Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

Labour is opposing this bill. It is a constitutional outrage on a whole number of levels. This bill replaces Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors with Government-appointed commissioners.

💬 Amy Adams: As you did in 2000.

I will come back to the issue of Rodney District Council. The member for Selwyn had better take note that this measure will not have universal appeal in her electorate, and that it would have been useful if that member’s office had been able to advise people who called this afternoon about what her position would be. But I put that to one side.

This bill will absolutely disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury for the next 3½ years. It is not a quick fix; it is a long-term assault on the democratic model, which we on this side of the House happen to believe is quite important constitutionally. This bill follows on from the Creech report, which took place in a time frame of just under a month. The reviewers consulted fewer than 20 stakeholders—20 stakeholders. It talked to the mayors, but not to the councils, and the councils had not been consulted by their mayors. One has to say that mayors may have a different view about what is important for territorial authorities in Canterbury from what their councils might actually have.

Environment Canterbury is a democratically elected body. Its history has included having members of this House as members. But this bill, without any chance for public submissions, will disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury. This point of relevance was already raised in terms of contrast with what happened at Rodney, but we will come to that in a minute. This bill will see the National and ACT coalition appointing from four to seven commissioners, who will make all of the decisions for Environment Canterbury. That is going further than the recommendations of the Creech report, which said, in fact, that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job in respect of all of its other functions, and—

💬 Colin King: What about its coastal plan?

Yes, it was saying that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job. Not only that, but I went to the briefing held by Wyatt Creech and the commissioners, where it was said that some of the issues about water were the responsibility of this Parliament, of Government, and of the Environment Court, and that not even on the issue of water alone could all of the responsibility for its management, and any question marks about the track record of that management, be sheeted home to Environment Canterbury.

So I ask why we are not seeing a bill that actually embodies those thoughts, from the review of Environment Canterbury conducted in rapid fashion by Wyatt Creech and his review team. Why are we not seeing a bill that embodies the issues around the politics of water, and this Government’s determination to get quick runs on the board in the next year without environmental checks and balances being put in place? I put that issue to the Minister for the Environment this morning. I asked whether there would be accompanying legislation to this bill, to ensure that new rounds for the allocation of water, as envisaged under this bill—at the centre and core of this bill, and with environmental checks and balances in place—are allocated in a better way. Anybody in Canterbury will accept that at this point in time there is not the best water quality in Canterbury. There is not the level of water quality that there should be, and remedies for that should be in place. But the Minister agreed that there was no accompanying legislation.

We are seeing National and ACT remove a democratically elected council so that Nick Smith and his colleagues can run the decisions in Canterbury in terms of water. That is what it is about. Cantabrians, people in my province, will not get the chance to have a say on who manages their water, their public transport, their clean air provisions, and the coastal environment for the next 3½ long years—3½ long years—because this Government wants to abrogate that fundamental democratic right. I would have thought that a party on the opposite side of the Chamber, a party from the right, would uphold the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. But that principle has been fundamentally violated by this bill. That is a fundamental principle of the right, but it has been discarded for convenience’s sake. It has been discarded by this Government because it does not fit what the Government wants to do in terms of rapid allocation of new water without any checks and balances being put in place. That is what this bill is about. It is about a rapid allocation of new water to industries across Canterbury.

Labour supports sustainable growth. We want to see growth in Canterbury. We want to see the greening of the plains, but we will not tolerate more browning of the waters. This bill puts that at risk. The function of Environment Canterbury is being taken out. Whatever Environment Canterbury’s faults, it has in recent months and years matched the environmental record, in terms of Resource Management Act processes, of other councils. It has absolutely matched the record of other councils in terms of those processes. Environment Canterbury has also been the instigator and driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which I note is included in the bill as a schedule. There are references in the bill to taking account of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, but where is reference to that strategy in terms of any decision-making process? The Canterbury Water Management Strategy has to be consulted, it has to be taken account of, but where is the requirement that the strategy be embodied by this legislation? It is not there—it is not there.

I tell members that I think the people who have been involved in bringing that once-in-a-lifetime strategy together for Canterbury will be very nervous at the appointment of these commissioners. They know that ultimately those commissioners will be answerable to Nick Smith, to Cabinet, to the Government, and to the ACT Party, and not to the ratepayers of Canterbury, the people of Canterbury, or the people who should be deciding how our water is allocated. The commissioners will be answerable to a Cabinet agenda that is on the record and explicit—new allocation, and new water in Canterbury from next year—without commensurate, appropriate environmental checks being put in place. We all know that Parliament and Government had not put in place a sufficiently rigorous system to do that, but this bill does absolutely nothing to deliver it. Where are those new environmental standards? They are simply not there.

The Minister talked in his introduction about a step change in water management. It is a step change in water management towards allocating water more rapidly, but it is not the step change that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy envisaged, where the environmental outcomes were put first—not second, but first. A requirement to improve existing water quality should be put in place before the allocation of new water is gone into, because we have no lowland streams left in Canterbury where we can still safely swim and take our kids. A birthright has been lost. The requirement to improve existing water must be the first priority for Canterbury, not the rapid new allocation of water.

I come to the issue of how Rodney Hide has won the day on this matter. It is just a repetition of what happened in Auckland. I think Nick Smith has been rolled. I think Nick Smith probably would like to put in place some new environmental frameworks to support better water quality, but Rodney Hide has again won the day. That is a surprise, because he managed to get those changes through in Auckland and absolutely abrogated the rights of Aucklanders to have a say in the change of their super-city legislation. He absolutely put those rights to one side. We now have a similar situation, except it is worse. At least Aucklanders had a select committee process. This bill is being rammed through under urgency, and there is not a single chance for a single voice from Canterbury to be heard on decisions that will affect their rights, under democratic process, which are being absolutely abrogated by this bill. They have no right to have any say. We will see this bill go through the House under urgency in the next 24 hours. That is a fundamental breach of democratic rights and representation.

