Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill

I want to congratulate the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for her member’s bill. Sadly, on behalf of the ACT Party, we won’t be supporting the bill.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, come on!

MARK CAMERON: Sorry, Rawiri Waititi, the sun is the centre of the solar system, and I follow science, if I could, kind sir.

Rawiri Waititi: It’s elementary, my dear “Watson”.

MARK CAMERON: I want to lay out some geological factoids that the member may be interested in. Albeit I see that the member is quite animated by the bill, there are a couple of things that I think we really need to lay out. We have 70 major river systems in New Zealand. The members may or may not be aware that there is 180,000 kilometres of mapped rivers or streams. Now, I was trying to try and reconcile what this looked like in New Zealand. The 180,000 kilometres I’ve just referenced is equal to 4½ times the circumference of the planet, and, apparently, bottling water and selling it overseas is a drama. I cannot quite reconcile that, and it is ideological, I would argue.

Now, I was also trying to square up some of the other mathematics—science, as it were—for the members on the other side of the House trying to contextualise rainfall in New Zealand. I was thinking that we have all these natural geological forces here in New Zealand. We have a full half-million cubic metres of rainfall every year in New Zealand and, somehow, by bottling water we are going to do ourselves a disservice in New Zealand. The last fact I want to share with the House, if I can, for the members opposite—and I don’t want to over-litigate the enormity of geological forces, but that is nine times what goes into Lake Taupō.

So I would argue, and I certainly would believe that this side of the House would argue, that we don’t have a shortage of water. Eight out of 10 parts end up in the blissed ocean, so, really, I think the justification for this bill is somewhat ideological, and I don’t want to be at risk of being unkind, but it does look like it runs rough shot over resource management, and assets and consents that have already been given to certain individuals or organisations—

Hon Rachel Brooking: When have you been opposed to running rough shot over the Resource Management Act?

MARK CAMERON: —and corporates in New Zealand. It really is overreach—Rachel Boyack. I mean, I cannot for the life of me see how it is not protectionist.

Camilla Belich: It’s “Brooking”.

MARK CAMERON: Please try and square away, if we can—sorry, Brooking; I beg your pardon. With eight out of every 10 litres going into the sea, are we really this worried about this? And if it sets a protectionist tone, what does that, as a precedent, look like for the rest of New Zealand, when we’re trying to find ways to get ourselves out of the economic doldrums?

I don’t believe and my party does not believe that there is any need for this bill. It appears to be ideologically driven. I would have loved to hear the member’s speech on how or why she saw a justification for it, and I apologise that I was in absentia, but it does lack justification. Where is the science? If there was science that would suggest that we are somehow going to be bereft in managing our freshwater assets if we do not push this forwards—which certainly does not appear to be the case—then I would have happily litigated this issue further with my caucus. It certainly doesn’t seem to be the case, so, again, I apologise to the member on behalf of the ACT Party, and, at the risk of overplaying my hand, we won’t be supporting the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill. This bill has some parts in it that New Zealand First has actually explored through policy in the past, and it has around the country, in certain areas, been a very topical subject. There has been concern from communities around the extraction of water sources, and especially around the bottling of water.

New Zealand First, in, I believe, around 2017, considered introducing a royalty on bottled water exports, but we found that that was unworkable due to the numerous administration complexities and the limited benefits from that, but it still remains a concern. The problem here with this bill is actually the language that is used in it. We use a very strong term here, especially in resource management, when we use the word “prohibit”. If we’re going to go down the line of prohibiting, it is meaning that you can’t do it, and it doesn’t give anyone the opportunity—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Unless it’s in the fast track—then you can.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: No, we’re not going to be fast tracking. We’re going to be sensible here: where “prohibit” is used, you can’t actually be able to apply even for a consent, and that then becomes a concern, considering the economic benefit in all the different businesses that relate to water extraction that I’m going to talk about.

So there is, as I say, a number of different New Zealand - owned brands such as Pure One, the Pump water that we get through the company, and I think there’s up to, roughly—I just googled it earlier—about 52 different companies at the moment throughout New Zealand that actually have licences. It is a high-value export market for pure water, and, obviously, the regional jobs and the people that are employed in those companies is where the benefit is.

