually has land interests which are directly affected by this scheme, and that iwi is Ngāti Kōata.

I was talking to Ngāti Kōata today—their board members. They are absolutely 100 percent supportive of this scheme, and what’s good for iwi, what’s good for Māori, is actually good for the region and good for the country. So they are 100 percent supportive of this scheme, and the other iwi in Te Tau Ihu, whilst they might not have actual land interests which are impacted by the scheme, they are supportive as well. They have been supportive prior to the bill’s introduction, and I am sure they will be extra supportive once they are able to fully take in the extra belt and braces, as Dr Nick Smith has mentioned, which gives those iwi which have rights of first refusal under their settlements in Te Tau Ihu—those rights are preserved on the occurrence of this scheme being decommissioned.

So with the preservation of those rights, I am certain that there will be wholehearted iwi support. In fact, it did come through at the last Te Wai Pounamu Te Tau Ihu iwi leaders’ meeting, and I’m sure that is just a mere formality which needs to be followed up prior to the final readings of this bill. So Ngāti Kōata are absolutely behind this 100 percent.

Interestingly, there isn’t actually too much historical Māori land in the Waimea—that’s another story I won’t go into—as opposed to the Motueka-Nelson reserves and the likes. But there actually isn’t what you would call historical or traditional Māori lands, present day, in that area apart from Ngāti Kōata and their lands, which were former Crown forest licensed lands which they acquired under their settlement. So as far as Ngāti Kōata are concerned, they wholeheartedly support this. They are leasing their lands into the scheme, and they also have a board seat on the company which will be operating the scheme. So they are very excited as to what the future will hold for them and the benefits that will accrue to the region as a result of this storage and the Waimea scheme.

So this is good for Māori and this is good for the local iwi. It does have the support of the iwi, and there are eight in the top of the South, right over from Rangitāne and Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Rārua—there’s a lot of iwi right across the top of the South, so it’s important that we do ensure that those that have the rights of first refusal are given due regard for that.

One interesting point that’s just come to mind is that as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, we deal with a lot of Treaty settlements, and these rights of first refusal, which are usually granted over commercial property, only last for 175-odd years. So, in this instance, those rights will be held in abeyance, I guess, until the future possibility, which might eventuate hundreds of years, maybe, down the track, whereby the water scheme is decommissioned, in which case those rights are preserved. So I do acknowledge the officials and the select committee for incorporating that into the bill, and I think it shows the honour of the Crown in making sure that they do honour those rights of first refusal arrangements. So I commend the inclusion of that in the bill.

Just to conclude, yes, this is a wonderful piece of legislation. This scheme will have huge benefits for the region, whether that’s economically but also the ecology of the river. Mrs Pugh was correct: this is all about the river—the mauri of the river. By ensuring that we have this water storage and that we can get consistent flows, it’s good for the river, good for the district, and good for the country. Kia ora tātou.

I rise to make a brief contribution. First of all, I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his contribution but, most importantly, he’s one of the most experienced MPs and also most committed to his electorate, and he also has a PhD in civil engineering.

The purpose of this bill is to authorise access to the Crown land to enable the Waimea Community Dam to proceed, so this, according to Dr Smith, is a no-brainer. I did some research online, and my conclusion is, indeed, that this is a no-brainer. This project has been under discussion for decades. In 1979, a study was commissioned, and then there were also proposals for other small dams in the area and in the region before 1993, but it was the severe drought in Tasman in the year 2000-01 that highlighted the magnitude of water shortage in the region. Ever since then, of course, there has been more discussion and debate, but eventually, the Waimea Community Dam was selected.

The dam has many benefits. First of all, it will improve the flow of the Waimea River, which means a healthy river ecology because of the normal flow of the river. It also means that this normal flow will ensure a steady supply of water for urban and rural needs. Economically, this dam is also very, very important, because horticulture is particularly important to New Zealand, and that region is really a base for horticulture in New Zealand. So it has national strategic importance.

In terms of GDP, there is a figure here: the dam could increase the region’s GDP by over $900 million over 25 years. So it is, indeed, a no-brainer. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask your indulgence for a moment around a practical issue associated with this bill. There are significant commercial contracts that expire on 15 December, and the House has only one members’ day prior to the end of the year. My preference would be to seek leave for the committee stage and third reading to be set down for the next members’ day, and so I seek leave to do so—that is, to be clear, that the committee stage and third reading both be set down for the House’s last members’ sitting day on 12 December.

Thank you. We have that clear.

I’d just make a suggestion to Dr Smith that he put that through the Business Committee—the normal practice.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m happy to take that. I just did want to give members notice that we do have that practical difficulty, and if we could work together to find that solution that would be sincerely appreciated.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): So can I clarify—

Can I clarify I will not put the leave today, but I’ll give notice to the House that it would be my intention either to seek leave or seek approval of the Business Committee to be able to manage the issue in that way. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

That’s perfect. Thank you very much.