The Rodney District Council approached the Government for a review. There was a hearing process whereby local people were able to have an input. This bill does not have even a ritual bow towards the democratic process. It is a blitzkrieg of democracy, and it is a blitzkrieg of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is forcing through a fundamental change against the supposed principles that the party opposite is here to represent, in terms of no taxation without representation. The bill is being forced through in extraordinary fashion by this Government. There is no chance for anyone to be heard.

Who will be next? Which council will be next to face this kind of assault on its democratic rights? It is outrageous legislation, it is an outrageous move by this Government, and it is being foisted upon us without any reference to the people of Canterbury and without any reference to the select committee process. It is a fundamental breach of democratic rights, which the party opposite has in the past been prepared to uphold on behalf of the people of Canterbury. The Government has refused to take even a token bow towards the fundamental precepts of democracy that National used to proudly represent. I say shame upon National and shame upon members of the Government for introducing legislation as abominable as this.

Brendon Burns and Labour know in their heart of hearts that we are doing the right thing. Do members know why? It is because they voted for the urgency motion. I thank Labour members for their early support of this bill.

This Government is not afraid to confront problems and move to fix them. I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Rodney Hide, who recognised that Environment Canterbury was failing and who have resolved to do something about it. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill seeks to address the very real problems identified in the review of the performance of Environment Canterbury.

The review confirmed the worst fear of many people living in the area—the fear that Environment Canterbury was failing. It is politically, technically, and woefully deficient in policy areas, and, most important to me, it is failing miserably in respect of water management. To say that local water users have been dismayed at the performance of Environment Canterbury in respect of its water management is to understate the case. Dealing with Environment Canterbury, whether by recreational users, fishermen, or irrigators, has been uncertain and adversarial, and dealings can stretch on for years and years, leading to enormous costs. This bill will address those issues.

Canterbury urgently needs a regional water plan, and this bill has given top priority to its development. Labour had 9 years of complete mismanagement of water issues and produced nothing except its Water Programme of Action or, I should say, its water programme of inaction. This Government plans to build on the excellent work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which enjoys wide support amongst the ten Canterbury mayors and all water interest groups.

Already the National Government has achieved more in the development of water policy than Labour did in its entire term of office. Shame on Labour! By appointing commissioners with additional powers under this legislation, the Government will address these urgent problems with the management of water. The people of Canterbury deserve better from their regional council, and with the passing of this bill they will get it.

I will leave members with a quote from former environment Minister Trevor Mallard, who said on 27 February: “everyone knew there was a problem there. But it was quite late in the term and in a time where there was not the ability to put in the group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done and then deal with the results.” I commend this bill to the House.

I see that the way in which the National Government wants to make progress on issues like water—and we can put social welfare, accident compensation, and everything else in with it—is to pull the plug on the whole system. What we have here is the end of democracy in one of Canterbury’s most important local government agencies.

I would like to know where the National members who represent Canterbury were during the election. If there was ever a time when Environment Canterbury was not meeting its responsibilities, I know that it was then and immediately before. The Government that I represented had to pay Environment Canterbury half a million dollars to get a water plan. If the National members who represent Canterbury were so dead keen on ending democracy in Canterbury, why did they not tell the people of Canterbury that that was what they stood for. Why did they not stand up at the election and say: “We’ve got a plan to solve the water problem. We’re going to dismiss all the Environment Canterbury elected representatives.”? That would have been as popular as a cold cup of water on a freezing-cold day in the Antarctic. It would not have gone down, and no National Party member had either the foresight or the gumption to do it. They did not do it.

What they have done is have a meeting with a cabal of mayors. Those mayors did not consult anybody. Did the mayors consult the elected representatives of Parliament for the Canterbury region? They may have consulted the National members, but they did not consult the Labour Party members and the Progressive party member for Canterbury. There was no consultation with us. Did they just go to where they thought they could get some direct action like this? The answer is yes.

Here is the incredible thing. The ACT Party, which stands for non-intervention all over the place—we cannot intervene in the economy, we cannot intervene in social welfare, and we cannot intervene in accident compensation; it has to be privatised and run by people—now wants to intervene in democracy in the most dramatic way that it could, which is to cancel it. Not only are we not going to have it, but we are not going to have it between now and the election.

I have heard National members mention the Rodney District Council. Talk about comparing apples with oranges! Sandra Lee, the then Minister of Local Government, appointed a commissioner 10 months out from the election. She determined that an election would be held within 10 months, and it was. It was a one-off election and it was held outside of time, but she made sure that there was an election of the representatives of Rodney within 10 months of the appointment of a commissioner.

What we have here is a cancellation of democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years; not 10 months, but 3½ years. Where was the public announcement of this to the people of Canterbury before the election? We did not hear a word of it. My colleagues know, and National members know, the irony of this, because National members and Labour and Progressive members were at a special briefing held by Environment Canterbury about 4 or 5 months ago. I have a fair idea of what Environment Canterbury’s failings were in terms of water policy, and for the first time Environment Canterbury had got its act together and was forming a water policy that had some coherence and some credibility. It had done that, and just when it was about to implement it, it got abolished. What sort of democracy is that? Are you frightened of democracy? Are you frightened of it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member should not include the Speaker by his use of pronouns.

I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise.

The incredible thing about this is to do with poor old Alec Neill. Alec Neill was a member who could not eventually get elected. He entered Parliament, about two or three times, as tail-end Charlie—

💬 Hon Member: Three.

—three, was it—and he decided that he would give it up and go into local government. He even stood against me, which was a desperate measure for National. Finally, he was elected to Environment Canterbury. He found his place. He worked his way through, with a little bit of argy-bargy, and he got to be the chairman. Then his own party dismissed him. The poor guy! He could not make it in Parliament, so he made it at the local government level, and then National cuts him off at the knees.

