Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill

I move, That the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is the last piece of a complex jigsaw puzzle to enable the Waimea community dam to be built, and I note it will be the largest dam built in New Zealand in more than 20 years. It will enable the storing of 13 million cubic metres of water in an 87-hectare reservoir, stretching 5 kilometres up the Lee Valley, 20 kilometres south-east of Brightwater.

There have been so many challenges in getting any sort of water infrastructure project over the line that very few make it off the drawing board. There are the complex issues of getting through the Resource Management Act and getting consents and, subsequently, dealing with any appeals that occurred back in 2004. There’s the tremendously challenging job of trying to get the funding for such projects—in this case, over $100 million worth—for a scheme to happen. The third key issue that needs to be resolved for such schemes is getting access to the required land. It is a tribute to so many people that all those hurdles have been passed.

Now, this bill deals solely with the issue of enabling access to 9.7 hectares of public conservation land for the reservoir and 1.3 hectares of Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) riverbed. It’s not a complex bill. It creates an easement over the Mount Richmond Forest Park for the reservoir; it enables the council to be able to purchase the 1.4 hectares of LINZ land. The bill has two important caveats. It says that the council cannot sell the land, and, importantly, I acknowledge our parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, in terms of ensuring that the three Te Tau Ihu settlements in the top of the South and their first rights of refusal are respected.

Three changes were made to this bill by the Governance and Administration Committee. Firstly, the public access provisions around the conservation land have been strengthened in response to submissions from the Federated Mountain Clubs, the Walking Access Commission, and the Nelson/Marlborough Fish and Game Council. Secondly, the bill gives a bit more time for the construction of the dam to begin, extending that from 2020 to 2025. And the right of first refusal provisions have been strengthened to ensure that whether the land is in the hands of the council, in the hands of a council-controlled organisation, or in the unusual incident that the dam does not proceed or the dam is decommissioned at any time in the future, those rights of first refusal are respected.

I want to make a few points about the land. The first: we are talking about 9.7 hectares out of a Richmond Forest Park that is 166,000 hectares. It’s not 1 percent, it’s not 0.1 percent; it’s not even enough to make 0.01 percent. Nor is this land some precious one of those 14 different types of reserves. This is not an ecological scientific reserve. It is not national park. I would take a very different view on this bill if it was proposed in a precious area like the Abel Tasman National Park or Fiordland. It’s interesting to note that there is no record by the Department of Conservation (DOC) of this area being used for any purpose of recreation, giving an indication of how remote and inaccessible it is. I also, importantly, note that the Environment Court orders made in August 2014 with the agreement of DOC, with the agreement of Forest & Bird, and with the agreement of Fish & Game provided for the inundation of this land. If I can put it very simply, the small loss of the forest park is more than compensated for by the opportunity this scheme presents to be able to restore the health of the Waimea River.

Some years ago, as Minister, I was responsible for putting in place a national policy statement that requires minimum flows in rivers and which also provides for water quality standards for New Zealand rivers and lakes for the first time. This project is the only practical way to meet those water quality standards, and I’m proud to represent a region that, with the introduction of the scheme, will be one of the very first regions in New Zealand to fully meet the requirements of those new water standards.

Now, I do acknowledge there are some critics, including the Green Party in this House and others, who have said, “Well, the easy way to resolve the problems with the Waimea River is to cut back the existing water consents that have been provided by the Tasman and Nelson councils for town water supply that has been provided for irrigators and has been provided for industry.” People that propose that scale of cuts have no practical idea as to the level of impact that would have on local residents and on the regional economy.

I hear speeches all the time from parliamentarians across the House saying that we should process more of our wood products. Processing wood products takes water. Not proceeding with this dam would be devastating for one of New Zealand’s biggest and most successful wood processors, in the form of Nelson Pine Industries. It would be equally devastating if we went down that road of cutting water takes for Nelson’s horticultural industries, whether it be our apples, our grapes, our kiwifruit, our hops, or our berry fruit. So many people, again, give speeches in this House that they want to see New Zealand diversify its primary exports, and this dam and this water scheme is a mechanism to do it.