What we do find when we look at water extraction in the past is that the actual extraction amount of bottled water doesn’t even make 1 percent. It doesn’t even make 0.01 percent. It’s down to 0.00163 of a percent that is actually in the bottled water. The amount of water extraction in that is such a small amount, so to actually then prohibit that—is it actually going to make a difference, because water extraction is going to so many other uses such as horticulture, or just municipal use in cities and towns around the country, so this blunt approach also risks undermining innovation and growth.

As a Government, we are trying to increase economic growth. We want to see regional growth. So if we all of a sudden say no to this and if we’re going to prohibit any new water extraction, there will be no chance for growth, and we’ve got things like the iconic Kiwi brands like Charlie’s, Foxton Fizz, Pals, and Almighty. All of these would be unintentionally caught by prohibiting water extraction, and the worst thing is that as we’re trying to grow the economy, there would be no chance of extracting more. We would be prohibiting even the opportunity to ask for a consent, and New Zealand First believes that that is the wrong way to go.

We also know that bottled water provides a critical role in emergency situations. So we could have the very real situation, like the previous Government did with other things around our using our natural resources, where we’d be importing water into the country, and that would be just absolutely absurd. We do have that situation where we’re doing that with coal, and so the Opposition probably would actually agree with that, but we can’t get into a situation where we’re not using our own natural resources.

On that note, as much as there are some good intentions in this bill, New Zealand First can’t support it. We can’t see a way of actually fixing the wording. By using the word “prohibit”, it actually limits that possibility. So I don’t commend the bill for the House.

Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare, me ngā mihi ki a koe, e te tuahine, mō te kaupapa ki runga i tēnei Whare mō te rā nei. He kaupapa ki te manaakitanga o te taiao. Nā reira e mihi ana ki a koe e te tuahine, e Deb.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations to you, my sister, for the endeavour that is upon this House for today. It is an initiative for the care of the environment. And so I acknowledge you, my sister, Deb.]

This bill, the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill, amends the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 to make the extraction of fresh water for the purpose of on-selling in packaged form a prohibited activity. I was listening to the contributions in the House from across the way, and a couple of comments made me smile. Jamie Arbuckle talked about sensibility when it comes to the environment, and Mark Cameron said that—

Mark Cameron: Geography, my friend—geography.

SHANAN HALBERT: —this is a “rough shot” over the RMA. That’s incredible when we think about—

Mark Cameron: Well, I didn’t say the RMA; I said “geography”, mate.

SHANAN HALBERT: That’s what you said. It’s incredible when we think about what these Government members have done in such a short time. You know, they’ve designed their whole environmental policies and repeals to create rough shots over our taiao—our environment—in Aotearoa New Zealand, and fast track is a great example of how they have exactly run rough shot over the RMA. So members on the other side of this House need to get real, because when it comes to protecting this environment, it is not coming from that side of the House.

However, I might have digressed a little bit, but this bill targets only one specific use of water for export, even though other export users consume more water and would not be carrying out a prohibited activity under this bill—for example, water used for growing grapes or wine exports, water used broadly in agriculture for things like dairy farming, for kiwifruit growing, or for exported products. This makes the bill inconstant in its application to water use, but I do acknowledge the intention of this bill and the intention, in particular, to protect the taiao and the resources that we have. I look to examples of the last Labour Government and I think of things like the legislation—

Hon Member: Three waters?

SHANAN HALBERT: —for the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA). I think three waters was an excellent example of how we include Māori in decision making—

Andy Foster: Nobody else.

SHANAN HALBERT: —well, you didn’t read the piece of legislation, obviously, Andy—when it comes to our resources in this great country of ours. But when I look at this Government’s 100-day plan when those members came in and the hypocrisy that they present in this House, they repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act, both of which provided Māori with a greater role in decision making. I think about when the NBA required all persons exercising powers under the Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which I know each and every one of them across the House absolutely hates hearing about the importance of that, but I also think about the examples—and this makes them cringe, as well—of Te Mana o te Wai, which is ensuring, of course, that New Zealand legislation recognises the vital importance of our fresh water, whose health is integral to the social, the cultural, the economic, and the environmental wellbeing of communities.

The hypocrisy from across this House and the contributions just before mine are just incredible, and so I encourage the members from the Government to rethink their contributions in this House. But, lastly, in my final few seconds, is just to acknowledge the intention of this bill and to acknowledge Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak on the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill in its first reading. It is here by the lucky draw of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and before I go any further, can I just acknowledge the loss of your colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp. We look forward to acknowledging that more formally in due course, as well.

