King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12528. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What will be the implications for the applications for the Hurunui water project the Hurunui water conservation order and the Hurunui River plan of the proposal by commissioners to impose a moratorium on water takes under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The commissioners’ rationale is that advancing the massive $300 million Hurunui water project ahead of finalising a plan for the river and before decisions on the proposed water conservation order amounts to putting the cart before the horse. They also want to give the new Hurunui Zone Committee under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy the opportunity to develop a balanced approach to the development of the Hurunui. I have approved the proposal as it provides a window of opportunity to provide for a far more sensible approach to water management in Canterbury. 
Colin King 
: How has the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act enabled a better process for managing the Hurunui River? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly the powers for a moratorium do not exist in the Resource Management Act so the steps today are possible only because of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act. Secondly the purpose of the moratorium is to enable a comprehensive plan to be put in place for the Hurunui ahead of major consents being considered. This would take many years under the existing Resource Management Act. But the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act enables that plan to be brought together quickly so that we are not unrealistically deferring considerations of major consents. The third way the special legislation helps is that it aligns the processes of the water conservation orders on the Hurunui with the plan and the major consent. It is one river and having the water conservation order being considered separately to the plan makes absolutely no sense. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that the already unsafe water quality of the lower Hurunui River now requiring a moratorium is paralleled by many other Canterbury rivers and streams will he halt other new water schemes until tough new environmental rules are in place or would that totally disrupt the Prime Minister’s growth strategy and projects such as Synlait’s Chinese takeover and Fonterra’s new milk plant at Darfield? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is committed to balanced development of Canterbury’s water resources and that means resolving some of the environmental challenges that were totally neglected over the last decade when not one step was taken to deal with any of the water issues in Canterbury. This has meant that this Government is having to take some of these steps. I find it ironic that the member is calling for a moratorium on other rivers when he campaigned and voted against the very legislation that enables a moratorium to be put in place. 
Colin King 
: How will this decision support the work of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the Hurunui Zone Committee approved last Friday by the commissioners? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This decision breathes life into the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the work of the zone committee which has only just been approved by the commissioners. The moratorium enables that zone committee under the strategy to develop a balanced plan for the river without being gazumped by a massive scheme that was approved under a separate process. This Government is committed to developing the irrigation potential of the Hurunui River but it wants to ensure that this is done in a careful and balanced way. 
Colin King 
: Was Russel Norman correct when he claimed that “we mustn’t forget that if the Government hadn’t run roughshod over democracy with the ECan Act we might have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River by now.”? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the honourable member’s point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for a statement made by Dr Russel Norman. I will allow the member a chance to rephrase his question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s question asked whether the claim was correct. I have responsibility for the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act so I think it is perfectly proper for a member to ask whether a claim that is being made publicly is correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is if the member asking the question makes it very clear early on in the question that that is what the member is seeking. I invite Colin King to repeat his question. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister read any reports claiming that we would already have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River if the Government had not run roughshod over the democratic process? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No the claim is totally incorrect. The water conservation orders under the Act—and if the member opposite looked at the Act he would see this—have the decisions made by the tribunal and by the Minister. The councillors of any regional council have absolutely no role in water conservation orders and I think it is completely incompetent for members like Russel Norman who makes all sorts of claims about water to get such basic facts of law wrong.