Can I also draw members’ attention to the issues around housing. In my time as the member of Parliament for this region, the number of people living on the Waimea Plains has expanded, doubled, from 10,000 to 20,000 people. We need more houses to be built, but you cannot build more homes unless you have the water infrastructure to support them.

So, in summary, if you want clean water, if you want more added-value processing, if you want to grow exports like horticulture, or if you want more houses, you need more water.

Can I also make the point that for neither Nelson nor New Zealand do we have a water shortage issue. That is, we only use 2 percent of the rainfall that falls on this country for extractive purposes. That is one of the lowest levels of anywhere in the world. Many countries use 30 percent; some use 60 percent. The issue for New Zealand is that we have shortages in quite distinct areas at quite specific times of the year. What could be simpler than storing some of those massive winter flows of water, retaining that water, and enabling it to be able to be used in the time of drought and dry period?

I want to acknowledge the Crown Irrigation scheme established by David Carter, supported by Nathan Guy, which has been critical, as well as the staff of Crown Irrigation Investments Ltd, and the Freshwater Improvement Fund for their financial support. I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker and Minister Shane Jones for honouring the previous commitments by the previous National Government to the scheme. I want to acknowledge Richard Kempthorne, the Mayor of Tasman District; the councillors that supported this project; and a big team of staff at the Tasman District Council—dedicated people like Dennis Bush-King and Joseph Thomas, who have worked on these issues for many, many years. I also want to acknowledge the contribution from the Nelson City Council and the huge contribution that has been made by irrigators and landowners in the Waimea area.

This project has its genesis in the awful drought that afflicted the Nelson region back in 2001. A collaborative group was established at this time, and the work of organisations like the councils, like the Department of Conservation, like iwi, and like the landowners in that area brings us to this concluding point. Can I again thank the many MPs from National—my colleagues—Labour, New Zealand First, and ACT, who are supporting this bill through this final stage. My hope for this project is that it not only gives water security for my home community but also provides a flagship of what is possible in terms of improving water management in New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I, too, am very pleased to speak in support of this bill at its third reading, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. This bill is some 20 years in the making. There’s been a lot of work that has gone on, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith for shepherding this bill through the House and for paying the acknowledgments to all those that have been involved. We’re at the last sort of phase within this parliamentary process, and, of course, it is critical that we pass this bill, because there are a lot of contractual and ongoing commitments that need to be met for it to actually get built—and that’s what we want to see. We want to actually see this project come to fruition and be able to service the Waimea district.

I don’t intend to take long with my contribution today. I merely want to acknowledge the Tasman District Council, under the leadership of Mayor Richard Kempthorne, and all of his team who have been involved, working very hard with the local communities and with all the affected groups, and, I must also say, with all of the relevant iwi as well, to ensure that we can stand today in this House and speak strongly in support of it.

I want to just speak to one particular point which came through the committee stage which was raised by the Governance and Administration Committee, and that was around the iwi of Te Tau Ihu, the eight tribes of the top of the South Island, and just ensuring that they were supportive of the additional recognition of their rights of first refusal which would arise on a possible future decommissioning of the site. I can speak in this House today and say that the bill does have the support, and I acknowledge all of the iwi concerned, but, in particular, the one iwi who actually are part of the scheme, which is Ngāti Kōata, who are committing some of their tribal lands to the actual infrastructure project. So I’m pleased that those issues were addressed with all of the iwi concerned, but, in particular, with Ngāti Kōata, who will have ongoing relationships with the Tasman District Council, and that will be continuing from now and well into the future.

Returning to what this bill is about, it is about water infrastructure. It is about storing that water and making sure that when it’s needed in those dry summer months, there is water available to service the rural lands, and to service the urban communities as well. I want to acknowledge the Government and our support partners. Our Government has continued the commitment of funding through Crown Irrigation to ensure that financial facility is available to the project, likewise through the environment fund, as well, that’s also committed to the project.