But more important than Alec Neill is the fact that the people of Canterbury will not have any choices. They will have people coming in from outside. Where is the principle of no taxation without representation? I ask where that principle is. Environment Canterbury has rating responsibilities, and each year it will strike a rate. I ask where the input from the people of Canterbury is in that. Where are their elected members to implement the policies that they vote for? They do not have any policies to vote for, because the people who are being appointed were not voted in. They are being appointed by Rodney Hide, the great anti-interventionist, and Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment. Those are the two who are appointing them. They have sacked the elected representatives—the people whom we all voted for in Canterbury—and they will put in another eight people to run it for 3½ years. There will be no election and no responsibility to the people in terms of taxation and rating. This has to be one of the most Draconian, anti-democratic events that I have seen in my time in this House, and that is quite a long time now. I have never seen anything like this. It is a rateable authority that has no elected representatives and no accountability to the people. There was no consultation with the people before it was done, none whatever—not with their elected representatives in Parliament and not with their elected representatives or the people of Canterbury. A cabal of mayors and a couple of Ministers will decide.

The thing that I know about people like Rodney Hide is that they will ask why Wellington should tell them what to do. Well, at the very time when what I heard Rodney say is ringing in my mind, he is actually forcing a gargantuan amalgamation mistake on Auckland. There will be complete chaos in the economic and social environment of that city—and I know it pretty well; I lived there for 46 years. I guarantee that National members will regret until the day that they lose office, which will be at the next election, what they have done in Auckland. National members should wait until the people of Auckland take retribution in about 16 or 17 months’ time, because Aucklanders will. If National members think Aucklanders will blame Rodney Hide, then they should get a life, because those people will blame National.

In effect, the Canterbury Regional Council has been abolished. It has been excluded from the pending local government elections. We have to remember that the elections will be held in October, which is only a few months away, and the Government has cancelled them. I ask why the Government did not have the foresight to allow the people of Canterbury to determine this matter. We have a democratic election coming up in a few months. If we are so worried about Environment Canterbury and about the water situation and everything else, the people of Canterbury could decide the future of their regional council at the local elections, instead of the decision being made by Rodney Hide and Nick Smith. If I put it to the people of Canterbury that I have a good idea and tell them that they have a choice, which would be to let them choose between having Rodney Hide and Nick Smith decide the future of how Environment Canterbury works for the next 3 years, and having the people of Canterbury decide it in a free election in a few months’ time, I will guarantee to the House that, overwhelmingly, over 95 percent of the people in Canterbury would vote for having the election and for having a say in that election. They would not be voting for Rodney Hide—I will tell members that now—and they would not be voting for Nick Smith to decide the future of Environment Canterbury, not in a million years.

The Government has intervened in the democratic process. It has intervened for up to 3½ years. The people of Canterbury will not have any representation. There has been no consultation. It is taxation without representation. Just at the very time when Environment Canterbury has got together a coherent water policy—and most of us who were there know that is absolutely true, including National members like David Carter, who was there and knows what the reality is—the National Government has canned democracy in Canterbury. It is a most unbelievable act. The people of Canterbury will not forget it in a long time. Following the local body elections, there is a general election next year, and the people of Canterbury will not forget the National Party at that point, either. That is the indictment on National. It is anti-democracy, anti-representation, and anti-consultation. It is abrogating the rights of people to participate in a free election for the people who represent them in their own region.

I rise to speak on the Government’s bill to abolish the elected councillors from Environment Canterbury, a bill that we are debating under urgency and which will be pushed through in the middle of the night without proper democratic process.

In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury. This Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is the fulfilment of that promise, because the Government believes that democracy is an obstacle to irrigation in Canterbury. The Government believes that Agribusiness and the irrigation companies have become aggrieved at the regional council for stopping some of their projects. It has got in the way. So the Government is getting rid of democracy in Canterbury by getting rid of the elected regional council.

What does one do when one cannot get one’s own way? What one does is to get rid of the obstacle. When the irrigation companies and Agribusiness got annoyed with the regional council, they went to the Government and asked it to get rid of the regional council. The Government, tonight—forcing this bill through under urgency—is to sack the regional council.

It is interesting that we have had a debate over the last few weeks over whether we should have one person, one vote. Well, the Government tonight is moving towards one person, no vote, in Canterbury. Tonight it is abolishing democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years. It sounds like something that Commodore Frank Bainimarama would do in Fiji, when he said “We are just going to abolish democracy for a little while, but we will bring it back again later.”

Mr Anderton said earlier that there should be no taxation without representation. The people of Canterbury will now be taxed through their rates and will have absolutely no say about how their taxes will be spent. The people of Canterbury—500,000 people, roughly—are about to have their democratic rights taken away from them. There is no royal commission, as there was in Auckland, if we want to compare it with the Auckland example. There are no select committee hearings, as there were during the Auckland super-city process, with all the aspects of the Auckland problem. It will be forced through on the 500,000 people of Canterbury overnight, under urgency in this House.

The thing that justifies it—the fig leaf that is used—is the so-called Creech report. The Creech report was the result of a review headed up by a director from a dairy company with multiple convictions for water pollution, and it worked for about 3½ weeks, I think. It interviewed about 20 stakeholders. Among other things, the Creech report concluded that there was “no fundamental dysfunction”, which was an interesting conclusion for the Creech report, on which all of this was based. It said that there was no fundamental dysfunction. One of the interesting things about the Creech report was that it criticised the regional council for being too pro-science. It said that the regional council was basing too many decisions on science.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What an outrage!

That was the outrage. That was the criticism. It was science-led rather than science-informed. That is what the Creech report criticised the regional council for: paying too much heed to science and not enough heed to the irrigation companies. It also criticised the regional council for being an obstacle to economic growth. This is one of the regions that has grown fastest in New Zealand, as a result of the dramatic increase in irrigation in the Canterbury region.

