Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9969] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to really point out some of the contradictions in the purposes that have come from members of the Labour Opposition. Let me just go through a number of contradictions. 
First of all the Labour members say— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the advantages of the Committee stage is the chance to have a robust exchange with the Minister but how can it be in order for the Minister in the first call on Part 1 to immediately launch into an attack on the Opposition for its contradictions? There has been no debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member knows that the Minister has the first call if the Minister so chooses. We are on Part 1 and the Minister is making his opening statements. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the chief Labour Party whip is so defensive. Labour members have got on their feet and said they are opposed to this bill being debated under urgency. But can we guess what happened when the House had a vote on the urgency motion? The Labour Party and the Green Party supported the urgency motion. 
Then let us consider the impassioned speeches about this bill being an affront to democracy. I have some questions for members opposite. Was it an affront to democracy when Helen Clark fired every member of the Auckland District Health Board in 1989? Was it an affront to democracy when David Cunliffe in 2008 fired the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Was it an affront to democracy when under urgency on 2 May 2000 a bill was introduced to replace the Rodney District Council with commissioners a bill that was responsibly supported by the National members of the Opposition? You see the Labour members are unprincipled. They are playing politics; they do not care about the issues. 
I was particularly disappointed during the second reading— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is it in order for a Minister in the chair to refer to members of Parliament as being unprincipled? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This will be a robust debate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It is now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well it has been a robust debate during the earlier readings. The Committee stage is an opportunity to continue that debate and I will not stifle any debate so long as it is fair and equitable. We are on Part 1 and the purpose clause is in Part 1. Debate on the purpose clause can include a much wider range than the debates on other clauses can but I will be asking the Minister— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’re actually on Part 1 not clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The purpose clause is in Part 1. The Minister has had 2 minutes and he has 3 minutes to go. I will ask the Minister to now focus on what Part 1 is about. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Part 1 of this bill— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They don’t like it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a point of order and members should not interrupt. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Without wishing to challenge your ruling can I ask you a simple question? Are you now ruling it to be parliamentary language to call a member unprincipled? I simply ask that. Is that your ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I’m asking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled on that matter. If the member takes offence to that under Standing Order 116 he can say he does but I will ask members to be very mindful of the language that they use. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member has taken offence. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am dealing with a matter here. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Member 
: And apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any help. I have asked him to withdraw and he has done so. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Under the principle of someone taking offence it has to be to a slur on the person’s character. In relation to the suggestion that the Opposition is unprincipled if people are to take offence at that it will be a long night. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member took offence. The comment could have been seen to have wider implications. We have ruled on the matter. The Minister has withdrawn. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The purpose of this bill is to deal with the underlying— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Nick always loses control. It always goes wrong with Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chief Labour Party whip who is interjecting should just take a big deep breath. He is the chief whip who voted for urgency on this bill even though every Labour member who gets up says he or she is opposed to urgency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair in his capacity as the Minister in charge of this bill to a large extent determines how it is handled under urgency. There was no vote for urgency on this motion and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is a debating point. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What recourse does the Opposition have when procedural matters are continually misrepresented by the Minister in charge of the bill leading to disorder? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. A point of order must be something that I can have control over. This is a debating point. The Minister has been given the call. He is articulating crystallising those things that he thinks are important. I ask him to continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: All members know in their heart of hearts that this country has a substantial problem with regard to water management in Canterbury. In fact the greatest irony is that Brendon Burns spent the best part of last year attacking Environment Canterbury. At every moment Brendon Burns used the opportunity to do that and then the Government comes to the Chamber with a bill that will deal with the problems regarding water in Canterbury and the Opposition rolls out some of the most tired awful arguments. 
I was particularly disappointed in Lianne Dalziel. There has been a long tradition that although we might be pretty robust in this Chamber we treat former members with some respect. It was a comment on her desperation that Lianne Dalziel chose to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech. I point out that the conclusions of the report were unanimous by all four of the reviewers. And yes I could give a speech in this Chamber about Lianne Dalziel’s misdemeanours; I could do the same about Ruth Dyson and her convictions. What members opposite have chosen to do is to play the person and not the ball. What members like Lianne Dalziel chose to do in— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’re asking for it. You’re asking for what’s going to happen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us look at the threats. What the members are saying is that if someone tells some home truths they will bring disruption to the Chamber. I challenge Lianne Dalziel to focus on the issues in the review group report rather than attacking the integrity of Wyatt Creech. Members on all sides of the Chamber know in their heart of hearts that Wyatt Creech is a very diligent dedicated New Zealander and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am going to allow the Minister who is seeking the call to have the next call. But I just ask that we really focus on what the debate is about. I ask that we quieten down so we can get some substantive debate going and we can understand the issues. Is everyone including the Minister happy with that? That applies to everyone. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet; I am ruling. I ask the Minister to continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to really gun in on the key conclusions of the review group report about the very serious issues that this Parliament faces in respect of the issues in Canterbury. The first issue in the report which stands out overwhelmingly is that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we do not have a plan for managing Canterbury water. I challenge members in the Green Party and members of the Labour Party to explain why it is satisfactory in 2010 when we all accept that water issues in Canterbury are very critical that we have no resource management plan for water. I think every member in the Chamber knows that that is a key failing and knows that if a Government is going to provide leadership it needs to address that fundamental issue. 
It is equally a matter of fact—and a matter of record—that in the most recent biennial survey of resource management performance Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked 84th out of 84 councils. That report was commissioned by the previous Government. I also draw attention to the very honest and frank statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment the Hon Trevor Mallard who said everyone knew there was a problem there—referring to Canterbury. Everybody knew there was a problem there. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Our investigation did not rule out the question of governance. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would bring Lianne Dalziel’s attention to the briefing to the incoming Government. Again that briefing made it absolutely plain that issues in Environment Canterbury were critical and would need to be addressed. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The governance of Environment Canterbury is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Ms Dalziel is interjecting. If she wants to bring that to our attention I ask her what the report recommended. Let me read—I quote—what the report said: “This failure requires— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It says that the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is happy to quote; let me quote very directly: “This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being.”—and these are the key words—“Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.” That is a very key conclusion. 
I simply challenge members of the Labour Opposition to stop playing politics to focus on the real issues that are important to Canterbury and to stop attacking the reviewers. Let us make this Committee debate an intelligent and well-constructed debate about how we can really focus in on the water issues in Canterbury and how this Parliament can make a positive difference to addressing issues that really matter rather than having the sort of hysteria that we are seeing from members like Lianne Dalziel.