So this is really a collective effort from the people of New Zealand through the Government in terms of their contributions, and I know that we are entrusting—and this project is actually being led by the Tasman District Council with the local community. It’s entrusted to them to actually bring the whole project to fruition, and I certainly look forward to the day when the dam is operational, and I’m sure that will be a day which many in that community who will benefit from the water infrastructure will be looking forward to as well. So with that, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise also to support the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill to the House. There are a number of people who should be acknowledged: Mayor of Tasman District Council Richard Kempthorne and his councillors, and the proponents of this dam project who have worked—and that wasn’t a joke, but it has been an at times lengthy and troublesome project for community leaders and proponents of the bill. I want to acknowledge also the Hon Nick Smith, who has steadfastly supported this bill and the Waimea Community Dam over the course of the last 18 or so years.

Our part in Parliament is the easy part of this process, and I want to acknowledge most of Parliament for seeing the value and the sense in providing this supporting piece of legislation, in providing for access over Crown land, and in providing easements so that the local community and the council can get on and get the job done.

What was very apparent to us as Governance and Administration Committee members, when we travelled to Nelson to hear submissions on the dam, was that for some people there was an awful lot to gain, and for other people there was an awful lot to lose. As parliamentarians, as select committee members, our job was to listen with an open and clear mind to the evidence and to the values and concerns expressed to us, which we did. We spent a considerable amount of time listening to those voices.

Those who felt they had a lot to lose—their arguments were based around environmental concerns, financial concerns about the cost of this bill, whether or not security of water was in fact needed, or maybe there were other ways to achieve security of water supply. Then there were those voices who had an awful lot to lose, and it was those voices, such as those in the forestry industry, those in the horticulture industry—in fact, economic development of all kinds and of every nature throughout the Waimea district—and those voices we also heard.

It is the measure of a community and a measure of its local authority and the proponents of a large project such as this that they have had the perseverance to keep working at this project and not give up, because a large capital project in a relatively small community is never going to be easy—not in any way is it ever going to be easy. So I want to end my intervention and my support by just again acknowledging and thanking all of those people, from the community leaders to the supporters, to all of those who gave their views in support or not in support—acknowledging them all. Very soon, I hope, we will be celebrating the passage of this bill, and then the dam really truly can commence. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. It’s great to see this bill proceeding so quickly through the House, as I know that there are some contracts in place in order for work to go ahead that need to be done by a certain date, and it’s important that we see the quick passage of this legislation in order to reach that time frame.

There are some really clear economic and environmental benefits that need to be weighed up. Those have come through the submissions process and through the good advice that we’ve received during the select committee process that this bill is beneficial for New Zealand and very much beneficial for those people involved in horticulture in the area on the Waimea Plains. This bill will enable a secure water supply for the local community. While it does directly affect horticulture in the form of many forms of berries that are grown on the Waimea Plains, as well as apples and other fruits, it will also ensure water supply to residential households—and good quality water supply, which is so important.

The dam will ensure increased river flow, and this will ensure that the water supply to those local households and to businesses will continue, particularly in the summer months. No doubt members will remember that the region had a very extreme drought back in 2001, known as the big dry, in which there were severe water restrictions put in place and it affected everybody in the region. So having in place this dam and having in place a scheme that will replenish those aquifers beneath the Waimea Plains will mean that there is security and protection against droughts that may well come, in the climate change age we face, more frequently in the future.

A secure water supply is the lifeblood of any region, so I’m pleased to see that the people in Nelson and the Tasman District area can benefit from having that security and that confidence. We know that there are some clear environmental benefits with this change as well. The scheme will minimise the risk of saltwater intrusion into the aquifers along the coast—so close to the sea along that way. While there are concerns that have been noted by environmentalists about the area of land being inundated by the dam, the overall health of the Waimea River and its fish life depend on a good water supply, and that’s exactly what this will do.

