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:9997] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill provides for the appointment of commissioners for the important functions in Canterbury. I point out specifically such provisions as clause 21 which puts quite onerous consultation requirements on the commissioners. 
The main reason I take a call is to engage with Kennedy Graham who made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of the commissioners and their functions. He rightly pointed out that under the Resource Management Act I as the Minister for the Environment have the power under section 25(1) to appoint commissioners to take over all or some of the resource management functions. I also endorse the remarks made by the member that the Government’s real concerns—and I think they are widely held—are around water management in Canterbury. We have a big challenge there. 
He asked why the Government has chosen not to use those section 25(1) powers and appoint commissioners to get on top of those issues in the area of water rather than use the provisions that are in Part 2 whereby the commissioners will take over all of the functions of Environment Canterbury. That is a good question and I will respond to it. The great difficulty is that if I use those powers effectively I will have a set of commissioners in charge of Environment Canterbury as well as the elected council. My advice and the advice from Environment Canterbury itself was that it would be very difficult to splice out of Environment Canterbury these all-important water functions. We could end up in the worst world which is almost a two-headed monster. Nobody would be sure who was in charge. 
If there is agreement on anything around the water issues in Canterbury I think it is that clear and strategic leadership is required. I am not satisfied nor were the key parties that I consulted that using those section 25(1) powers—for which the threshold to use them has clearly been met—would get us on top of the issue. In fact it would make it worse. But I equally challenge Kennedy Graham in this respect. He and his colleague Sue Kedgley have given an impassioned plea that it is an affront to democracy to have these commissioners. Yet in his speech he said it would be fine for me to use my powers to appoint commissioners to take over the water functions. There is a logical inconsistency there. He says that it is OK for the Minister to use powers provided for in law at the moment for those commissioners to take over the most contentious and difficult issues in Canterbury which concern water. He would support that and he would recognise that it was a good step forward. Yet he says that to do it this way is wrong. I think there is a serious logical inconsistency in the Greens’ position in that regard. 
As Rodney Hide said yesterday the Government has taken these provisions reluctantly. But this is the right way forward. I say to members— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s exactly what the Minister wanted. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel has interjected. It is always interesting that when one cannot play the ball one plays the man. When Labour members cannot respond to the substantive issues they choose to go into the area of personal denigration. Whether it be in terms of— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: About whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For instance Wyatt Creech. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What did I say? I said he had a conflict of interest that’s all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members went a lot further than that. I point out to the ranting members of the Labour Party that this report has been prepared by four people: Wyatt Creech Doug Martin of MartinJenkins Greg Hill and Doug Low of Morrison Low. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who was the leader of the group? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chair was Wyatt Creech. Did members on our side of the Chamber choose to be heavily party political when Mike Moore was appointed to roles when Helen Clark was appointed to roles and when a whole number of former Labour MPs have been appointed to roles? I really think it says something about the quality of the roles from members on Labour’s benches that they want to play the personality game. They play the personality game because they are not prepared to confront the substantive issues. Those substantive issues are that we need clear direction from Government around water management. The provisions in this part show this Government providing something that has been required for many many years: clear leadership around water management.