Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Mr Speaker. I'd like to join with others from across the Chamber who have congratulated Mark Cameron on the bill that he has had drawn from the ballot. That is an achievement even if it is a lottery achievement. It's something worth debating. The whole purpose of members' bills is that an opportunity should be given for members who are not part of the Government executive to bring to this Chamber bring to the Parliament their thoughts ideas and policy initiatives to change make better enhance and improve the legislative environment within which we all live. That's what Mark Cameron is attempting to do with this piece of legislation.I reject utterly the Government's point of view backed and supported by their loyal sidekicks the Greens that they should instantly reject whatever is in this bill simply on the basis that they don't like it. Now one of the fundamental principles of our parliamentary democracy is that we should be able to debate and discuss and engage with each other about ideas and principles and philosophies. None I think are more important than those that are impacting on our environment on our beautiful natural environment because as New Zealanders we are all connected with it and it means so much to us all. I'm one that thinks that issues relating to the environment shouldn't be relegated to one side or the other of the political spectrum. I think that's far too important. So I reject utterly the Government's point of view that they know best and that they are not prepared to engage or listen or interact with anyone who may have the temerity to have an even marginally different slightly different view to their own.One of the things that I found interesting from the speech from the Minister and the speech from the Green member who has now resumed her seat is that one would think that that they have held these positions particularly around water and water quality for ever. Actually no. Labour and the Greens have been late starters latecomers to the debate about improving the water quality of New Zealand. I remember during the nine long years of the Helen Clark Government not one thing was done—not one initiative no legislation no regulation no improvement at all. Yet the Minister stands in the House today and says these are problems that have emerged over generations over decades. He was in that Government. He was in that Labour Government of Helen Clark and he had an opportunity then to do something and he did nothing—he did nothing. Listening to him in the House today you would think that it had been a lifelong cherished ambition for him to improve the water quality of New Zealand's fresh waterways. Sadly that's not been the case of history or the record of this Parliament.It was actually my colleague Dr Nick Smith who introduced the first initiatives opposed by the Labour Opposition at that stage opposed by the Greens who used every possible stunt that they could achieve to block and stop what he was trying to do. They thought that was all wrong and then suddenly there's a change of Government and oh yes a road to Damascus a recovery and an aberration and suddenly it's all their idea. Well that's not what history tells us because we know on this side of the House that the tradition of Labour parties not just in New Zealand but around the world—it's a socialist tradition actually—is that there are only three policy initiatives that they have when it comes to any matter whether it's the environment fresh water or anything. Those three policy initiatives are either to ban it make it compulsory or tax it—often a combination of all three.We think on this side of the House that this is a bill that is not perfect. It has got some issues it has got some faults. We for instance on this side of the House we do support national direction. We do think that's important but we also understand and accept that water quality issues deserve attention catchment by catchment. We accept that. So we think on this side of the House that rather than just simply arrogantly rejecting out of hand this piece of legislation it should go to a select committee. It should be the subject of submissions presented from people around the countryside and it should be part of our democracy and it should be something that the Government should at least have the decency to listen to an alternative point of view and hear another thing on. If there's one thing that this Government has to do they really must begin to learn that when it comes to things agriculture when it comes to things farming they've got to learn to deal with farmers rather than dealing to them.