Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10047] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The comments from the Opposition on this bill come down basically to two features: misinformation and personal denigration. I will address both of those in this short contribution. 
The first concerns the regulatory impact statement which the member has claimed was not tabled in the House. I tell members that it was tabled in the House right in front of me at exactly the same time as the bill was tabled. It was also provided to the Bills Office at exactly the same time. 
I will also address the issues that have been raised by Russel Norman. I note that Jeanette Fitzsimons who was a passionate leader of environmental issues in all the years that I spent in the House religiously focused on playing the ball and not the man. But I have seen from Russel Norman—and I think this will be terminal for the Green Party—that he is choosing to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech and the others who did the review and today he started on David Carter. There is a very important point that I will put on the record: on Monday when Cabinet made its decisions on Environment Canterbury and on this bill David Carter was not even present. For members in this Chamber to attack a Minister when that Minister is offshore doing the work of New Zealand I think is below the standards that the Green Party itself would set for its members. 
I will address quite specifically the three major parts in this portion of the bill. In my view they are critical to the step change in water management that the Government wants to deliver. Let me go through those three parts. 
The first is that the Government is providing the commissioners with the power to put in place a targeted moratorium on water takes. Some members who are also farmers are concerned about that provision and they would prefer that it was not there. But it is time we were honest with water in Canterbury and say that in some areas there is not more water to allocate. For us to spend large sums of money on lawyers and on process when there simply is not more water is not wise which is why that measure is in this bill. Interestingly I have the correspondence that I tabled earlier in the Chamber when Environment Canterbury made submissions to members such as Ruth Dyson Lianne Dalziel and many others. Environment Canterbury asked for that power during the course of the previous Government but the council was ignored. I think that the provision for that power to be available is overdue if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury. 
The second part of this bill is concerned with getting a plan. I am advised that on the current programme it will be at least 2 or 3 years before we finally get a plan on water. Members on the Government benches are saying that that is too long that we need progress and we need a plan. That is why there are quite specific provisions in this part to fast track the provisions of establishing a water plan in Canterbury. 
The third issue is one of integrated management. It does not make sense for either the Environment Court or a special tribunal appointed by myself to make decisions on water conservation orders in Canterbury separate from the commissioners. If we are really serious about getting a group of people to get hold of this issue of water in Canterbury and to make integrated decisions it is absolutely right that those decisions are made by the commissioners. 
The last point I will make is that decisions on water conservation orders in the current law are—and in the amended law will be—made by the Minister for the Environment. That remains the case. To the accusations that somehow decisions on water conservation are being politicised I say “Well hang on.” The decisions are made by the Minister for the Environment by whoever is privileged to hold that office at the time. But the provisions in this part are the vital extra powers that are required for the commissioners to be able to get on top of water management issues in Canterbury and that is why the Government has included them in the bill.