Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to really point out some of the contradictions in the purposes that have come from members of the Labour Opposition. Let me just go through a number of contradictions.

First of all the Labour members say—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One of the advantages of the Committee stage is the chance to have a robust exchange with the Minister, but how can it be in order for the Minister, in the first call on Part 1, to immediately launch into an attack on the Opposition for its contradictions? There has been no debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member knows that the Minister has the first call, if the Minister so chooses. We are on Part 1, and the Minister is making his opening statements.

I can understand why the chief Labour Party whip is so defensive. Labour members have got on their feet and said they are opposed to this bill being debated under urgency. But can we guess what happened when the House had a vote on the urgency motion? The Labour Party and the Green Party supported the urgency motion.

Then let us consider the impassioned speeches about this bill being an affront to democracy. I have some questions for members opposite. Was it an affront to democracy when Helen Clark fired every member of the Auckland District Health Board in 1989? Was it an affront to democracy when David Cunliffe, in 2008, fired the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Was it an affront to democracy when, under urgency on 2 May 2000, a bill was introduced to replace the Rodney District Council with commissioners, a bill that was responsibly supported by the National members of the Opposition? You see, the Labour members are unprincipled. They are playing politics; they do not care about the issues.

I was particularly disappointed, during the second reading—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is it in order for a Minister in the chair to refer to members of Parliament as being unprincipled?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This will be a robust debate.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It is now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it has been a robust debate during the earlier readings. The Committee stage is an opportunity to continue that debate, and I will not stifle any debate, so long as it is fair and equitable. We are on Part 1, and the purpose clause is in Part 1. Debate on the purpose clause can include a much wider range than the debates on other clauses can, but I will be asking the Minister—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: We’re actually on Part 1, not clause 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The purpose clause is in Part 1. The Minister has had 2 minutes, and he has 3 minutes to go. I will ask the Minister to now focus on what Part 1 is about.

Part 1 of this bill—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

They don’t like it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a point of order, and members should not interrupt.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Without wishing to challenge your ruling, can I ask you a simple question? Are you now ruling it to be parliamentary language to call a member unprincipled? I simply ask that. Is that your ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on that matter.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’m asking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on that matter. If the member takes offence to that under Standing Order 116, he can say he does, but I will ask members to be very mindful of the language that they use.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member has taken offence. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am dealing with a matter here.

I withdraw.

💬 Hon Member: And apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do not need any help. I have asked him to withdraw, and he has done so.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Under the principle of someone taking offence, it has to be to a slur on the person’s character. In relation to the suggestion that the Opposition is unprincipled, if people are to take offence at that, it will be a long night.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member took offence. The comment could have been seen to have wider implications. We have ruled on the matter. The Minister has withdrawn. That is the end of the matter.

The purpose of this bill is to deal with the underlying—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Nick always loses control. It always goes wrong with Nick.

The chief Labour Party whip, who is interjecting, should just take a big, deep breath. He is the chief whip who voted for urgency on this bill, even though every Labour member who gets up says he or she is opposed to urgency.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair, in his capacity as the Minister in charge of this bill, to a large extent determines how it is handled under urgency. There was no vote for urgency on this motion, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a debating point.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What recourse does the Opposition have when procedural matters are continually misrepresented by the Minister in charge of the bill, leading to disorder?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. A point of order must be something that I can have control over. This is a debating point. The Minister has been given the call. He is articulating, crystallising those things that he thinks are important. I ask him to continue.

All members know in their heart of hearts that this country has a substantial problem with regard to water management in Canterbury. In fact, the greatest irony is that Brendon Burns spent the best part of last year attacking Environment Canterbury. At every moment Brendon Burns used the opportunity to do that, and then the Government comes to the Chamber with a bill that will deal with the problems regarding water in Canterbury and the Opposition rolls out some of the most tired, awful arguments.

I was particularly disappointed in Lianne Dalziel. There has been a long tradition that although we might be pretty robust in this Chamber, we treat former members with some respect. It was a comment on her desperation that Lianne Dalziel chose to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech. I point out that the conclusions of the report were unanimous by all four of the reviewers. And yes, I could give a speech in this Chamber about Lianne Dalziel’s misdemeanours; I could do the same about Ruth Dyson and her convictions. What members opposite have chosen to do is to play the person and not the ball. What members like Lianne Dalziel chose to do in—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You’re asking for it. You’re asking for what’s going to happen.