It is good to see that there has been good consultation and that this is supported by the Tasman District Council. There’s been consultation and compromise through the course of this piece of legislation reaching this point in time. The main area and the main point of contention has been the cost of the dam, and this has been revised in order to reach an agreement and a way forward. I will note that there are those that are still not happy with the cost that some ratepayers will bear with this process, and we heard that loud and clear through the submissions process. Affordability has been a critical issue along the way, and the new funding model represents a compromise between the parties involved, including an increased contribution by the Tasman District Council’s partner in the project, Waimea Irrigators Limited.

I would like to also, as my final point, flag that there’s been consultation on rights of first refusal under the Treaty settlement legislation. The land that will be transferred from the Crown to the district council has rights of first refusal upon it, which were put in place under the Treaty settlement negotiations with Te Tau Ihu iwi. The land must remain under the direct or indirect control of the council until that occurs, and the riverbed land must be sold back to the Crown if the dam does not proceed or is removed for any reason, to ensure that those rights are not infringed upon.

Look, I would just like to say that I’ve really enjoyed being a part of watching this piece of legislation come through, seeing the differing points of view from a community, and understanding the benefits of what a good water scheme can provide to a community. Labour supports this bill for the good and the well-being of the environment, for the community, and for local businesses which thrive off the security of water supply. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

It is with great pleasure that I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. As we know, this is actually quite a technical bill. At its core, it’s the 9.7 hectares of the Mount Richmond State Forest Park and the 1.3 hectares of Land Information New Zealand riverbed being transferred from the Crown, basically, through to the Tasman District Council for easement and for a reservoir. So that’s the core of what we’re doing.

But, of course, it’s much bigger than this. This is enabling legislation for a significant piece of infrastructure for the Tasman region, and I note that this has been 20 years in the making. I can only imagine what that was like to the farming leaders—and I note that Julian Raine is in the building, and I’m sure there are many others who are not so well known to me. Julian, of course, is very prominent in agri-business circles. Those discussions, I’m sure, happened in the pack houses initially and on market day or whatever might have been the meeting places of those growers back in the day, from herding those cats—those small conversations—to get to this point where we are, in the Parliament of New Zealand, enabling this piece of legislation that will allow a dam to be built on the Waimea River.

Of course, irrigation is a fairly emotive topic, but it is time that we had a more sensible discussion about irrigation in this country. This is a water-rich country. We don’t have to look far across the Ditch, to our neighbours—they could not dream of having the wealth of water resources that we have. The debate has got very narrow around water equals cows equals pollution. It does not, and this particular proposed scheme absolutely proves this. The 1,200 or so hectares that are to be irrigated under this are primarily horticultural land. I think there are only about two dairy farms.

One of the things I learnt on the way through with this bill is that boysenberries are one of the main crops here, and that New Zealand actually produces 60 percent of the world’s boysenberries, and a good proportion of those are in the Waimea Plains. That’s something to be very proud of for those farmers. We certainly get that we need to do better with the nutrient budgeting, and I note that today we had a significant report on the OVERSEER model. We are working hard as a Government and, I’m sure, as a Parliament to bring the tools together so that we can have irrigation and we can still have a pristine environment as well.

Of course, it’s not just the rural users; it’s the urban users, both domestic and industrial, and there are some significant large employers within that Nelson/Tasman region who will benefit from the security of water from this scheme when it is up and running. As Dr Smith outlined in his contribution, this is a fast-growing urban population. It’s a wonderful part of the world and will continue to grow at pace; so we’re futureproofing not only the farmland but also our urban and industrial users. And, of course, there are the environmental benefits. Having the water flowing consistently and being able to have some control over that is of real benefit. We note the biodiversity offsets that have been negotiated as part of this. I think that’s really visionary and leading stuff, and the sort of thing that we’ll probably look to be doing in the future. I think this is a good exemplar.