In fact, if members look at the Resource Management Act, which is obviously something this Government very seldom does—they will see that it talks about sustainable management. It is not supposed to be there for endless, unlimited economic growth, with no constraints whatsoever. For the Creech report to criticise the regional council for taking the environment into account means that the Creech report does not understand the Resource Management Act, which is supposed to take the environment into account. That is the whole purpose of sustainable development. Responsible management of the environment is to take the environment into account. That is what Environment Canterbury was being criticised for in the Creech report.

It is also notable that within the last 12 months, Environment Canterbury processed nearly 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time lines. Of course, they are being criticised because during one period they processed only 29 percent. Yet, now, just as they are about to be abolished, they are processing about 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time frames. That is the right time to abolish them! What a brilliant time to abolish them—just as they are doing well!

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls this bill the fast track to dams, and that is what this bill is. It is an attack on the water conservation order process around the Hurunui River. Currently that process is on its way to the Environment Court. It was supposed to be there in May to hear the appeals. This bill will cut the water conservation order on the Hurunui off at the knees, because the water conservation order might have got in the way of the irrigators, and that is unacceptable. As John Key told us, he will remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury, so we cannot possibly have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River that would stop us building a big dam across it.

The other problem with this bill is that the people of Christchurch, aside from having their democratic rights taken away from them, will have their clean water taken away. Currently, Christchurch is fortunate to have very good potable water supplies, which are untreated. Already there are small amounts of nitrogen appearing in that water, and as irrigation expands—because, as John Key says, we have to get rid of regulatory roadblocks to irrigation—and pollution expands, it is goodbye to Christchurch’s clean water supply. Also, the water conservation order on the Rākaia River is also a target of this Government. It wants to break the water conservation order on the Rākaia River so that it can access that water for irrigation, as well.

This bill, aside from being an attack on democratic oversight of executive Government, is also an attack on judicial oversight of democratic government. The water conservation order, which would normally go to the Environment Court so that the judiciary could have a say on this process, has been cut off. It will no longer go to the Environment Court for judicial oversight. The natural resource regional plan will no longer have access on points of content, as opposed to points of law, to the Environment Court, so that particular aspect of judicial oversight of regional government and the regional executive will be removed.

It is not very well known that water conservation orders are the national parks for rivers. Just as the Government wants to mine national parks—it wants to mine the conservation estate and the schedule 4 lands within the estate—it also wants to mine the national parks for rivers, which are the water conservation orders. The Government wants to get rid of the water conservation orders so that it can take the water that is currently protected in the Rākaia and put it into irrigation schemes, so that it can give lots of money to the big dairy companies and the irrigators and add lots of pollution to the groundwater and the surface water in Canterbury.

These water conservation orders are a problem for the Government, the irrigators, and the dairy corporations. But if we want to protect the environment, they are very important. So when the Government intervenes, as it will under urgency tonight and tomorrow, it will interrupt the water conservation order process, and that will fundamentally threaten the national parks for rivers in our country. Water conservation orders are national parks for rivers in our country. The orders are put there to be an absolute protection for rivers, and this Government is tonight moving in to overturn water conservation orders because it sees them as an obstacle to irrigation.

In respect of the moratorium on new water-takes in at-risk catchments, giving the power to implement a moratorium is a good idea, but why was it not given to the regional councillors and to Environment Canterbury? They have been begging for that power for years. Brian Jenkins has been begging to have that power, but time and again Governments of both flavours have refused to give it to him. It has become a real problem. It is, of course, one of the great paradoxes that, at the same time that they are giving Environment Canterbury a moratorium to suspend resource consent processing in particular catchments, the main reason given for sacking it is that it took too long to process resource consents, which is one of the great paradoxes of the matter. If the Government really wanted to give the moratorium power, and I support that, then it should have given it to the regional council, which was finally getting its act together.

Finally, I shall say a word about the Ministry for the Environment. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury, we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as big a failure as Environment Canterbury, because for 19 years it has not produced national policy statements or national environmental standards. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury, we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as bad and just as responsible. We are moving from an era of malign neglect of rivers under the previous Government and the one before that to malign attention. Under the previous Government, rivers were left to get dirtier; now this Government will accelerate the process. We are ramming it through in the middle of the night so that the Prime Minister can do just as he said in his opening statement to Parliament and take action to remove regulatory roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is what this bill is for.

I rise to support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. Local government plays a vital role in advancing the well-being of New Zealanders and New Zealand communities. Effective local government provides communities with a say about their resources and the decisions that affect their well-being now and in the future. A central tenet of our system of local government is the autonomy of local authorities from central government. Locally elected representatives who are accountable to their communities rather than the Government make decisions in the interests of local citizens and their ratepayers. As the Minister of Local Government, I have an important role to play in promoting an effective, efficient, and democratic system of local government. This includes taking leadership on issues where central government’s engagement and action is needed to achieve local outcomes. Central government’s ability to intervene in the decisions and workings of individual councils should be, and indeed is, very limited. Such powers may be used only in specific and extraordinary circumstances where the risk to the well-being of local citizens justifies overriding local accountability.

It has come to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and myself that such extraordinary circumstances now exist in Environment Canterbury. Let me explain these circumstances. In September 2009, all the mayors in the Canterbury region wrote to me outlining serious concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. That was unprecedented and denoted a serious breakdown in the region’s local governance relationships. That evidence, along with that of Environment Canterbury’s poor performance in undertaking its responsibilities under the Resource Management Act, provided compelling reasons for the Minister for the Environment and me to commission a formal review into Environment Canterbury’s performance. As the Minister for the Environment has outlined, the report of that review’s findings identified major capacity issues with regard to Environment Canterbury, including its inability to deliver a robust, clear, and effective framework for the management of Canterbury’s natural resources. Most striking was the review’s conclusion that there is an “enormous and unprecedented” gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water and what Environment Canterbury has actually been doing. The recommendation of the review was that the existing council should be replaced by a temporary commission as soon as possible.

