Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

When the debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night we were dealing under urgency with the current bill, whereby the Government, the ACT Party, and the Māori Party will vote to abolish democratically elected regional councillors. We were considering Part 1 of that bill, which includes the purpose clause, clause 3. The purpose of this bill is very clear, and the Prime Minister stated it in his opening speech to Parliament in February. The Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year. That was the first step.

The second step was that Wyatt Creech was appointed to conduct a review of Environment Canterbury. At the time he was a director of Open Country Cheese, a dairy company with multiple convictions for dirty dairying. Someone from the dairy industry was appointed to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry—that is, of Environment Canterbury. That was step two. Step two was to appoint the industry to do a review of the regulator of the industry. Unsurprisingly, the Creech report came out saying that we should get rid of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors. One of the criticisms, of course, was that Environment Canterbury’s councillors were paying too much attention to science, and that was why they needed to go. The report said that they were “science-led” rather than “science-informed”.

The third step is this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil the final stage in the Government’s grand plan, which is to get rid of the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury because they are getting in the way of irrigation in the Canterbury region. After years of inaction by the regional council, it was finally starting to stand up to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies, and that is why they got into trouble with the National Government.

What is interesting about this bill is the outrage in respect of it and how some people have changed their minds about democracy. When the previous Labour Government was accused of changing things for Rodney, there was a real uproar about democracy. Where did this uproar come from? It was ACT—ACT Party members were the ones who were upset, and they were the ones who were making the noise. But now those members have changed their minds. They change their minds about all sorts of things. We have a Minister who picks on a mayor because he happens to water a tree at night during a drought. We have a situation where people change their minds.

Almost 400,000 people will lose their right to vote at the October elections of Environment Canterbury councillors. They will have to wait until perhaps 2013. So we see that there are double standards all over the place. One can be against one thing and for another thing, in the blink of an eye. One can take one’s partner overseas to travel the world for a family wedding, and at the same time one can take away the rights of people to elect their local regional council. I think the public will see this quite clearly. We have a Government that has lost its way, when it said it would keep in touch with people. It has not kept in touch with people. It has got rid of an elected council, which was elected by the people of Canterbury, and replaced it with commissioners. I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for Dame Margaret Bazley. I think she will do a wonderful job in that role, but that role should never have been needed. Canterbury has had its pollution problems. The regional council has got on top of that and sorted it out.

💬 Nicky Wagner: No, they haven’t.

Oh, it has not sorted it out? It has made great steps.

💬 Nicky Wagner: No, they haven’t.

Well, that member might not be cooperating. Maybe she has a smoky home; maybe she has a place so that she cannot see the facts. It has been making progress, and I think that is what the people of Canterbury want. You see, 375,000 people will lose a major right with this bill. Part 1 takes that right away. I say to members opposite that they cannot run roughshod over people. They have already done it to Auckland by not having a referendum at all, but passing legislation under urgency like we are doing here today. It seems to be becoming a bit of a habit. Dr Nick Smith well knows that when Governments start ignoring the democratic rights of people, they start that slippery slide. The tide is turning, I say to Dr Smith, it is slowly turning. It may be out now, but all of a sudden, he will see that the tide comes rushing in. And it will not take 9 years to come rushing in, it will not take 6 years to come rushing in, but in a mere 18 months or so, he will see that people are sick of such arrogance by a Government that really does not care about people. It takes them for granted.

Members opposite can just turn round and thumb their noses, but they cannot do it to a third of the population in Auckland and 370-odd thousand people in Canterbury. Those people are wondering why they are losing their vote. We have not really heard—

💬 Nicky Wagner: They are not wondering; they know why.

We hear some of the National members squawking on the other side. But they are the ones who will lose their seats. They will be so far down the list they will be gone.

Good morning, Mr Chairman. A lot of the squawking from the Opposition has been comparing this legislation with the legislation that was passed by the Labour-led Government in 2000 in relation to the abolition of the Rodney District Council and its replacement with a commissioner. There are a large number of differences between that situation and the current situation that we find ourselves in. The first difference is that Rodney District Council asked to be replaced by a commissioner. It agreed with the outcome of the review. It said that it was the best outcome, and the following year, elections were held. This situation is completely different. The Minister for the Environment has ridden roughshod over not only the councillors but also the people of Canterbury and the Creech review itself. Nowhere in that review did it give this Minister the mandate to do what he is doing.