It looks like this is the member’s second successful drawing of a bill, and I look forward to one day being a successful drawer, as well. So what does this bill seek to do? Well, essentially—

Hon James Meager: Oh, move on!

RYAN HAMILTON: No, this isn’t the “Move On Orders Bill”, but, hopefully, that’s coming—thank you, Mr Meager. This bill seeks freshwater management allocation and to try to protect Māori rights and interests in fresh water. These are things that we’d acknowledge are all key parts of the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform which we’ve got coming up over the next 12 months. We are already working with iwi and farmers and other key stakeholders in developing these proposals, especially as they relate to fresh water.

We acknowledge the intent of this bill, and there is a need to protect to some degree our fresh water. Where this bill falls a little bit short is that it is quite broad. It says that it is the extraction of all fresh water, everywhere, all throughout the country, and when I was doing a bit of research on this bill, I think the member was, I guess, inspired or catalysed by the extraction around Whanganui and the extensive water-bottling rate and scale. I do sympathise with that, and I think that, potentially, if this bill was a little bit more nuanced and might look at a cap, a restriction, or something like that, then perhaps we might be able to support it, but it’s just, unfortunately, a little bit too broad in its scope.

We’ve been very clear and explicit as a Government that we’re going for growth in terms of our agenda, and economic development is a huge part of that. When I just looked quickly at the water-bottling industry in New Zealand, it’s worth over $500 million a year, and that would be a massive cut. I mean, we get criticised for cutting jobs and for laying people off—no pun intended, but this would have a rather chilling effect on the water industry.

There is the ecosystem involved with water, and you can think of the plastic bottling, the glass industry, the couriers, the transport industry—you know, you’re going on a road trip to see the All Blacks in Auckland at Eden Park, or, potentially, going to Christchurch in a taxi to see the Crusaders, unfortunately, beat the Chiefs, and you want to go into a petrol station because you’re feeling a bit parched and you need a water bottle. You need some fluid, and I would definitely support buying New Zealand water, rather than importing water from other countries and things like that.

So this does have a lot of implications for the wider ecosystem of industry. That would affect a lot of people, and, as Jamie Arbuckle alluded to earlier, what about emergency services? That’s a very real situation in New Zealand. We’ve declared a state of emergency at the top of the South Island just last week, with heavy rain—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Speak to the bill, which is about exporting.

RYAN HAMILTON: This is about water, Rachel Brooking, and so I’m speaking about water. Anyway, if we were to ban this, it actually goes quite broad, Rachel Brooking. It says that it’s the extraction of water for bottling purposes, and it’s too broad. If in an emergency crisis we needed water for obvious services—for storage, for civil defence—we’ve got to keep it quite broad. We don’t want unintended consequences, so it’s very important we keep all options open.

It’s also about choice. We want choice for consumers, for suppliers, and for manufacturers, and, of course—as, again, Jamie Arbuckle referenced—what about the unintended consequences? What about if other drink providers or beverage consumers get caught in some legal loophole with the use of extracted water, because we know it’s in everything from ready-to-drinks, our energy drinks—even blue Musashis contain water, and, of course, we’ve got Wild Bean coffee.

The extraction of water is a vital part of our economy, and we can all acknowledge that, but we’ve got to have appropriate legislation around it. With our RMA reform, this will be an integral part of that going forward over the next 12 months.

So it’s with some sympathy that we won’t be supporting the bill. But I congratulate Debbie on her success in having member’s bills drawn, and I just hope that next time it’s one that we’ll be able to support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to just touch on what lies at the heart of this bill, which to my reading of it is two aspirations, and that’s the rangatiratanga of tangata whenua and the need to protect fresh water and keep it safe from pollutants, contamination, and over-extraction. At the heart of this bill lies these two things, and those are aspirations that we do support the aim of.

My colleague Shanan Halbert has pointed out some of the inconsistencies in this specific bill that mean that it’s difficult to support this iteration of it, but I do want to speak to the aspirations that lie in this bill. It was interesting to note that Ryan Hamilton, the member who has just resumed his seat, talked about the fact that the Government acknowledges the need to protect fresh water to some degree, he said, and I find that particularly interesting in light of the changes that the Government has made which don’t protect fresh water to any degree.