The Minister for the Environment and I met with the Canterbury mayors and the chief executives of Ngāi Tahu and other key stakeholders to listen to their views about the report’s findings. We also considered a number of written submissions from interested parties. We found that the region’s stakeholders were generally united in their opinion that central government intervention is temporarily necessary in order to improve the performance of Environment Canterbury. We also met not just the mayors but every council in the region, and they were unanimous in their view.

Drawing particularly on the report’s recommendations and the views of Canterbury stakeholders, the Government has concluded that immediate action is needed to address the failure of Environment Canterbury’s elected council, particularly in relation to freshwater management. The Government has considered a range of options for responding to this issue. We have decided that the replacement of Environment Canterbury’s councillors with commissioners is the best course of action to ensure that, firstly, Canterbury’s natural resources are managed in a comprehensive and holistic manner; secondly, the framework for managing natural resources in Canterbury is integrated, effective, transparent, and supports robust decision-making; and, thirdly, the institutional arrangements are in place to support effectively Environment Canterbury’s planning framework. This is a drastic move, but it is necessary to replace Environment Canterbury’s democratically elected council so that the well-being of the Canterbury region is ensured. As Canterbury’s natural resources, particularly of fresh water, are nationally significant, this decision is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. I can assure the House that this decision has not been taken lightly, as I am naturally reluctant to intervene in the affairs of local government.

As the governing body of Environment Canterbury, the commissioners will exercise all the functions, responsibilities, duties, and powers provided for under the Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, and any other legislation. The commissioners will be accountable to the people of Canterbury, and will be expected to engage with the community on significant issues. The existing public consultation and participation requirements will remain in place. Getting an effective relationship re-established with the region’s mayors and local authorities is essential to instil confidence in Environment Canterbury. The commissioners will, therefore, be tasked with improving Environment Canterbury’s working relationships with Canterbury’s territorial authorities, as the bill requires the commissioners to seek advice from Canterbury mayors on local issues that affect Environment Canterbury.

The commissioners will step in to provide the necessary and temporary governance and leadership needed to get Environment Canterbury working effectively. This is important so that it can deliver effective services for the people of Canterbury. The commissioners will be tasked with finalising and implementing an operative natural resources regional plan, solving issues with freshwater management, and making institutional adjustments to ensure Environment Canterbury can better manage its responsibilities. As outlined by the Minister for the Environment, the bill provides the commissioners with additional powers to help them to address the region’s issues with speed and with expediency.

The appointment of the commissioners is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and me. We are aware that the commissioner’s task will not be easy. That is why we will be considering only people of the highest calibre for this challenging and nationally significant role. Naturally one of the key criteria for the selection of commissioners is knowledge of, and expertise in, local authority governance and management.

I wish to highlight the fact that this bill provides for the necessary but temporary replacement of Environment Canterbury’s elected council in order to get the organisation back on track. That is in the interests of everyone in this House, of all the people of Canterbury, and of all the people of New Zealand. The planned local government elections in October will be deferred until the commissioners have carried out their task, which will be no later than the next local authority elections in October 2013. At that time, new councillors will be elected to govern a far more effective organisation. That remains a priority for the Government, and we are committed to Environment Canterbury operating in the usual democratic manner.

I commend this bill to the House. I say to members opposite, who want to attack this Government for political reasons, that, yes, they should by all means hold us robustly to account, but that they need to consider the mess that is Environment Canterbury and the difficulty that Environment Canterbury has confronted. They need to consider what it means to have 10 mayors and 10 councils saying they have a dysfunctional local government structure in Canterbury. Thank you.

Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Whenever this House goes into urgency—and it has been happening a lot lately—we sacrifice the principle of democracy. It is not democracy defined as the control of a group by the majority of its members—that is, majority rules—but rather the form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Legislation in this House should properly reflect the process of negotiation, discussion, debate, and consultation. But taking bills through urgency from go to whoa is by its very nature a denial of genuine democracy. It prevents people from having a voice, and that stage is not far removed from the totalitarian and communist States that we are always critical of in this House.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: A communist Government.

I say to Mr Horomia that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is hugely important because it proposes a sea change in the way in which water will be viewed and how it will be managed.

I understand that this bill is specifically about Canterbury, designed to respond to concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury and the urgent management of water within Environment Canterbury’s catchment area. But I have no doubt that what is being proposed will become the basis for a template on how our Government manages water everywhere else. That template will impact on how Māori everywhere are involved in terms of their rivers, their lakes, their harbours, and their seas. That is where the Māori Party comes in. We are the party that carries the interest of ensuring that issues about water management—including mana whenua, Treaty claims in respect of water ownership, the management of water, water rights, and privatisation—are properly considered in any statement on water, just as we know that all of those matters also need to be considered in the review of the Resource Management Act.

There are also wider, more comprehensive issues about the way in which we protect our streams, our lakes, our rivers, and our waterways from agricultural, industrial, and domestic waste, as well as the adjoining land rights and the overall policy in respect of the way water is viewed in Aotearoa. All those matters demand greater debate and participation from Māori across the country, which will not be possible for this bill given that it is being rushed through the House under urgency.

We are also concerned that this bill will effectively totally replace the Resource Management Act 1991. It will place absolute administrative power in the hands of the unelected commissioners and the Minister for the Environment, and effectively take over the role and purpose of the Environment Court as well. Indeed, comments from Wyatt Creech that Environment Canterbury, when making decisions on water allocation, was placing too much emphasis on the environment, basically sum up the actual purpose of the bill, which would seem to be to support pro-business interests at all costs.

The bill highlights a flawed belief in the myth that the environment must be balanced against the economy. That is the standard line from business interests on all environmental issues. The reality is that the economy is not a separate function but a critical element of society itself. Society is utterly dependent on the environment, and we ignore the reality of nature at our peril. The bill also states it will provide the commissioners with the powers to enable them to rapidly progress the development of the Canterbury region’s resource management framework, fresh water in particular. But there will be no elected representatives. There has been no consultation. Māori will not have a proper role in how things are being run, and we will end up with an entity answerable only to the Ministers of a Government dedicated to maximising commercial return from a resource that everyone should have a say in.