The Crown, of course, is extending a loan of $35 million to the farmers involved in the scheme, and I would like to emphasise that: it’s a loan; it will be paid back. It’s not a grant; it is a loan, and this is a multigenerational decision for the farmers, and they will recompense the Crown many times over not only with their lift in production but also with the interest bearing on the loan. Of course, there is a $7 million grant, and that was part of a freshwater grant under the previous Crown Irrigation Investments. I note, with some irony, that the Opposition are now quite vehement in their opposition to the Provincial Growth Fund, but this is exactly the same principle at play here—wise investment in the regions enabling significant infrastructure.

I also would like to commend the tenacity and the vision of the local political leaders, and I note Mayor Kempthorne is here today. This has been a contentious issue. We’re aware of that. One of the votes did go against the dam and there was a lot of leadership involved, I would imagine, in bringing that together. I note that some of the regional leaders are here today. I commend you on that. It is not easy sometimes to step back and look at the bigger picture when you have your ratepayers, many of whom are on fixed incomes, and for them any increase in their rates is something that can’t be trivialised. But you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. I think some of the rates rises are somewhere between $29 and $150 per annum. Even at the top end of that, that’s $3 a week to secure this very important futureproofing piece of infrastructure for this region. This is about a 100-year vision; this is not necessarily about what the rates bill will be next year. I believe that those political leaders will be remembered fondly in the future for the leadership they have shown.

Of course, the economics of this were pretty well set out. I believe it was the Northington report that showed that, over 25 years, this could add $935 million to the Tasman/Nelson economy. That is a significant increase. Of course, it’s the security of that income, too, for the $103 million, I think, it is now—it might even be $105 million—that the scheme cost. I think, up front, that will pay dividends year after year.

Finally, I’d just like to commend the member Dr Smith, the local MP for Nelson, for bringing this bill forward and shepherding it through. It will be a bit of a legacy for you, I think, in your region that you have been able to do this. I commend the Governance and Administration Committee. I know they engaged and went down to Nelson to hear the submissions. The officials—as always, we’re very well served in this House. This is a really good, sensible piece of legislation to enable a very important piece of infrastructure, and New Zealand First are delighted to support this through to the third reading. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute delight to rise in support of the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I understand it’s the 50th bill supported by the Hon Nick Smith in this Parliament. It’s quite an achievement, Dr Smith. Well done.

Just reflecting, too, on the member who’s just resumed his seat, Mark Patterson, waxing lyrical about irrigation and how great it was for New Zealand, and yet it is his party and his Government that has killed off the irrigation fund that this project will be the last beneficiary of. Instead, New Zealand will have to rely on the largesse of the Hon Shane Jones with his $3 billion slush fund if there are to be any more irrigation projects supported—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Greens say, “No irrigation.”

—and which the Greens, as Dr Smith notes, don’t support at all. But, none the less, we absolutely support this very practical and pragmatic step for the people and region around the Tasman District.

Ultimately, this bill is about supporting the livelihoods of the people who live in the area. It’s estimated that over 25 years, this dam will help to secure an additional $925 million of economic product or gross domestic product (GDP) to that area of the country. In contrast, if the dam were not to proceed, the risk to the same area is a negative loss of $1 billion in GDP.

Now, when we talk of gross domestic product, too often it’s seen as some abstract economic concept. It’s not. It fundamentally equals jobs and livelihoods of people. This dam, which secures water supply for businesses and residents, is a means to providing and securing jobs for many hundreds and thousands of people who, over the course of this dam’s lifespan, will benefit from the jobs that can be sustained from it. That’s about opportunity for New Zealanders; the opportunity for jobs and futures, and the opportunity for them and their families to live the lives they want. By taking this step in the House today, Parliament supports those people to get ahead.

I’ve reflected, as I’ve listened to contributions, how can I help right now for this to proceed? The most effective way that I can help right now for this to proceed is to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Look, it’s always enjoyable to stand up in the House and talk on anything related to local government, so it’s my—

💬 Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

Oh! It’s the honourable member for Hutt South. Don’t get me going. I don’t want to say dishonourable, because that would be dishonourable—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, it would be.