Jacqui Dean, the member for somewhere down south, who, I recall, wrote to one of my colleagues earlier in her term in Parliament inquiring about the dangers of water, has now become an expert in water management. Jacqui Dean forgets what her party said at that time. I can quote from the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who is now the Speaker. When Labour introduced the bill to abolish Rodney District Council, he stated: “I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.” There was a bipartisan approach to that bill, because the people of Rodney wanted it. Then he stated: “I must say, though, I am not sure whether we needed urgency to pass the bill through all stages”. National had some principles then. It was opposed to putting that bill through under urgency.

Then Dr Lockwood Smith accused the Green Party of becoming voter fodder for the Labour Government. Kennedy Graham is rightly outraged, and he was not in Parliament at the time. That situation may not have arisen had he been in the House. But that is exactly what people are saying about the ACT Party and the Māori Party now—that they are just acting as voting fodder for National. They are letting this happen to the people of Canterbury, and there is no need for it.

There is no need for our vote to be taken away from us. We have a right to vote for whoever we want in our region for our district health board, our community boards, our city council, and our regional council. That right is being taken away by someone who does not even live in our region, and who has the audacity to introduce this bill to this House under urgency and is ramming it through all its stages, so that not a single member of the public can say: “This is good. This is bad. Why do you not think about that? There are some other options.” Not one single person has been able to do that, because the Minister for the Environment knows it all. The combination of the Minister who knows everything and the Minister who tells everyone he knows everything—Rodney Hide—is just too scary to contemplate for too long. Last night their behaviour was extraordinary, and I predict that it will get worse as the passage of this bill progresses.

Passing a bill under urgency is not appropriate for a bill that takes away a fundamental right of so many New Zealanders. It is not needed; there are many alternatives. Russel Norman from the Green Party quite correctly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of this bill—which is not spelt out clearly in Part 1—is just as John Key outlined in his address at the opening of Parliament. He committed his Government to taking action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. Who cares about the environment? Who cares about the people’s voice? Who cares about the ability of private profit-making companies to compulsorily acquire land?

💬 Nicky Wagner: Only half the story, Ruth.

It is not the Minister for the Environment, and it certainly not Nicky Wagner. There is no consideration of the fact that we should have a say when our environment, our surroundings, our land, our aquifers, our rivers, and our estuary are all at stake.

I ask what it is about Canterbury that the Minister thinks should disentitle us from having a fundamental say in the purpose of this bill. It is not just the fact that the entire elected representation of the regional council is being removed; it is also the fact that we will not have an opportunity to replace them at the next election. We are due to have an election in October of this year, and we have to go past that election time and wait for an entire new term before the Minister may deem it fit to allow us—how generous of him—to vote for our regional council.

But I have to be very frank. I know that the people of Canterbury have no faith in this Minister not to sneak through another dirty, devious little bill that would take away our right for a longer period of time. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister is not lining himself up with the mayors of the region—who have had no discussion at all, not one single discussion, with their councils, but have made an entirely unilateral contribution on our so-called behalf—to propose the equivalent of the Auckland super-city. This may well be the start of the disestablishment of our regional council structure altogether.

I challenge the Minister to be up front about his behaviour for a change, and to be honest and open with the people of Canterbury. We elected our regional council. Some of the people I would not have voted for; that is one of the parts of democracy we should cherish. There is a large number of members in this Parliament whom I would not vote for, either. What is proposed in this bill is not the way that a democracy works. A democracy works when people have a vote, and sometimes the people whom they want to be elected are elected, and sometimes they are not. We have had taken away from us that fundamental right to elect people or to vote for people who do not, in the end, get elected.

