Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9978] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We are debating the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because there is a serious problem which everybody in this House should acknowledge around water management issues in Canterbury. The fact is that last month Trevor Mallard said that everyone knew there was a problem there and I challenge Labour members to stop their denials. They were entrusted with the Government of New Zealand for 9 years and I ask members whether in that 9-year period they did anything about improving water management. My own ministry’s chief executive Dr Paul Reynolds a respected public servant described the previous Government’s water programme of action as a programme of inaction such was the lack of any leadership or direction around water management issues. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When did he say that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said that about 3 years ago when he was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
I will challenge Ruth Dyson about a number of claims she has made. Firstly I will deal with her claim that not one single discussion had taken place with the 10 councils. That is what Ruth Dyson has just claimed. But I tell her that I attended a meeting with the mayors of every single council from Waitaki to Kaikoura. Every single one of those territorial councils supports the responsive action that this Government is taking. 
The member also said that the mayors did not have a democratic mandate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I did not say that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is interesting; her colleague did. Last night her colleague said that the mayors had no right to speak for the people of Canterbury. 
The member attacked the Maori Party for its support of this bill. I note that Ngai Tahu with whom I thought Labour would have some relationship has said that it reluctantly agrees that the appointment of commissioners is necessary in Canterbury. 
I will deal with the rhetoric we have heard from Ruth Dyson and others about whether it is appropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities. Where was Ruth Dyson when the previous Minister of Health David Cunliffe sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Where was Ruth Dyson when Helen Clark sacked the entire Auckland District Health Board? The member said that it was not appropriate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You weren’t even here in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So because I was not in Parliament it is not relevant? But it is OK for Helen Clark to sack a democratically elected district health board. In fact members opposite are playing silly politics in this regard. 
It is interesting to note that a former Labour Government in one Act of Parliament abolished 460 democratically elected bodies in one go—460 democratically elected councils in one go. So for Labour members to stand in this Parliament today and say that it is inappropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities is really an extraordinary claim for them to make. It really shows how shallow their arguments are in the Chamber this morning. 
I have a simple challenge for Labour members. All New Zealanders appreciate that we have a major problem with water management in Canterbury. This Government has responded with real leadership with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about how to fix that. My challenge to members in Labour is to ask what their response is. Their response in 9 years in Government was absolutely zip. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Have an election. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Darren Hughes says to have an election. Well he should look at this own comments. I will take Marian Hobbs for an example. Why was it that the previous Labour Government required special legislation to put in a water plan in the Waitaki? It was because Marian Hobbs told this Parliament—this was way back in 2003—that Environment Canterbury had failed to put in place the proper plans. If members opposite want to talk about democratic rights I ask them why it was appropriate in 2003 to pass a special bill through this Parliament to take away from the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury the right to do a Waitaki water plan. Why was that OK? If those members really believed in the absoluteness of democracy around regional councils why would that Government have ridden roughshod over those councillors? Do members know who wrote the regional plan? It was actually written by commissioners appointed by the then Minister for the Environment. 