—but what I do want to say is—thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to just acknowledge my colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee. It’s a pity I wasn’t too attentive during these hearings because I wasn’t there, but, look, I’ve got a great relationship with my colleagues. It’s a pretty collegial committee and probably one of the better ones. In fact, probably the best select committee, dare I say it. We talk, we debate, but we get on and we look at the things that are important to local communities. So I want to acknowledge the hard work that that committee does.

The local member for Nelson—he’s been there so long I thought his colleague was going to mention maybe a valedictory next week or something, but that’s not the case. But I do want to just acknowledge that His Worship the Mayor is here from the mighty Tasman—welcome to the capital city—and other officials who put this together.

Look, I don’t want to repeat what’s been said. Those upstairs and on TV will be going, “God, how boring.”, but I do want to just look through. It’s been interesting—I had a look back at the Department of Internal Affairs report and I just want to, sort of, balance up some of the views. Since I last spoke, one thing I did have is just some feedback from local people. Coming from local government, you know, you’ve got to—what did they say? Yes, let’s get to it. I had Victoria Davis and Lewis Solomon write to me. They just wanted me to be aware and to balance up some of the submissions that were made. It was interesting. I went back though 137 submissions. Actually, 57 were in support, and they made the comment that 27 would benefit or stand to gain—or “profit” was the word that was used—20 were neither for nor against, and 60 were opposed.

Mr Solomon, for example, is a qualified electrical engineer of 25 years’ experience at Nelson Pine. I guess what I’m really saying is that these people bring some valid concerns to the table, but, if I reflect back on my speech that I made, one of the big things that local government has to do and should do is make some bold calls. This is, I think, a bold call. Infrastructure—those smaller districts sometimes find it a bit tough to get the dollars together to say we need to look at the unsexy stuff. That’s generally the infrastructure, but I know—and I can see a former mayor opposite me, Maureen Pugh—that you’ve got to make the big calls and invest wisely on things like this that will carry the district through. Maybe they’ll amalgamate one day—oh, God, I shouldn’t mention that, but maybe for the next century they’ll have core infrastructure in place that will serve their community. I guess that’s the decision they’ve made.

We are certainly supporting it, and I’m proud that we are, because it would be easy—I know, as a former local elected member, that many a time it was the unsexy stuff that people couldn’t see, they didn’t want to see, and the price tag had lots of zeros in it, but, actually, you do have to make these calls and someone’s got to be bold enough.

I don’t know if the mayor will get re-elected over this, but good luck to him next year. Local body elections are less than a year away. Good luck. I’m sure he’ll have a narrative and a story and a product, really, and that he’ll be able to say, “This is my legacy to the district and to Te Tau Ihu”—the top part of the South Island—“and this is good for the people.”

Look, I’m not going to talk too much. I know the member for Hutt South gets a bit nervous when I talk, but I just want to commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Throughout the whole reading of this, the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill, the Green Party remain opposed—and also in this, the third reading. Actually, I consider it a duty and a responsibility to stand and raise the valid concerns and to allow those concerns from community and other groups and individuals of the community to be given a fair hearing in this House, alongside the values and the visions of the Green Party, which go to why we are opposing this particular bill.

I am very, very aware—and we all are in this House—that water is life, and I want to acknowledge up front the water shortage issues for both people in households and also for the economy of that region. What we are disputing here is whether or not the dam is absolutely the best solution and the longest-term solution that takes everything into account accordingly. So I’m happy to go through a number of the valid concerns raised from various groups and from the Green Party.