Not only is this a major breach of our fundamental right to vote for our regional representation but also it is unnecessary. Those writing the Creech report made that very clear. They said that widespread concerns had been expressed to them, and they said quite categorically in their report that their investigation did not back up those concerns. It is about politics, actually; this is a political game and the Minister has now thrown in his toys and started playing. It is a political game, and it is being played at the expense of our water management and our entitlement to have our voice be heard throughout the process of consideration, whether it is irrigation projects, water storage projects, or any other requirement to take water from our rivers.

I urge the Minister, even at this late stage when he has so much of his reputation at stake, to reconsider. There are other options. He knows that members on this side of the Chamber would support the legislative requirements of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He knows that; we have said so in the House. The problem with doing it this way is that it is divisive, undemocratic, and unnecessary. There is no need to cause such division in our community or to cause such frustration. Because of the Minister’s majority in Parliament and because he has had the privilege of taking up a ministerial portfolio, he can use those powers to batter the people of Canterbury out of their right to vote. It is a huge breach of both the privilege and the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio.

If it was necessary, as Sandra Lee thought it was in 2000 and as the National Party thought it was in 2000, then we would go for it. We would vote for it. The National Party had the courage to say that then. I have quoted the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who said that he welcomed the introduction of the legislation appointing the commissioner to replace the Rodney District Council, because the district council had asked for it. The Rodney District Council knew that that move would put their district council into the position where very soon after—just a year later—the people would once again be able to vote for their elected representatives. The Rodney District Council knew there was such dysfunction within the district council that it had no other option. That is not the case in this situation.

We are debating the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, because there is a serious problem, which everybody in this House should acknowledge, around water management issues in Canterbury. The fact is that last month Trevor Mallard said that everyone knew there was a problem there, and I challenge Labour members to stop their denials. They were entrusted with the Government of New Zealand for 9 years, and I ask members whether, in that 9-year period, they did anything about improving water management. My own ministry’s chief executive, Dr Paul Reynolds, a respected public servant, described the previous Government’s water programme of action as a programme of inaction, such was the lack of any leadership or direction around water management issues.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: When did he say that?

He said that about 3 years ago when he was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

I will challenge Ruth Dyson about a number of claims she has made. Firstly, I will deal with her claim that not one single discussion had taken place with the 10 councils. That is what Ruth Dyson has just claimed. But I tell her that I attended a meeting with the mayors of every single council from Waitaki to Kaikōura. Every single one of those territorial councils supports the responsive action that this Government is taking.

The member also said that the mayors did not have a democratic mandate.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I did not say that.

Well, that is interesting; her colleague did. Last night her colleague said that the mayors had no right to speak for the people of Canterbury.

The member attacked the Māori Party for its support of this bill. I note that Ngāi Tahu, with whom I thought Labour would have some relationship, has said that it reluctantly agrees that the appointment of commissioners is necessary in Canterbury.

I will deal with the rhetoric we have heard from Ruth Dyson and others about whether it is appropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities. Where was Ruth Dyson when the previous Minister of Health, David Cunliffe, sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Where was Ruth Dyson when Helen Clark sacked the entire Auckland District Health Board? The member said that it was not appropriate—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: You weren’t even here in Parliament.

So because I was not in Parliament, it is not relevant? But it is OK for Helen Clark to sack a democratically elected district health board. In fact, members opposite are playing silly politics in this regard.

It is interesting to note that a former Labour Government in one Act of Parliament abolished 460 democratically elected bodies in one go—460 democratically elected councils in one go. So for Labour members to stand in this Parliament today and say that it is inappropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities is really an extraordinary claim for them to make. It really shows how shallow their arguments are in the Chamber this morning.

I have a simple challenge for Labour members. All New Zealanders appreciate that we have a major problem with water management in Canterbury. This Government has responded, with real leadership, with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about how to fix that. My challenge to members in Labour is to ask what their response is. Their response in 9 years in Government was absolutely zip.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Have an election.

