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:9990] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There have been many quite hysterical claims of conspiracies and the like and I think it would be worthwhile simply to put on the record a few of the basic facts that give a background to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. 
You see both Labour and Green members have established that this bill is a very sophisticated conspiracy; that the Government has engineered a whole lot of groups to be anti - Environment Canterbury to enable this bill to be passed. Well the first thing I would like to ask those members is whether they really believe that National members in Opposition were able to manipulate the respected staff of the Ministry for the Environment so that when they wrote their briefing to the incoming Government they raised very serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. That is an extraordinary claim and I ask members to respond to it.  
Secondly I point to the Environment Court decisions and the decisions of independent commissioners who have raised serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. Are members opposite really claiming that somehow through this Roger Douglas - driven conspiracy we have been able to manipulate the decisions of independent commissioners and the Environment Court to make critical comments about Environment Canterbury? So great is the conspiracy that somehow we have got Trevor Mallard into it as well because Trevor Mallard is on the public record as saying very clearly that Environment Canterbury was in serious trouble. He knew that when he was Minister. He went— 
Hon Member 
: Has anything changed since then? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What he said was: “I went to the Prime Minister suggested we take action and the Prime Minister said it would be politically difficult.” The fact that Mr Mallard went to the Prime Minister says that in his conscience he knew he had a genuine problem but he did not for political reasons have the courage to address the significant issues in Canterbury. 
I also challenge members of the Opposition particularly Mr Brendon Burns who say that absolutely nothing in this bill deals with issues of water quality or some of the other very real issues in Canterbury. I refer the member to the many pages of schedule 1 of the bill that state what the commissioners are required to have regard to in their decision making. They make absolute reference to issues of water quality to drinking-water standards to the very essence of indigenous biodiversity and to a whole range of other key environmental factors that we are putting into law today to make progress on water management. 
I was amused by the contribution from Mr Phil Twyford. He says that the changes that are occurring in Auckland are all part of a right-wing conspiracy. Well that is interesting. I thought that they came from a royal commission report. I ask Mr Twyford whether he knows who commissioned the royal commission report. It was the previous Labour Government. These conspiracy theories that somehow National had control of the previous Labour Cabinet and somehow National organised a royal commission to write a report to provide for the introduction of the super-city in Auckland expose the lightweight contributions that we have had from Labour members. They are hiding behind shadows and trying to find conspiracies. 
The issue is very simple: we have a problem with water management in Canterbury. It is a longstanding problem. It has required addressing for years. I acknowledge Mr Brendon Burns for at least acknowledging that the previous Labour Government failed to address these issues. It is time for leadership on water management in Canterbury and that is what is appropriately provided for in this bill.