I cannot stand in this third reading speech without raising the concern of costs to ratepayers that I know has been loud and strong throughout the entire passage of this bill. It was heard in submissions and it was seen in written submissions. Although I am not on the relevant select committee, I have continued to receive particular concerns about whether the cost of this will be shared equitably; about whether there are the absolute safeguards in place for any potential blowout to ratepayers that might happen and that we have seen happen on other similar schemes, both in Aotearoa and around the world; and, in fact, questioning whether council is absolutely upholding to the best of its ability its duty to ensure that the costs do not fall unfairly on residents and ratepayers.

There are several actions and processes that I have been taken through by several submitters, and I am not clear yet whether council itself is upholding the necessary full measure of checks and balances that could be put in place to at least ensure that there are fair and just benefits going back to ratepayers without the unjust actions of further costs on ratepayers; things like simple, standard business credit checks of relevant shareholders and things like having a projection of whether adverse weather events—which are a feature in our world more and more—or detrimental effects of a disease on a particular product, which we also are dealing with in our country, are properly planned for and accounted for. So I’m really happy to raise those points in this House today as a sample of some of the valid concerns that ratepayers have.

The issue of land use is paramount to this dam, and no one will be surprised that this Government has actually already, in fact, announced a wind-down to the subsidies of large-scale irrigation projects. So that there is a signal that we ourselves, as Government political parties, have identified and acknowledged that we really need to think better, deeper—literally deeper; below to aquifers, below soils—as to the long-term effects of large-scale irrigation and the fact that it has been shown to encourage intensification of land use. What we know from that, from decades of that way of making decisions over land and water, is that it has not gone so well for our rivers and for our water bodies and our water tables and our aquifers. So those are fair and valid concerns.

In one sense, this is a plaster. This is actually a plaster to try and address those very real water shortages, yes, but we should also be going back a step to consider the ongoing decisions that we make about water and land use and land intensification, and whether or not this dam will encourage more of those same decisions which have dirtied up our rivers. So I raise that, as well.

Using conservation land for commercial purposes should always be considered to the depths and the entire strength of our risk assessments—absolutely. I am aware that processes have happened through the Environment Court and that agreements have been made about biodiversity offsets, and that plans have come up—I acknowledge all of that. But there is a precedent that people have raised very valid concerns around and that we must, I think—to have a balanced discussion and debate—make sure that we understand.

We don’t know enough. There is growing acknowledgment from the scientific field and from the water community, water warriors, that we think we know—and I will quote Mr Patterson, I think it was, who said that we are a water-rich country. Well, we should be, but, actually, we have made decisions over generations where now we actually need to think about whether we are that rich when it comes to water. We have paru-ed up our rivers—we have dirtied our rivers—and we still have New Zealand households who cannot guarantee that the water out of their taps is pure and safe enough to drink. Therefore, we have a duty to understand more about our water tables and our water aquifers, and I don’t know if anyone in this House can, hand on heart, say that we know exactly how long the sustainability of our pure water aquifers really is.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: This will improve the river.

So I’m really proud, despite the heckling on that side of the House, to stand up and make a statement to that fact that we don’t yet know the full strength and longevity of our aquifers.

What I’m going to be very proud to stand on here today is the fact that we need overall holistic, cohesive planning of the entire ecosystem of how we make water and land decisions.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What waffle—just waffle.

No one should be surprised that the Green Party has had to make that statement, and I’m also not surprised that the member Nick Smith thinks this is all waffle. That sort of thinking has led us to the degradation that we are seeing in our country today. I’m really pleased to be making a plea that we actually take bigger steps back and have a look overall at the decisions we have made around land and water and soil, and they have not done us the best that they possibly could have.

That’s why the Green Party—well, some of the reasons why the Green Party—is standing proud, as a sole voice in this debate, to oppose the Waimea dam. What I hope for going forward—because I know that this is going through—is that we will continue to monitor the biodiversity impacts of this dam. Even though we think we’ve got it right, that has proven to not be true when we make these decisions. We must make sure that we are not going to heap ratepayers with any future blowouts and that we monitor at every point the passage, the build, of this dam and the construction of this water infrastructure. For that reason, I’m very proud to stand with my opposition today. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Before I give the next call, there’s a lot of chatter around the Chamber, so can we keep that down? I call Dr Jian Yang—five minutes.