Mr Darren Hughes says to have an election. Well, he should look at this own comments. I will take Marian Hobbs for an example. Why was it that the previous Labour Government required special legislation to put in a water plan in the Waitaki? It was because Marian Hobbs told this Parliament—this was way back in 2003—that Environment Canterbury had failed to put in place the proper plans. If members opposite want to talk about democratic rights, I ask them why it was appropriate in 2003 to pass a special bill through this Parliament to take away from the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury the right to do a Waitaki water plan. Why was that OK? If those members really believed in the absoluteness of democracy around regional councils, why would that Government have ridden roughshod over those councillors? Do members know who wrote the regional plan? It was actually written by commissioners appointed by the then Minister for the Environment.

So why was it OK for Labour, when it was in Government, to dismiss health boards and to go into urgency to pass special legislation about elections and commissioners in Rodney District? Why was it OK for Labour—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Supported by National.

That is right. National did support that.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Except for it being in urgency.

Well, Labour voted for the urgency motion. I noted before that I think it is somewhat contradictory, and it shows the mess in the Labour Party, that Labour voted for the urgency motion. But when National was in Opposition and was confronted with the problems—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I know that Part 1 is a wide-ranging debate and there is a lot of opportunity for Opposition calls, but the Minister persists in this myth that the Labour Opposition voted for an urgency motion. That is simply not correct, and it will lead to disorder if the Minister misrepresents the Opposition’s position on procedural matters. He is not helping the passage of his own legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I understand the member’s point. I think that it really falls into the realm of debate. There are some technical issues around how that vote was taken that make it a little bit difficult to exactly and precisely determine what the intention was, because there was no party vote. But it is a matter of debate. OK?

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have finished with that point of order.

I am happy to make it a debating matter. It is a matter of record that at the time when the urgency motion was taken, there was no vote. There was a consensus that the House moved into urgency.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: But that’s not voting “for”.

Oh, I see. So we have this new rewriting of the rules, which is so common with Labour—

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. If I understood the Minister, he said that the vote was taken entirely by consensus on voices. That is incorrect. The Green Party registered “No” verbally.

Speaking to the point of order, I was in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I was sitting right up front and I listened very carefully. I heard that no voices were registered in opposition to the urgency motion. No party vote was sought. It has long been established in the practice of Parliament that if parties wish to register a vote against the motion, they seek a party vote. That did not occur. The record shows that Parliament moved into urgency by consensus.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: We now have two issues. One is the substantive point raised by Mr Graham. The second point is that the Minister in his response to the point of order has now accused the member of misleading the House and has not taken his word. Mr Graham said that on voices the Green Party voted a certain way. If the Minister persists in that accusation, he is accusing the member of misleading the House. Both of those separate points lead to the point that if the Minister wants to get his legislation through in a rational, logical, calm and orderly way, he would be best to focus on the debate of the substance in the bill rather than on the avenue that he is going down, which will delay his own legislation. I hope he understands that very simple point I am trying to make to him.

I raise the point that Mr Hughes has said, which is that by me pointing out exactly the events that occurred around the urgency motion, the Labour Party approach is one of “Well, we’re going to throw our toys out of the cot and not allow his legislation to be passed.” I do not think that that is an appropriate threat.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That is a debating point.

It is a point of order, Mr Chairman, and we are having interjections.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry, I am actually trying to just sort my way through this process, so I was probably a little bit inattentive. But members should not interject and should not make any contribution while we are hearing points of order.

