'The Nation'
Amy Adams
Interviewed by RACHEL SMALLEY

Rachel Next week submissions to the government will close on how fresh water in this country should be managed. It comes with radical proposals to change the Resource Management Act. Critics say the government is moving away from protecting the environment and is instead giving priority to intensified farming and big business. A short time ago I spoke with the Environment Minister Amy Adams, and I began by asking her, who owns fresh water?

Amy Adams – Environment Minister
Yeah well the government's made its position very clear on this from the Prime Minister down which is that our view is that no one owns the water it's a public resource that the Crown manages on behalf of all New Zealanders.

Rachel The Supreme Court though says Maori rights to water must be clarified. So can you proceed with allocation when that hasn’t been clarified yet?

Amy Mm, well I think what we've established through that process and the process we've been working on over the last two and a half years working with the Iwi Leaders Group in particular is that the government absolutely acknowledges that Maori do have rights and interests in fresh water, but they're not a single thing, they're not simply around allocation, they relate to how water decisions are made, the values we manage water for, how we look after the quality of our water, and as we work through the various stages of the reform programme we've made an obligation to ensure that we're addressing the appropriate rights and interests that Iwi have in those areas at that time. So at this stage we're focusing very much on the governance and the decision making framework around quality and quantity. It's important to us that the views of Iwi and Maori feed into that process and that we do properly reflect the rights and interests they have in that.

Rachel So would the government go so far as to overturn any ownership right that may be granted by the courts to Maori?

Amy Well I think that’s getting well down the track from where we are, so where we are as I say is that our position is that no one owns the water, that’s been very clearly articulated by the Prime Minister, that’s still our position and if the Supreme Court in the future were to take a different stance then obviously we'd have to address that at that time, but I think that’s a long way down the track.

Rachel But you couldn’t rule out potentially legislating against it, that is an option?

Amy Well I don’t think it's helpful to speculate on what might happen in a future court hearing, and obviously those are decisions that the whole government would have to make, but where we stand right now is very clear, that in our view no one owns the water, it's a resource for all New Zealanders to use and enjoy.

Rachel Okay let's talk about who's using the water at the moment, and the issue with over allocation, and I think the two regions really that you think about when you think about over allocation are Canterbury and North Otago. What are you going to do about the issues there?

Amy I think it's a very fair point, and what we are proposing in our water reform package is a framework under which councils have to set limits around both what can be taken out of our water bodies, so allocation limits, but also quality limit, so it's very much around a package of quality and quantity reforms, because before you can have a meaningful debate around who gets what share of water, you first have to have a very clear understanding of what water safely can be taken from a water body before we start to see degradation. So that has to be the starting point. And in some parts of the country you're right there has been over allocation, but what we don’t know is what's being used. All we have information on at the moment is what has been consented, and actually indications are something between 40 and 65% of consented water is probably being used. One of the things we want to do in this reform package is make sure we get much better data about what is actually being used under those consents.

Rachel How will you get that data, and whose responsibility will it be to provide you with that?

Amy Well first of all we have to change the Resource Management Act to make sure that the councils have the power to collect the data they need from the water users. In November last year the water metering regulation started to take effect that the National government brought in. So now for the first time our major water users are required to have metering of their water takes. That combined with the changes to the RMA will allow councils to collect that information, and ensure that it flows through to government as well, so that we all have good robust reliable information about exactly what is being taken out of our water bodies.

Rachel And your paper suggests that some water could be taken without consent?

Amy Well at the moment that’s right, not every take at the moment requires a consent, and we don’t have a clear picture of how much water is being taken without consent. So one of the core parts of what we're proposing in this reform package is much better what we call water accounting, and that is getting a much clearer picture of exactly what is coming out of and going into our water bodies. Until we have that picture it's very difficult to know exactly what the response needs to be, but in the meantime we have to get on with what we do know.

Rachel And while you have this issue of over allocation it's very difficult isn't it to have growth, particularly in the dairy industry, in those areas in Canterbury and in North Otago?

Amy Mm, well I think that’s a very real concern that we need to address amongst the public to show that we are managing and using our water appropriately and sustainably and look water underpins everything we do in New Zealand, certainly it underpins our economy, not just agriculture, but tourism, it is the backbone of our electricity generation, it is key to our Kiwi lifestyle, so we have to get this stuff right, and that means satisfying New Zealanders that where we are using water it's being done in a way that protects the health of the water bodies and that’s it's sustainable for generations to come.