We have heard all the horror stories about Environment Canterbury: it was last in the 2007-08 survey on resource consents, it is always in court over its decisions, it is under fire for institutional failure from the review group, and it was without the support of local iwi Ngāi Tahu.

We will be supporting this bill at first reading, but we signal our grave concerns at the way in which water is being considered without due concern for the Treaty rights of Ngāi Tahu and the wider Māori interest in water across Aotearoa. Tēnā tātou katoa.

I am very happy to be taking a call tonight on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I am very happy to do it because I think everyone in this House would agree that Canterbury is a tremendously important region to New Zealand. It is tremendously important economically, and it is tremendously important environmentally. The regional council is a key body in the success of our region. The regional council is charged with administrating not only the management of our environmental assets but also our economic development.

The issue is that there have been longstanding and widely held concerns about Environment Canterbury’s ability to carry out those functions. That is what this debate is about and where this need has come from. The Creech report is merely the last in a long line of criticisms levelled at Environment Canterbury’s ability to do its job. That report found that the capability gap between what Environment Canterbury could do and what was needed was enormous and unprecedented. The regional council has failed to properly look after water management in our area. It has failed to control water-quality deterioration, it has certainly failed to have a plan for strategic economic development, and it has failed, after nearly 19 years of the Resource Management Act, to even come up with a natural resources plan that is operative in our district. This has happened while other councils are on to their second generation plans.

The Canterbury Strategic Water Management Study that we have heard talked about so much—and I support it; I think it is a wonderful initiative—is a response from the mayoral forum, not from Environment Canterbury—

💬 Brendon Burns: Oh, rubbish. It’s an Environment Canterbury initiative.

It is a response from the mayoral forum to Environment Canterbury’s failures, I say to Mr Burns, which he is closing his eyes to and not dealing with in any way.

One of the wonderful things that this legislation will do is give the Canterbury Water Management Strategy at least a chance of success.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I will take up a little more of the House’s time, although I will not use anything like the 8 minutes I have left.

I make one final point. When the dinner break came, I was referring to the Canterbury Strategic Water Study and the strategy that has come from it. That is a very important document, and this bill is the only way that strategy will be given some legislative status. I think that is a very good step in this process. It is good news, and I go so far as to say that anyone who votes against this bill is voting against the Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Through this bill we will see that strategy given some teeth and some power, and we will be able to work together.

That strategy has been the work of a number of stakeholders representing the players in this field. Those same stakeholders from across the divide have all been calling for a change in Environment Canterbury, saying that there is a problem and it has to be dealt with quickly. This Government is getting up and doing it. This is not the previous Labour Government, which knew there was a problem but did nothing for 9 years. We will step in, we will step up, and we will sort out water in Canterbury. Thank you.

“Stepping in” is one way of putting the Government’s intervention in our democratically elected regional authority; some people might say “stomping all over democracy”. That is what Amy Adams—who is getting more and more like Jacqui Dean by the day—Nicky Wagner, and David Carter are doing to our fundamental rights in Canterbury. The Canterbury members on this side of the House and members of the public in Canterbury are not at all impressed with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an absolute outrage and a breach of our democratic rights. We have the right to elect good or bad councillors. We have that vote. That vote is being taken away from us and our water is being taken away from us because Nick Smith has decided, in a purely political ideological move, to snuggle up with Rodney Hide—if members can picture that briefly; that will probably be more than long enough—so that they can have total control of our water management and all the other regional council functions through an undemocratic, politically appointed bunch of commissioners.

It is absolutely gobsmacking. I have had so many emails, texts, and phone calls, and I want to share one with members. A woman I know who lives in Rolleston texted me at 2.49 saying that she had rung Amy Adams’ office in the Selwyn electorate and her office in Wellington, only to be told that her staff had been given no idea at all about the removal of the regional council, and had no idea at all whether Mrs Adams would be voting for it. Listeners have just heard her speech, which was written by Aaron Gilmore, and they will have no doubt at all that Amy Adams supports a bill being rammed through this House under urgency to take away the democratic right of people in Canterbury to elect our own regional council.

People have watched amazed at what Rodney Hide has done in Auckland—the fact that he can just ride roughshod over the views of so many good Aucklanders—yet the Government did not give us a chance to even have a say on this bill. It is being rammed through under urgency without one single moment of select committee consideration. It is a done deal. We only know the name of one of the councillors replacing the council, Dame Margaret Bazley, who will be the chief commissioner. None of the others are even known. In fact, the Minister for the Environment was so desperate to get this bill into the House that he was still scrambling around with the details before he gave us a briefing at 11.30 this morning. The copy of the bill we got this morning still had “Draft” written on it. It is shonky work in this House to ram through a bill under urgency to take away our democratically elected representatives.

The bill takes away that right, but it also takes away the right of the public to have a say. If it had been put to the test, a lot of people might have said the same sort of nonsense that Amy Adams said—who knows? They would have been entitled to do that at a select committee. That is what democracy, submissions, and hearings are all about. But people have not had a chance to even talk nonsense. They are allowed no contribution at all.

I was at a meeting recently where another Canterbury member of the National Party the Hon David Carter was present. He described the Creech report as coming to the conclusion—and these are his very words—that there was terminal dysfunction at Environment Canterbury and, therefore, it had to go. I quote from the Creech report—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: What page?

Page 51. “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that councillors are polarised at times”—good heavens, that is gobsmacking news to those of us in Parliament—“that they are quite dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership, and the council is too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to … the Region.” That is what the 20 external parties reported to Wyatt Creech and his report team. He says: “Our investigation did not bear this out.” He could not have been clearer in his rejection of the politically motivated criticism of Environment Canterbury. I heard one Environment Canterbury councillor say quite recently that it was very difficult to operate in an environment where there was often either a 7:8 vote or an 8:7 vote. Well, that is politics. People disagree with each other.