Well, let us look at the threats. What the members are saying is that if someone tells some home truths, they will bring disruption to the Chamber. I challenge Lianne Dalziel to focus on the issues in the review group report, rather than attacking the integrity of Wyatt Creech. Members on all sides of the Chamber know in their heart of hearts that Wyatt Creech is a very diligent, dedicated New Zealander, and—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to allow the Minister, who is seeking the call, to have the next call. But I just ask that we really focus on what the debate is about. I ask that we quieten down, so we can get some substantive debate going and we can understand the issues. Is everyone, including the Minister, happy with that? That applies to everyone. [Interruption] I am on my feet; I am ruling. I ask the Minister to continue.

I want to really gun in on the key conclusions of the review group report about the very serious issues that this Parliament faces in respect of the issues in Canterbury. The first issue in the report, which stands out overwhelmingly, is that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we do not have a plan for managing Canterbury water. I challenge members in the Green Party and members of the Labour Party to explain why it is satisfactory in 2010, when we all accept that water issues in Canterbury are very critical, that we have no resource management plan for water. I think every member in the Chamber knows that that is a key failing and knows that if a Government is going to provide leadership, it needs to address that fundamental issue.

It is equally a matter of fact—and a matter of record—that in the most recent biennial survey of resource management performance, Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked 84th out of 84 councils. That report was commissioned by the previous Government. I also draw attention to the very honest and frank statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment, the Hon Trevor Mallard, who said everyone knew there was a problem there—referring to Canterbury. Everybody knew there was a problem there.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Our investigation did not rule out the question of governance.

I would bring Lianne Dalziel’s attention to the briefing to the incoming Government. Again, that briefing made it absolutely plain that issues in Environment Canterbury were critical and would need to be addressed.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The governance of Environment Canterbury is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.

Well, Ms Dalziel is interjecting. If she wants to bring that to our attention, I ask her what the report recommended. Let me read—I quote—what the report said: “This failure requires—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It says that the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet—

The member is happy to quote; let me quote very directly: “This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being.”—and these are the key words—“Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.” That is a very key conclusion.

I simply challenge members of the Labour Opposition to stop playing politics, to focus on the real issues that are important to Canterbury, and to stop attacking the reviewers. Let us make this Committee debate an intelligent and well-constructed debate about how we can really focus in on the water issues in Canterbury, and how this Parliament can make a positive difference to addressing issues that really matter, rather than having the sort of hysteria that we are seeing from members like Lianne Dalziel.

Part 1 deals with the purposes of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill—the bill to get rid of democracy from the regional council in Canterbury. I think that if we are to understand the purpose of this bill, we need to go back to the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of Parliament this year. He said “The Government will … take action this year to remove … roadblocks to … irrigation in Canterbury.” That is the purpose of this bill.

It is important to note how this bill has evolved and the different steps that it has come through, when looking at its purpose. The first purpose was outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister—that is, to allow more irrigation in Canterbury. Hence there is to be more pollution of the aquifer in Canterbury, more pollution of the rivers in Canterbury, and the taking of more water from the rivers and aquifers in Canterbury. Those rivers will become even lower than they are now, even more degraded than they are now, and even fuller of pollution than they are now. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister gave for this bill when he made his statement to Parliament. He said he would take action to get rid of the roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That was the first step.

The second step was the appointment of a review panel headed up by someone from the dairy industry. Let us remember that Environment Canterbury’s major role is to be a regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury. What did the Government do as its second step? It appointed someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry. What does that remind members of? Does George W Bush come to mind when we think about getting an industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry? Of course, George Bush took it one more step: he appointed the industry itself to be the regulator—and we may yet come to that, depending on who the Government appoints to be commissioners at Environment Canterbury. So the second step was to get someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury—that is, Environment Canterbury, the regional council.