Rachel Can you foresee then more growth in dairying in those regions, in Canterbury and North Otago?

Amy Well I think the point has to be what water is available for allocation. Is there additional water that can be used in those areas, or is it a question of using the water that’s already being taken much more efficiently. And I think there are big efficiency gains we can get from just better water use before we even start to talk about more water use. We've seen some figures that suggest if you can improve by 1% the efficiency of the water that we're currently taking, that’s worth about 12 million dollars a year. So there's some big gains in getting that right.

Rachel Indeed, so is that a yes or a not, can you see more growth in those two regions in dairying?

Amy Well I think that will depend on whether they can establish that that growth can be done sustainably within the water quality and quantity limits will be being set because that is where we start from what can our land and our water bodies sustain, and then what can happen within that, so there’ll have to be a lot of work around the way we farm the technology before we can answer those questions.

Rachel Okay in the North Island, Hawkes Bay is an area where over allocation is an issue as well. Do you back the building of the Ruataniwha Dam there?

Amy Look I'm not going to comment on a specific proposal but what I will say is that I do support much greater use of water storage and harvesting water when it's plentiful and distributing it in a way that we can control and understand, as opposed to what happens far too much in my view now, which is taking water from the run of river at the height of summer when it's under the most demand. I think we do need to move away from that run of river height of summer takes, and look to store water when it's plentiful and use it in a way that we can understand and predict.

Rachel Well when you store water when it's plentiful is when it's raining and when you use it it's in a drought, so that would be in essence a dam Minister?

Amy Well that’s right but you don’t necessarily just store from raining, the rivers flow at different flow rates at different times of the year, so if you can harvest when the rivers are in flood, and use it when there are times of shortage, that to me makes much better sense than looking to take it all from the rivers at the times of most demand.

Rachel That said does it make economic sense to build a dam. When we spoke to Guy Salmon last week, a leading environmentalist, he said often when you build something like an irrigation scheme it does a bit transfer of wealth to farmers, but actually it doesn’t trigger a level of economic growth.

Amy Well in not sure that that’s right, and certainly if there's a water irrigation scheme and water storage facilities put in there would be a considerable capital cost to farmers who wanted to join up to that and that would be appropriate they will get the benefit from it and we can expect that they will have to pay significantly in terms of capital requirements and then also for the delivery of the water to their properties, and that’s appropriate. But we do know that if you have the ability to adequately water farmland then you do have the potential for not only potentially more production but also to level out the impacts of the drought in the conditions we're experiencing at the moment.

Rachel Is a water market in fact the fairest way to allocate water. We spoke last year on The Nation to the Chair of the Land and Water Forum, Alistair Bisley, he said as much, he said that could be the fairest way to allocate water across the country.

Amy Mm, well the Land and Water Forum has done some fantastic work in this space and they’ve certainly explored some of those issues around what is the fairest way to allocate water, and as I said we can't even really have that discussion until we understand where water is available for allocation and in what quantities. When we come to what is the best way to allocate it there will be a really interesting piece of work to be done there. We haven't landed yet on exactly what that most efficient and fairest system looks like. We've identified in the document that has to be part of the next steps of reform.

Rachel With your knowledge though and your expertise of this area, what do you think is the fairest way?

Amy Well I do have concerns about the system that we use at the moment, the first in first served system which has been the basis of Resource Management decisions to date. It tends to lock up water for the first applicants to come to the table and it doesn’t necessarily reflect either the most effective or efficient water use or the appropriate distribution, so I think we should look at alternatives. There are a number of alternatives, transfer and trading, there's one initial time limited allocations, there's another pricing mechanisms in full markets is a third. Look they all have their advocates and their detractors, and I think we'll need to work through it but I do think there is a need to look beyond the first in first served system that we currently have.

Rachel We'll have the second half of that interview with Amy Adams after the break. What does she plan to do with the RMA and will its focus be less environmental and more economic?