💬 Nicky Wagner: Not in local government

I say to Mrs Wagner that it is not party politics; it was exactly the same when she was a councillor.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, she forgot that.

She has absolutely wiped the history books clean. Mrs Wagner, who was an elected representative—as I told the House, we have the right to vote for whoever we want—has forgotten that she was elected to the very same council she is now allowing to be completely gutted.

Wyatt Creech’s review team went on to say: “The Review found that while the process for debating strongly opposing views has been marred by poor behaviour and reflects past grievances in some cases, the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. Mostly, the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” That is the organisation that was described by David Carter in a statement that can only be described as a lie and a complete misrepresentation of the Creech report, as are the comments that are being propagated by the National Party this afternoon and this evening. Wyatt Creech’s report said that there were political differences and there was bad behaviour, but the council had fundamental ability to carry out its statutory functions. The Minister’s response to that report is to say that at last he has his opportunity to get rid of his former colleague Alec Neill—he is gone yet again. The temptation for Nick Smith to do that must be pretty strong. What Nick Smith has done is entirely politically motivated. It is to get rid of locally elected, democratically elected councillors and have appointed commissioners, who will then be able to take over the total control of our water allocation.

One issue above all others inspires passion, anger, and parochialism more than the Crusaders, and that is our right to care for our water. [Interruption] Members opposite have no understanding of what has been developed through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The member from Selwyn could not even refer to it by its correct name. We have been involved in that strategy as representatives for that area, and every single party, on a very broad perspective—a very broad spectrum of those interested in water management and water rights—has signed up to the strategy.

This is the opportunity to put it into legislation. The Government could have taken up the offer that I made in front of National members of Parliament and in front of the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce for there to be no party politics when it came to legislating for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But what devious behaviour does the Minister resort to? He is sliding it into legislation that does not give the public any opportunity to contribute. It does not even give Cantabrians the opportunity to come and say that they are proud of their water management strategy. There will be no select committee process, at all.

At the front of this legislation is the abolition of our democratically elected councils. That was a bad thing to do, and I use that word advisedly. The Minister knows that he would have had cross-party support for legislation to ensure the smooth transition to a statutory basis for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Government should not be replacing democratically elected regional councillors with appointed commissioners. It is a breach of process and it is a breach of our democracy.

It is a privilege to be speaking on the Environment Canterbury(Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I speak from the point of view of the Kaikōura District Council and the Hurunui District Council, and we applaud greatly the actions of the Minister, Nick Smith. We are sick and tired of seeing the procrastination that has occurred over the last 20 years with no traction ever being gained. Canterbury should be thankful that the best people in this country are prepared to put their hands up and sort out the problems that Canterbury could not fix. In actual fact, as a person who lived originally in North Canterbury and now dwells in Marlborough, I can say that Canterbury could not organise a party in AMI Stadium. It has behaved like a dysfunctional family, and the time wasting that has gone on is appalling. All the evidence points towards a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury, and action needs to be taken.

When we talk about Environment Canterbury, we are talking about a massive amount of land, from the Waitaki to the Takahanga straight up in Marlborough, and it affects an enormous amount of water. It has an ability to contribute to the economy in a way that one cannot even imagine. It has been likened, as we saw on television tonight, to having the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand every year. New Zealand cannot afford to miss out on the opportunity. We hear the Opposition members on the other side of the House ranting and raving about their democratic rights being taken away. That happened only because of the dysfunctionality that has occurred. We need only look at the blog sites to see the conduct of some of the councillors on Environment Canterbury and the way they leak like a sieve—their collective responsibility did not happen. This bill will take us forward. It sits comfortably inside the theme of a brighter future for all New Zealanders. It is a leadership style that has been lacking under the previous Government, and it has taken the Creech report to bring that to the fore. It is great to see the Minister for the Environment taking the appropriate action.

The bill itself certainly puts in some structures. This correction, which is long overdue, has to be implemented speedily so that elections can take place by 2013. That is not an easy task to address, but when we think of the candidates who have been put forward, like Dame Margaret Bazley, I think we are going for the very, very top of ability, and that should be wonderful.

I conclude what I want to say by noting that the Hurunui district has for a long time had its long-term council community plan, and in that it had a vision for the way it would manage the water in its region. That was completely stymied by the present system, and it is good to see in the explanatory note of the bill that the bill “ensures that appropriate regard is given to the most recently expressed aspirations of the local community, as reflected in the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy”.

This bill is long overdue. We can appreciate why Labour never achieved anything; it never had the passion and the will, and it has become very clear that to get anything over the line, especially when we are looking at water and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, it takes 90 percent of the effort to get that last 10 percent. I am delighted that we have this bill. It is long overdue. There is so much we could say about it, but it is important that we get it into law. So from that point of view, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill at its first reading.

The previous speaker, Colin King, did not last very long. None of the National members have. When the National members are dealing with legislation that takes away democracy, they do not want to talk about it very much. That is what that Government is all about. Here we are, pushing through—bulldozing—under urgency the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, about which the public will not have a say. There will not be any select committee hearing where the people of Canterbury can have their say. That opportunity has been taken away from them by a Government that is rushing this legislation through. Of course, what it is doing is taking away the democratically elected people, and it is doing that in such a fashion that we begin to think that this Government sees this as an easy step.

I think back to the process that was used in Auckland. Back in May 2009 the Auckland reorganisation legislation was foisted upon us. The Government did that under urgency, and the House sat until the weekend to pass the legislation through all stages. This is the Government that said it would listen to people; this is the Government that was going to take notice of people. But all of a sudden the National members have become an arrogant lot.

💬 Nicky Wagner: Nah.

There is a member who does not think they are an arrogant lot. She says: “Nah.” I do not know anyone who says “Nah.” when it comes to democracy.

