Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15300] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We have heard some extraordinary things in the Chamber in the last 12 hours or so and not the least of them has come from the previous speaker the very confused Dr Smith—the man who told  
North and South 
 that he had been “screwed” by his leader and that he was not here in Parliament “to shag spiders”. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Well I have read  
North and South  
I tell 
Dr Smith— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is the second time that this Minister has chosen to simply engage in derogatory personal statements that are not true and you know Madam Chairperson that if a member says something is not true he is to be taken at his word. I think that for the Minister who is meant to be a Minister of the Crown to immediately begin a debate of such crucial importance to the people of the upper Waitaki with those sorts of untruths does this Committee no credit at all. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That reflection on Dr Smith has continued throughout the debate this evening. I say to the Minister who has brought those accusations and made those personal statements against my colleague that that is completely unparliamentary. It is unacceptable under Standing Order 116 and the statements made are untrue. I expect Madam Chairperson that you will censure the Minister and ask him to apologise for his conduct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think that in the interests of good debate this evening it would be appropriate if the Minister withdrew those remarks. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise and I am sorry if the member has taken offence— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I draw your attention to Standing Order 106 and I think that in this instance it may be the best remedy. Standing Order 106(1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of the member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” I think in this instance that if the Hon Dr Nick Smith were to have another call pursuant to Standing Order 106 that would in part remedy the misrepresentation we have had from the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. While you were deliberating Madam Chairperson the Hon Ruth Dyson has been interrupting. There is meant to be silence during points of order. The Minister was speaking at the time that the Hon Ken Shirley was making his point. You should be deliberating Madam Chairperson but we have interjections all the time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. I give members a final warning about speaking during points of order. One cannot rule on points of order if there is noise going on. The point that Mr Shirley raised is not pertinent. The material was part of the Minister’s speech. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: What I really wanted to do was to read the even more extraordinary— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I would like you to reflect Madam Chairperson not on the point of order you have ruled on but on the use of language by Mr Benson-Pope. Unparliamentary language like “shagging spiders” surely cannot be accepted in this Chamber. You did not ask him to withdraw or apologise for the use of that language. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: This is a different point of order; it is about the Minister’s language. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. The point of order was about the member’s language. He has withdrawn and apologised and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Irrespective of what may have gone before the most extraordinary statement made by Dr Smith in the last decade is recorded in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 by David Bruce the columnist responsible for Otago and Waitaki affairs. Since I had the good fortune to be elected to Parliament in 1999 my respect for the  
Otago Daily Times  
has grown. That is not meant to be a reflection on other dailies but it may be something to do with the fact of its independent ownership. On matters around the Waitaki and the whole Project Aqua debate including the debate around the water allocation issues that we are canvassing tonight David Bruce who is the columnist in Otago and Oamaru has gained amazing respect for the way that he has reported very contentious and highly contested issues. 
I would like to put into the  
Hansard 
 this evening a report from the  
Otago Daily Times  
of 24 July this year the byline to which is: “It reads like a ‘whodunnit’- David Bruce investigates who killed off water to irrigate the Mackenzie Basin.” The article is headed “Allocation never meant to go”. I ask members while I read this article to think about what they have just heard from the National Party’s chequered spokesman on this matter. The article states: “The National Party now championing the cause of Mackenzie Basin farmers passed legislation in 1993 that took away their irrigation allocation. However the party’s current environment spokesman Dr Nick Smith said the National government in the early 1990s never intended to do that. … Dr Smith was a member of the National government which made an amendment to the RMA in 1993 removing the section of the 1991 Act which had given the 1969 order in council virtual resource consent status. Doing that also removed the irrigation allocation.” 
Frankly I am not surprised and neither are Dr Smith’s former constituents in the Mackenzie that he is as embarrassed as he is about that incredible cock-up as he refers to it later on in that article. However what does surprise me is that Dr Smith and other members stand up in this Chamber and criticise the establishment of a water allocation board in this legislation. Dr Smith was quoted later in the same article as saying: “National wants a statutory board being established by the Government to allocate water in the Waitaki catchment …”. I say QED to Dr Smith. He has got it wrong again publicly. It is time he owned up came clean and got on board when the Government is trying to fix up yet another shambles that it has inherited from him and his mates.