PART 2

Rachel We're back with our extended interview with Environment Minister Amy Adams. Before we raised the issue of the Resource Management Act with the Minister we played here a clip of an interview we did last week with Guy Salmon, he's a former National Party candidate and long-time environmentalist. This is what he had to say.

"Guy Salmon: What's now happened is a very dramatic proposal for changing the purpose and principles of the act in a way which is much more disadvantageous for the environment. I've worked with every Environment Minister since the first one was appointed, Duncan McIntyre back in 1971, and this is the first time I've ever dealt with a Minister who's been wanting to lower environmental standards. This shouldn’t be happening in New Zealand."

Rachel Environment Minister, how do you respond to that? Guy Salmon says you're the first Minister who's moving to lower environmental standards.

Amy Look I don’t accept that at all, what we're proposing in the changes to Sections 6 and 7 of the act which is the purpose and principles section is off the back of expert independent legal and technical advice the government received which suggested that the portions that are being removed were unnecessary duplication and didn’t add anything to the protection. I think what Mr Salmon and some of the other commentators are really upset about is that we are proposing that matters such as providing enough land for housing affordability purposes, providing for the consideration of the positive benefits of proposals, the necessity of providing infrastructure, all be weighted and considered alongside environmental considerations, and in their view the environment should be the first ranking consideration and everything else should be secondary. In our view everything should be considered together.

Rachel I think his concern more is a little bit in parallel with the Greens at the moment which is to suggest that the changes that are being made to the RMA is rather than to enable big business the changes are being made to favour big business.

Amy Mm, well that’s what they claim Rachel but they really haven't put up any evidence to support that. As I've said the changes we've made or we're proposing to make to those sections are the ones that have been recommended by some very well respected practitioners and commentators in this area, and I do acknowledge that we are proposing that all the impacts of any proposal be they negative or positive be considered side by side, and that seems to be what they're using as the basis for claiming that it is more developer friendly and somehow lowers environmental standards. I completely reject that.

Rachel Well I think they would also argue that the reason that they think it favours big business is because essentially you're taking it away from the court system, you're taking the rights of people to appeal this, they're losing those rights.

Amy No, no they're not at all. So there will still be appeal rights on all consent decisions. We are proposing that they change from what's called de noveau appeals to a de normal merit appeal on rehearing. There will still be appeal rights on plan processes. The only change we've proposed – significant change to the structure of the appeals – is if councils regional and district councils agree to go through a fully collaborative integrated plan development process, and go in front of an independent hearings commission panel to approve that, then the appeals on that point alone would only be to points of law. Everything else there will still be merit appeals.

Rachel What about the proposal to declare projects of regional significance as opposed to just national significance?

Amy Now well we've still said that there will be the projects of national significance. What we've proposed in the bill that’s before parliament at the moment, is that if projects are particularly large and involve considerable amount of resource, then applicants will have an ability to refer the project straight into the Environment Court for consideration. Many time and perhaps most times for those large projects they will end up in the Environment Court. There is already a process they can ask the council for permission to go straight to the Environment Court, this is just clarifying it for very large scale regional projects. There is a right to go to the Environment Court directly and have the consideration heard there once.

Rachel And can you see that happening with the Ruataniwha Dam for example?

Amy Oh well again I don’t want to speculate on what process that might follow because the applicants haven't made any approach yet, so that’s for them to decide what process they want to go down, but there will be a number of options that they will need to consider in terms of which is the best fit.

Rachel Earlier in this interview and in question time this week you said you had been taking advice from outside the government on the RMA, who have you been speaking with? Who's been advising you?

Amy So we've had a number of advice streams that have fed into this proposal. We have had two technical advisory groups report to government on aspects of the reform package including the changes to Sections 6 and 7. There was a discussion document in the previous term of parliament entitled Building Competitive Cities, which particularly looked at some of the urban design issues, and of course we work with a wide range of stakeholders, practitioners, the local government sector, environmental groups. I've met with a group of them earlier this week. So we talk to a number of groups and we get feedback from around the country obviously in terms of frustrations and what is working well and what isn't.

Rachel And as part of those frustrations did you speak with mining companies, did you speak with Bathurst for example?

Amy I haven't spoken with Bathurst no.

Rachel Has anyone from your ministry spoken with Bathurst?

Amy Not from my knowledge, but I'd have to check with them.