Rodney Hide came into the House this afternoon and for the first time that I can remember, he did not get up and speak from the heart. What did he do? He read a speech prepared for him by officials in local government in the Department of Internal Affairs. He read it, and of course when he does that, we know there is trouble around. Here we have good old Alec Neill getting the sack. Alec Neill is used to getting the sack. He was elected to this Parliament three times—almost a record—and he is getting the kick again. Alec Neill helped to run induction courses for new MPs, which he says was good for his rehabilitation from politics. But the National Government finds that rehabilitation for Alec Neill and Environment Canterbury is to shut them up, boot them out, and have no election until 2013. National cannot tell the people of Canterbury that that is a good thing.

As an Aucklander, I can say there is not always a lot of love lost between Canterbury and Auckland, but we all know that what we are seeing this Government push through is a process that it should be ashamed of. It is a process that no decent New Zealander likes to see. Having one’s vote every 3 years is really important. We had the royal commission tell us about what it saw the future local government structure being for Auckland, and the Government took no notice of it. It knew better than Aucklanders did, and here, under urgency, it pushed through that legislation.

The legislation that is to be passed by National over the next day or two enables the commissioners who are taking over Environment Canterbury to modify water conservation orders and to apply protections —probably weaker.

💬 Simon Bridges: Take us through it, George.

That member is saying “Take us through it”. I imagine the National members did not even know about this bill in their caucus meeting. Dr Nick Smith, at 11 o’clock this morning, arranged to brief people, and we appreciate that. But did he tell the member for Tauranga about this bill on Tuesday? Probably not. The member for Tauranga has a mighty mouth, with a great big north and south, but when it comes to knowing about the bill, he does not. He is a slick, smooth lawyer who does not worry about the rule of law. He does not worry about the rule of law—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Get it to the select committee and find out.

Yes, this bill should be going to a select committee.

What is the Government afraid of? Is it afraid that Nick Smith may be told a few home truths by his mate Alec Neill? They came into Parliament in the intake of 1990, and somehow Nick Smith remains. But, of course, poor old Alec Neill was elected from 27 October 1990 to 6 September 1996—that was his first time. He must be thinking that he supported National, but now it is taking away what he stood for: democracy. National is taking democracy away; it is not giving people a chance. The Minister of Internal Affairs is shaking his head in agreement, and he knows whom people blame when they lose their right to vote. The people in Auckland have turned against ACT and Rodney Hide, and they will turn against John Key. With this bill, Dr Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will go further away from their support base. They will lose it. You see, we have a situation where Parliament stands for democracy; we are all here because people voted for us. Even party list members are voted into this Parliament. But this Government wants to take that right away from the people of Canterbury when it comes to their regional council.

I ask people who are listening to their transistor radios tonight to think about why people are having their rights taken away. This Government said it stood for people’s rights—

💬 Simon Bridges: Some of them will even be watching this on TV, George.

They will. I should smile more, like the assassin over there who does not care about democracy. That member is more worried about animals. Animals are more important to that member than people, and I think that member needs to look at that very carefully.

We heard members of the Māori Party say this afternoon that they are going to vote for the bill at the first reading. What is going to happen? Are they going to change their mind about it at the select committee? No. Why not? Because there is to be no consideration of the bill by a select committee. So what will the Māori Party members do? Will they vote with the Government for the bill through all its stages, or will they stand up for the rights of individuals, and for the Māori people they came here to represent? We have had a Green Party member make a very impassioned speech today. I sat here next to Brendon Burns when he spoke, and I was really very proud of the leadership role that he has been given in this area. I think that is very, very important. He is a person who is prepared to stand up for people from Canterbury. In Auckland we do not see many people standing up to support Canterbury, but here it is extremely important.

Of course, people like Amy Adams and Colin King, turned their backs on Canterbury. Neither of them could speak for 10 minutes to tell people why this bill is good. The reason why they could not do that is that it is a rubbish bill. It is completely anti-democratic. When Government members do not use their 10 minutes to speak in support of a bill, we know that the Government is trying to sneak the bill through. We know that it is not very good. When a person like Amy Adams speaks for 3 minutes about why she wants to take away the vote of people in Canterbury until—[Interruption]—yes, 2013, I have to say that is just not good enough. It is a disgrace.

I support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I support this bill because there is no doubt that the management of water in Canterbury is a significant issue where we need to do better. I support this bill because Environment Canterbury has been unable to manage water effectively and efficiently for the past decade. Everybody—even Trevor Mallard—knows that there is a real problem here.

I would just like to respond to Ruth Dyson’s cherry-picked quotes from the review group’s report. Let us look at its conclusion: “the Review Group has concluded that ECan’s performance on water policy and management issues (allocation and quality) falls well short of what is essential.” Here I differ from some of the others, as I have an insider’s point of view to Environment Canterbury because I was a councillor there until I came to Parliament and I know how hard everyone there works to do their jobs effectively and how much they want to manage water well. But I also know the frustrations and the difficulties that they have had over many years to try to get a water plan in place, and I know how incredibly difficult the task of managing water is without the legislative tools needed to do a good job.

I support this bill because it gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy formal legal status. It requires the commissioners to give formal recognition to it in their decisions. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is a grassroots, collaborative, catchment-based community process that I believe is the way forward for Canterbury. It is the best tool for managing competing interests and for getting the best use of water both for the environment and for the economy, and this bill recognises that tool.

Environment Canterbury was crucial in bringing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy together and has, therefore, helped to set the framework for future work. I support the introduction of temporary commissioners, chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley, because I believe that it is the only way to break the deadlock over water in Canterbury and to move forward positively. It is now up to all the stakeholders and those interested in water to be part of the process and to ensure that we, the people of Canterbury, manage the resource wisely and well.

The aims of this bill are, firstly, to protect the environment that sustains our future and, secondly, to use the resource intelligently to underpin the social and economic well-being of the people of Canterbury. I would just like to ask members on the other side of the House how anyone can argue against that.