I wanted to speak specifically about the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act. I know that my colleague Rachel Brooking has pointed out that that was undertaken within the first 100 days of this Government’s plan, but that particular legislation would have required those who were exercising powers under that Act to give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It would have introduced mechanisms specifically to enable iwi and hapū to be directly involved in regional planning committees. In fact, one of the main purposes of that legislation was to uphold the concept of Te Oranga o te Taiao, or the heart and the wellbeing of the environment. It integrated te ao Māori—Māori world views—into legislation. It was a good example of giving effect to rangatiratanga of tangata whenua and involving Māori in decision making in that way, and it’s a shame that this Government felt the need to repeal that Act.

Similarly, they then weakened the freshwater protections in section 107 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), which was really a longstanding legal safeguard that sets that bottom line for freshwater quality. So we’ve seen the weakening of that. We’ve seen the blocking of Otago Regional Council’s land and water plan, which was done through a last-minute introduction by this Government to the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that retrospectively prevented Otago’s vote and didn’t allow it the ability to protect its own fresh water in that sense. Then, of course, there is their commitment in their coalition with Act to rebalance Te Mana o te Wai to, as they say, better reflect the interests of water users, but we say it is to weaken Māori involvement when it comes to decision making.

I don’t feel the need to labour the point. I think that other speakers on this side of the House have made these points. What I did want to point out is that it’s all well and good to stand in this House and say that your Government acknowledges a whole bunch of things, but it’s really in the actions of this Government that we see that they are taking us backwards as a country when it comes to protecting the environment more broadly, the work or the lack thereof on conservation, and definitely when it comes to protecting our fresh water.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to also contribute in the first reading of the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill. As we’ve heard, this is a member’s bill in the name of our colleague across the House Ms Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and I’d also like to, please, just take a moment to acknowledge the passing of our colleague and our friend Takutai Tarsh Kemp. May her soul rest in peace.

I want to acknowledge you, Debbie, and I know that when you stand for something, you stand for it, and it’s all or nothing. [Interruption] Sorry, team, but I’m trying to make a speech here. Debbie, you stand for it a hundred percent, and I want to acknowledge your advocacy in this situation when it comes to freshwater issues, and also your fierce advocacy—as it was with Takutai, God rest her soul—with respect to Māori rights and interests. But, as you’ve heard in this instance, National, while understanding the intentions behind your passion here and this bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you could not involve the Speaker—you could direct your further comments to the Speaker.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, my apologies—yes, thank you. Sorry, and my apologies, Mr Speaker. In this situation, National will not be supporting this bill.

I agree that fresh water needs to be managed carefully, but, respectfully, this bill’s approach—as we’ve heard from my colleagues—in this instance is oversimplistic. We also feel that it undermines the broader and more effective reforms already under way in respect of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and in respect of this Government’s kaupapa of growing our economy to benefit all New Zealanders.

I just wanted to say that I understand this from a personal point of view. My village in Lebanon, which I’ve mentioned a few times in the House—Ainata al Arz—is the highest village in Lebanon, and it’s got the purest water in Lebanon. For years, one of my uncles was trying to extract the water to sell it and to say that we wanted to make money for the rest of our cousins in our village. Many people were opposed to that for these same reasons, but eventually they came round, and many people in that very rural area of Lebanon—where the Government back there doesn’t care about them—are making some funds that can help their families. When we talk about benefiting rural areas and rural communities, that’s what I think of as well, from a very personal experience

We believe that if it is managed sustainably, fresh water has the potential, as I’m mentioning, to grow our economy and, like I just said, support, particularly, regional development. By supporting regional development, what we’re doing is lifting living standards for all New Zealanders.

Shanan Halbert: Not in Takanini.

RIMA NAKHLE: Just in—well, in Takanini, I went door-knocking the other day, unlike others, and they were telling me on the doorsteps to “Please keep going”, as they continuously tell me on the doorsteps. So to the list MP across the House—I don’t know if he goes door-knocking much, because he’s a list MP, but I go door-knocking very often and I hear what they’re saying on the doorsteps in Takanini, and they’re really, really looking forward to the continuous growth of our country to help them improve their lives and the lives of their children.

Now, as mentioned earlier, this member’s bill that was drawn out would, essentially, amend the Resource Management Act 1991. There’s a main provision that I’d like—if you don’t mind, Mr Speaker—to bring the attention of the House to, and it is the provision to amend section 87B: “Extraction of freshwater for the purpose of on-selling of the water in packaged form (whether the water remains in liquid form or not) must be treated as a prohibited activity.”