Surprise, surprise, the review came back from Mr Creech, and it said the review panel did not like it that Environment Canterbury was slowing economic growth by saying no to some of the irrigators. The review panel thought that was outrageous and Environment Canterbury had to be abolished because it was saying no to some of the dairy corporations, which was unreasonable. Of course, the facts that Canterbury has had one of the fastest rates of economic growth in New Zealand, and that there have been dramatic increases in irrigation and in approvals for irrigation across Canterbury, do not matter. No, no, the review said things have not been going fast enough. We are going to put more ticks next to irrigation schemes and give more ticks to dairy corporations because the review conducted by a director of a dairy company of the regulator of the dairy industry has said we should do that. So the second step in understanding the purposes of this bill is to understand that someone from the dairy industry conducted the review of the regulator of that industry. Wyatt Creech came back and said things were not going fast enough.

It is also important to remember the other things that the review said. It said Environment Canterbury paid too much attention to science. That is an outrage! The regulator of the dairy sector, according to the dairy person who was put in to review it, was paying too much attention to science. The review said Environment Canterbury was science-led. Imagine that. Imagine a regional council paying attention to science. That is an outrage; Environment Canterbury has to be abolished! So the Minister said the Government would abolish it and put in people who would not pay attention to science, because it is wrong to do so. The Minister said Environment Canterbury should be paying attention to irrigators and dairy corporations, not to scientists. Imagine employing scientists in a regional council to give us information about water quality. It is a shocking activity! That is why Wyatt Creech said the council had to go: because it was not employing enough people from the industry side, and there were too many scientists. What a waste of time that review was.

Of course, the other thing that Wyatt Creech said was that Environment Canterbury does not process consents fast enough. Of course, this is really the nub of the matter. In the last 12 months the regional council processed nearly 90 percent of consents within the statutory time frames—nearly 90 percent. So although the Government says it has to get rid of the council now, actually the council is performing better than it has ever performed. The reason why the Government is trying to get rid of the council is that the council has improved its performance. The purpose of this bill, which is the part we are dealing with at the moment, is to speed up the process of converting more and more of Canterbury to irrigation. More and more we will see rivers drained of their water and more pollution of the aquifers, and we are to have less science, because that is not important. As Mr Creech said, too much science was being done—what a waste of time! If we have less science, there will be less evidence on the basis of which people can complain about what is going on in Canterbury. We will have less ability to challenge Synlait and all the different dairy corporations when we go to court, because less science will have been done.

Let us remember that the Linton dairy case was lost because the Canterbury Regional Council did not have enough scientific evidence to give around the aquifer. The regional council tried to get more scientific work done, and for that reason it is being sacked. The council is being sacked because it is too much into science. The reason that the council lost the Linton dairy case was that it had not done enough science. The council did more scientific work, and now it is being sacked. The Government thinks that if the council does too much scientific work, it might say no to more irrigation and more intensification of agriculture across Canterbury. As we know from the Prime Minister’s speech when Parliament resumed in February, this Government will take action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury; hence this bill to get rid of the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury.

I think it is also important this afternoon that people may have seen that the Environmental Defence Society, after originally cautiously welcoming this bill, in its second press release has come out opposing it, because the society has realised what is going on with regard to water conservation orders in this bill. One of the purposes of this bill is to overturn the water conservation orders on the Rākaia River and the proposed water conservation order that is coming through on the Hurunui River. The reason that the Government does not like those water conservation orders is that they will preserve too much water for the rivers and not give enough water to irrigation. The Government thinks it cannot possibly let the Hurunui River water conservation order go through. The Environmental Defence Society has now come out and raised serious concerns about what this bill does to the water conservation order process. This bill overturns the current process and takes the Environment Court, which is where the Hurunui River water conservation order would have gone next, out of the process.

One of the purposes of this bill—and I am surprised it has not been written here in this part—is to overturn water conservation order processes. Rivers subject to water conservation orders are the national parks of rivers; that is what they are. People do not understand how important water conservation orders are. They are like giving national park status to our rivers. When this Government introduces a bill to dismantle the way that water conservation orders work in Canterbury, it is because it wants to mine another kind of national park: it wants to mine the Rākaia River and the Hurunui River for irrigation. It is another kind of mining of national parks, but this time our rivers are the national parks that are at stake. This Government, in the purpose of this bill, wants to overturn the way that water conservation orders work.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)