Rachel Bathurst has now it's consent, it's all but consent, it's just released that in a media release. What is the problem then with the RMA because it seems in this case it's working, it's gone through the due process?

Amy And that’s exactly the point I think is that there's a process and a decision will be reached, and that needs to be a robust process, but I would argue that the considerable amount of time and money that it's taken to get to that decision point is something we need to be concerned about, and it's not just the cost to the applicant or to the developer. There has been a huge cost on those opposing the project and a significant cost on the local councils who are involved in the project, and I think we can and should have a system that allows us to get to good quality robust decisions in a much more timely and cost effective way.

Rachel And that brings us again though to the issue that the RMA does rather than enable business, does tend to favour big business. This will help the likes of Bathurst go through the system a lot faster.

Amy Well going through the system faster is a good thing. Whether or not their decision at the end of that is yes or no depends on the merits of the proposal, and I don’t accept that it favours big business, but what I do absolutely agree is that the RMA needs to consider all of our societal values including issues like do we have enough land available for residential land supply. Is land supply driving up house prices? Are there enough opportunities for job creation, and are we doing enough to support that? Do we have the right roading network? Do we have the right infrastructure? And those are all absolutely valid considerations under the Resource Management Act.

Rachel And it sounds though then the RMA is going to be leaning a little bit more to having an economic focus rather than you know strategically having that environment focus?

Amy Well the RMA has always had the purpose of being both environment protection legislation and our planning law, so it replaced the Town and Country Planning Act, and this is the framework under which we have to make all of our community planning decisions, and the vast majority of what goes through consenting is around what you might call those planning issues, and don’t have a significant either use or impact on our shared natural resources. So it's absolutely appropriate that the RMA should consider how we plan and whether that process is working well, and in fact that the balance of environmental and economic has always been a feature of the RMA.

Rachel There are two industries that do seem very likely to benefit from these changes, one of those is dairy and the other is mining, because these are two industries which do tend to clog up the courts don’t they?

Amy I don’t see how you can say they will benefit from it Rachel, if the processes are shorter everyone benefits from that. So the issue of concern to people is whether the final decision is a yes or a not, but everyone benefits if the process and the time and the cost to get to that decision is reduced. It has a huge impact on communities, councils, and objectives, having to fight for years and years and years to get that final decision. I don’t see it as a particular benefit to any sector of getting to that decision more quickly, I see it as a benefit for us all.

Rachel I guess because a lot of people would say that streamlined, which is essentially what this will be now, is a little bit of code really for fast tracking.

Amy Well I absolutely say that we want to have a process that doesn’t take three four five seven eight nine ten years to get decisions, we want to have a process that gets to robust sensible decisions that balance all of society's needs and concerns, and that it is a process that everyone can engage in. You can't have a process where simply having the biggest cheque book and being able to outlast others is the determining factor, and I think in that sense shortening the processes are a good thing.

Rachel Okay so where do these changes then to the RMA, where will they leave the Land and Water Forum, because this is quite an interesting beast, and that it's brought so many different groups and so many different factions together, they’ve collaborated? We're talking about tourist operators, dairy farmers, Iwi, and that’s been based on the existing RMA. Does this potentially blow apart that collaboration now, these changes?

Amy Well I certainly agree with you that the Land and Water Forum has been a fantastic initiative that we brought together and has actually given us a platform for making some real progress around water management. I think where we've been intending to head with the RMA has been well signalled, some of it was in manifesto and supply and confidence agreements, other parts I mentioned the various technical advisory group reports that were well signalled that we were seeking, and in fact were released before the final Land and Water report can out. So I think it's been responsibility well signalled the sorts of changes the government was looking at making. But one point I think is worth making very clear, the Land and Water Forum reports and the Fresh Water Proposals that come off the back of them are around how we develop our rules around managing fresh water. That is then fed into the wider Resource Management plan and maintains its shape, so the rules around developing those water plans are still paramount, the national objectives framework and the national bottom lines to protect water quality that we're proposing will still be paramount, and that is the basis on which the decisions around fresh water management will be made within that wider umbrella of Resource Management that as I said covers a vast array of things, many of which are around urban planning.

Rachel Environment Minister, Amy Adams.

© Scoop Media