I’d like to speak very briefly on this bill. It is very hard to understand the logic of Marama Davidson, the previous speaker, but I will focus on just three points. Number one is that local people have wanted such a dam for decades. The first study was commissioned in the early 1970s, but it was not until the big dry in the year 2000-01 that the big dry highlighted the problem with water shortage, because the drought was the most serious one that local people had experienced in 60 years and, basically, it affected everyone in the region. So the first point is that people have wanted it for many years.

The second point is that there is a huge benefit economically. We can understand that horticulture is particularly important to New Zealand, with a national value of over $8.8 billion, and the Nelson-Tasman region is particularly important to our horticulture. So the dam will help to make the horticulture in the region more sustainable. It will create more jobs, and, environmentally, this dam will help the flow of the Waimea River, which means it will have a better river ecology because of the continuous flow of the river.

The final point is that it has not been easy to come to this stage, so we need to thank many people, including local leaders, organisations, scientists, and also, of course, Dr Nick Smith for his contribution. So it is a good bill. Thank you.

I call Angie Warren-Clark—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a short call on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill—probably the thing that I don’t like most is the name. This is a local bill, sponsored by the Hon Nick Smith on behalf of the Tasman District Council. I’ve not had the pleasure of sitting on the Governance and Administration Committee during the process of select committee, and therefore I feel quite privileged that I have the opportunity after about 17 years of hard work across this community to have a speech and to speak in this final debate.

I’m given to understand that the scheme has been in planning for nearly 20 years, and our Government, as the member Marama Davidson has noted, is going to wind down now from this public funding from these kind of events. But we made a promise that we would honour commitments to schemes that were sufficiently advanced, and we have agreed to keep that promise. I want to commend everyone who has worked very carefully on this bill, and to note that we’ve put $42 million towards this dam of a total cost of $99 million. The community will own this, and they will pay back for a long time, but it will improve the needs of the community, including the berry farmers, and we all love a boysenberry.

I think that I will leave it there. I do commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a privilege for me to stand and make a contribution to this debate on the Tasman District Council (Waimea Water Augmentation Scheme) Bill. I simply want to make a short contribution to pay tribute to the people who have been involved in this from the outset. I pay tribute to Mayor Richard Kempthorne—Mayor Richard has gone grey over the course of this project. His councillors, his staff—I pay tribute to all of those people who’ve worked on this scheme since the big dry of 2001. But I also acknowledge the industry and business interests that have also contributed to this project over time. And, of course, I do acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his efforts in progressing this legislation through the House.

As I’ve said in previous debates, the big winner out of this water augmentation scheme is the Waimea River and the aquifers. No longer will we have the river running dry and poisonous algae developing. We will have minimum flows that can be controlled all year. This is a significant day for the Waimea Plains. It’s a significant day for the security of businesses on that plain, and it is also a massive day for security of the domestic water supplies in Tasman. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Being someone that hasn’t sat on the Governance and Administration Committee that looked into this bill, I’ve done a lot of research and thinking about it today, but in hearing the speeches here, there isn’t a lot more that I can actually add to those speeches. While we’ve had divided opinions from people on this, and that’s great because that’s democracy in action, this is a pragmatic piece of legislation. Looking into this today, I was totally impressed at what a great water augmentation scheme this is. Doing my research into it, I thought this is absolutely fantastic and this must happen and this needs to happen.

I think that, like my colleague Paul Eagle said, our leaders on the Tasman District Council have made some bold calls, and I think it’s fantastic that they’ve coped with the issues that they’ve had. But the leaders have stood up and they have led, and it’s good to see this going through. As I’ve said, this bill will add to both horticulture and residential use in the Waimea Valley area. There’s not much more to say to that, because it is a great bill, and I look forward to seeing this come to fruition. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.