Stinking up the joint over Ruataniwha

Andrea Vance writes about the dodgy behaviour of Nick Smith over the Ruataniwha dam.

You could get tied in knots trying to explain the Ruataniwha Dam mini-scandal enveloping Conservation Minister Nick Smith.

Smith certainly has, and it has left a pong as pungent as a river polluted with cow excrement.

What it boils down to is the perception of political influence. The Department of Conservation prepared a submission to an Environmental Protection Agency Board of Inquiry examining the proposed irrigation dam. They concluded it was “risky”, “untested” “inappropriate” and could pollute the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers.

Two days after Smith was told about the proposal it was withdrawn and replaced with a diluted, two-paragraph submission. Smith has repeatedly insisted he learned about the existence of the report only last week, from a radio bulletin.

Documents later surfaced to show he had been briefed and had expressed concerns. Smith’s explanation for this inconsistency is that he saw only the final copy, not the original 32-page draft. He was, to use his own words, dancing on the head of a pin.

The problem with his account is that it is evident he was told enough about the tenor of the report to express concerns and ask to see it. 

This issue will eventually finish Nick Smith’s political career. Though he is fighting a rear guard action tooth and nail.

Smith has strenuously denied he leaned on DOC. However, the perception that is left is that his officials were so worried about his reaction, that they scrapped the whole thing and went with a safer option. It speaks to an apparent trend of ministers taking care not to record anything but verbally putting pressure on their departments or ministries.

Smith has also made some interesting comments about what he believes DOC’s role is. He revealed in Parliament he had a conversation with the department’s director- general when he first took up the portfolio this year and indicated it should exercise caution when making submissions to boards of inquiry. He also made it clear that he believes water quality is not within DOC’s scope, which should be the protection of species. If they could, I’m sure the fish of the Tukituki would disagree.

Nick smith just can’t help himself. He is a meddler…always was and always will be.

The Sunday Star-Times also revealed last year that Smith overrode the advice of environment ministry officials and awarded a $185,000 grant to a project, $87,000 of which was swallowed up in consultancy fees for a company run by his friend. Three years ago he fired a board of elected councillors at Environment Canterbury, over water- management issues.

It all points to a disturbing track record of Smith overstepping the boundaries of public service neutrality. However, unlike the ACC conflict of interest, this episode is unlikely to spell the end of Smith’s ministerial career. The matter is too complicated and bureaucratic to have much resonance outside of the public service. Letting him go would be an admission Prime Minister John Key made a mistake in restoring him to Cabinet, so his position would need to be untenable.

Andrea Vance is dead right there, though Smith should be sacked. The only reason he survives is because of Bill English. John Key made an error in re-instating him, it may will be the error that also costs him his job if he sticks by Nick Smith. The problem with hugging corpses is eventually you end up smelling like them.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

To read Cam’s previous articles click on his name in blue.

39%