Coming back to the values of the National Party—and, indeed, this is a common value across the coalition parties—we really focus on how we are going to grow not only the economy but also enterprise, as well. We are making extensive, comprehensive RMA reforms, as has been touched upon by my colleagues. I’m really excited about these reforms because they are years and years in the making. We had six years of no reform, but just a lot of talk and no action, when it came to the RMA. There was maybe a little bit of action, but not enough action—not as much quick action as we’re doing in the areas that matter. Our reforms will focus on simplifying planning processes and strengthening environmental protections—side by side, as well—and part of that will be improving freshwater allocation systems, as well.

To my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, my apologies that we’re not supporting the bill this time. We understand the intention, but the RMA reforms we’re doing will, we believe, be very good.

The right of reply—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Thank you for the respect that has been afforded to this bill, and also a huge mihi to you all for the aroha that you have shown to Te Pāti Māori and the w’ānau for the loss of Takutai. When we come to talk about something like this, it’s really difficult because half our heart still hasn’t come back to be able to debate in the passion that this kaupapa requires. But what I will say is that incumbent on all of us is to remember what it is that we have the opportunity to do in this space.

I have been absolutely humbled by having the opportunity afforded by W’anganui and those of our w’ānau who believe wholeheartedly in our rights as tangata whenua and in the rights that our mokopuna have and our communities have to enjoy fresh water, and to enjoy the ability not only to drink in it but to swim in it. This is one of the ways—in a now moment; using the member’s bill process—that we were looking to do that, while acknowledging that big iwi, like Ngāi Tahu, are there in the courts, continuing to fight for our rights and interests that we have as tangata whenua and mana whenua in wai.

The thing with this bill—and I appreciate the arguments that were given, and I’d actually like to go straight to that. The fact that it’s an ideological approach to wai is—really, I think, the ideal of us all is to not allow a multinational to profit from the exploitation of our resources, and that is why this bill was contained solely to making sure that those who are trying to bottle and export our wai don’t get the opportunity.

There was an argument of science, and the hydrological science confirms aquifer depletion. This isn’t just about wai; this is about groundwater, and this is about those who, on many of our marae and communities, have to boil water. They have to actually use water and buy it in. So this was a situation in W’anganui—trying to preserve that very fact.

We have, sadly, a depletion that is continuing to impact our ecosystems, and whether we want to admit that or not, that is the situation we’re dealing with. So, for us, this was about trying to put through a proposition. We were able to go out to talk to our wider community. Ngāi Tahu support the fact that we should hold and prohibit—not just slightly, just prohibit—while we continue to fight for the rights and interests, and while we make sure that consents are contained. Ngāruahine and Ngāti Rangi—who have had at one stage all water from 22 watercourses, including four rivers, be retained and diverted to the Eastern Diversion power scheme—have actually come out in staunch support of this bill because they see every day the impact of the redirection and the depletion of their wai. These are communities who have been really outspoken about what it is that we’re trying to do.

We appreciate the support of te w’ānau a Kākāriki and will continue to give te pāti Labour the pūkana, because the reality is that both settler parties—legacy parties—have had the opportunity to preserve our wai, and none have been successful. If they were, we wouldn’t have to be here.

I also urge those who don’t want to address the issue of water to at least understand why it’s an issue, and to get into those communities and to talk to the people and remove ourselves from the privileged spaces that allow economic growth to take priority. One of the things that I do want to land on as a rural wahine and as a descendant of farmers is that there is this a misconception that this would stop economic growth. The reality is that the royalties are low and the profits are high. The contribution to the GDP does not exceed our environmental protections and our obligations to each other, so I think that those are red herrings.

Hoi anō, again, I want to say that it has been an absolute privilege to be able to come here and have our members’ bills pulled out of the ballot so that we get to have an opportunity that many in their time don’t have. I am going to say, and try to not say it in a whakahīhī way, that Te Pāti Māori—Rawiri and I—have had a 100 percent success rate on these members’ bills. The impact that they make for our communities and the opportunity we get to show why we’re here cannot be understated, and I really hope that those who are in this space take their obligation wisely and continue to do the best that we can for all of our communities, because all New Zealanders deserve to have fresh water and deserve to live here well. Kia ora rā.