So why was it OK for Labour when it was in Government to dismiss health boards and to go into urgency to pass special legislation about elections and commissioners in Rodney District? Why was it OK for Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Supported by National. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. National did support that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Except for it being in urgency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Labour voted for the urgency motion. I noted before that I think it is somewhat contradictory and it shows the mess in the Labour Party that Labour voted for the urgency motion. But when National was in Opposition and was confronted with the problems— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know that Part 1 is a wide-ranging debate and there is a lot of opportunity for Opposition calls but the Minister persists in this myth that the Labour Opposition voted for an urgency motion. That is simply not correct and it will lead to disorder if the Minister misrepresents the Opposition’s position on procedural matters. He is not helping the passage of his own legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I understand the member’s point. I think that it really falls into the realm of debate. There are some technical issues around how that vote was taken that make it a little bit difficult to exactly and precisely determine what the intention was because there was no party vote. But it is a matter of debate. OK? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have finished with that point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to make it a debating matter. It is a matter of record that at the time when the urgency motion was taken there was no vote. There was a consensus that the House moved into urgency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: But that’s not voting “for”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I see. So we have this new rewriting of the rules which is so common with Labour— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. If I understood the Minister he said that the vote was taken entirely by consensus on voices. That is incorrect. The Green Party registered “No” verbally. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I was in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I was sitting right up front and I listened very carefully. I heard that no voices were registered in opposition to the urgency motion. No party vote was sought. It has long been established in the practice of Parliament that if parties wish to register a vote against the motion they seek a party vote. That did not occur. The record shows that Parliament moved into urgency by consensus. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We now have two issues. One is the substantive point raised by Mr Graham. The second point is that the Minister in his response to the point of order has now accused the member of misleading the House and has not taken his word. Mr Graham said that on voices the Green Party voted a certain way. If the Minister persists in that accusation he is accusing the member of misleading the House. Both of those separate points lead to the point that if the Minister wants to get his legislation through in a rational logical calm and orderly way he would be best to focus on the debate of the substance in the bill rather than on the avenue that he is going down which will delay his own legislation. I hope he understands that very simple point I am trying to make to him. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise the point that Mr Hughes has said which is that by me pointing out exactly the events that occurred around the urgency motion the Labour Party approach is one of “Well we’re going to throw our toys out of the cot and not allow his legislation to be passed.” I do not think that that is an appropriate threat. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of order Mr Chairman and we are having interjections. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Sorry I am actually trying to just sort my way through this process so I was probably a little bit inattentive. But members should not interject and should not make any contribution while we are hearing points of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point of order was that the Opposition’s “junior leader of the House” Mr Darren Hughes has made the claim that my pointing out the events that occurred around the vote on the urgency motion will somehow stop the passage of the legislation through Parliament. I do not think that those sorts of threats are at all helpful to the orderly running of the Committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Minister’s contribution there is an exact example of what I am talking about. There are no threats being made; the Labour Opposition wants to debate the substance of the clauses in Part 1 of this bill. It is a pretty serious bill. It takes away the right of people to have an election for 3½ years so all parties think it is pretty serious. The point I am making to the Minister is that by his continual misrepresentation of what members have said including those as recently as in my last point of order just 45 seconds ago we have now stopped debating the legislation and we are heading down into a procedural wrangle because of the style and behaviour that he is undertaking. Labour wants to debate Part 1 of the bill. We want to engage with the Minister on that. We are glad that he is taking calls. I think we should be able to return to a debate on substance rather than have this sort of sideshow that seems to be going on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just try to clarify the issue around the vote. If members look at Standing Order 136 they will see that it quite clearly outlines what happens. The Speaker at the time asked for the Ayes and for the Noes and it will be recorded in the  
Hansard 
 that the resolution was “The Ayes have it.” Any member at any stage can call for a party vote. That never happened. So what we simply have is a record which states that a resolution was passed by the Government. The record is not recorded as to which parties voted whichever way because no party vote was called for. So it is simply just a matter that the resolution was passed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a matter of debate; that is what the record actually shows. We will return to Part 1. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Forgive me I cannot recall whether it concerned Mr Graham or Mr Hughes but that was not the point of order that was being made. What you have said is not in dispute. The point of order that was being made—and the member has an absolute right to be taken at his word—was that the member said that his party indicated “No” by voice. I am not objecting to the record. The point of order is simply that there is an absolute and cast-iron rule as you would know Mr Assistant Chairperson in this Chamber that a member’s word cannot be questioned. But there is an absolute case that Dr Smith questioned the member’s word and in effect called him a liar— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No he questioned his word Mr Assistant Chairman and by questioning his word in effect without using the term he—and I understand the English language—implied that this member was not telling the truth. I invite you to rule on that; he questioned his word. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Righto I will rule. I did not take that inference whatsoever. That is why I have cleared up the matter of how the vote was taken. I say also that the point of order raised by Dr Kennedy Graham was not actually a point of order. But I have clarified the matter as to how the vote was taken and we will now return to the debate on Part 1.