My point of order was that the Opposition’s “junior leader of the House”, Mr Darren Hughes, has made the claim that my pointing out the events that occurred around the vote on the urgency motion will somehow stop the passage of the legislation through Parliament. I do not think that those sorts of threats are at all helpful to the orderly running of the Committee.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: The Minister’s contribution there is an exact example of what I am talking about. There are no threats being made; the Labour Opposition wants to debate the substance of the clauses in Part 1 of this bill. It is a pretty serious bill. It takes away the right of people to have an election for 3½ years, so all parties think it is pretty serious. The point I am making to the Minister is that by his continual misrepresentation of what members have said, including those as recently as in my last point of order just 45 seconds ago, we have now stopped debating the legislation and we are heading down into a procedural wrangle because of the style and behaviour that he is undertaking. Labour wants to debate Part 1 of the bill. We want to engage with the Minister on that. We are glad that he is taking calls. I think we should be able to return to a debate on substance rather than have this sort of sideshow that seems to be going on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just try to clarify the issue around the vote. If members look at Standing Order 136, they will see that it quite clearly outlines what happens. The Speaker at the time asked for the Ayes and for the Noes, and it will be recorded in the Hansard that the resolution was “The Ayes have it.” Any member at any stage can call for a party vote. That never happened. So what we simply have is a record, which states that a resolution was passed by the Government. The record is not recorded as to which parties voted whichever way, because no party vote was called for. So it is simply just a matter that the resolution was passed.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a matter of debate; that is what the record actually shows. We will return to Part 1.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Forgive me, I cannot recall whether it concerned Mr Graham or Mr Hughes, but that was not the point of order that was being made. What you have said is not in dispute. The point of order that was being made—and the member has an absolute right to be taken at his word—was that the member said that his party indicated “No” by voice. I am not objecting to the record. The point of order is simply that there is an absolute and cast-iron rule, as you would know, Mr Assistant Chairperson, in this Chamber that a member’s word cannot be questioned. But there is an absolute case that Dr Smith questioned the member’s word, and in effect called him a liar—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, he questioned his word, Mr Assistant Chairman, and by questioning his word, in effect, without using the term he—and I understand the English language—implied that this member was not telling the truth. I invite you to rule on that; he questioned his word.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Righto, I will rule. I did not take that inference, whatsoever. That is why I have cleared up the matter of how the vote was taken. I say also that the point of order raised by Dr Kennedy Graham was not actually a point of order. But I have clarified the matter as to how the vote was taken, and we will now return to the debate on Part 1.

I will speak shortly to some amendments I have proposed to Part 1, but first I will pick up on some of the comments that Dr Smith has made in the last little while. The idea is that there has been wide consultation on this issue, including the councils of Canterbury. However, last night a press statement from councillor Chrissie Williams of the Christchurch City Council said that the Mayor of Christchurch may have expressed his personal view, but the Christchurch City Council has not discussed the Environment Canterbury review, nor formed a view, nor made any resolution or announcement on this issue. She acknowledges that Dr Smith went to see the council, but there was no report, no discussion, or any decision made by the council on that matter. To suggest that there is some kind of support for this from the councils of Canterbury is as much a nonsense as saying that the councillors of Environment Canterbury themselves were consulted on this matter and agreed to the proposal to put them up against a wall and shoot them, as this bill provides for.

I will turn to the issue of precedent on this, and the message that this has not been the first time that constitutionally elected, democratically elected bodies have been overturned by Government announcement. There was also the reference to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board having been disenfranchised. I would like to report the comments from the MP for Napier, Chris Tremain, when that happened. He said on 4 March 2008: “people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. … Regardless of who is right or wrong, I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people.” I hope Mr Tremain will stand up and take a call in respect of this bill doing the same thing to Environment Canterbury.

Of course, the member for Tukituki also had some concerns on the issue, and commented that the people of Hawke’s Bay believed that their democratic process had been thrown out of the window; so I hope Mr Foss will stand up and take a call and express his outrage at this happening to the people of Canterbury, because that would be appropriate and in line with what is required.

I have proposed an amendment to clause 6 around changes in the bill to the rights of appeal on water conservation orders. We say in that amendment that the abrogation of appeal rights should end when Environment Canterbury is reinstalled. At the moment, those issues of appeal are still in place beyond the time frame that this bill envisages. That is important, because those are important democratic rights and they should not simply be left with the bill, once Environment Canterbury is reinstated.

That, of course, in itself is a moot point. I note the ministerial statements yesterday of Mr Hide and Dr Smith. Mr Hide said: “I am confident that by then”—by 2013—“Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.” That is all well and good, even though it will be 3½ years before we start to see a return to democracy, in terms of Environment Canterbury. Unfortunately, that is not the line that Dr Smith is taking. He said in a press conference yesterday that no decisions had been made in terms of the new Canterbury water authority, which was envisaged by the Creech report, and that the Government wants to consider the conclusions of the Land and Water Forum, which is due to report in July, and then the work by the Environmental Protection Authority, as well as further advice from the commission and officials around the whole issue of the governance of the region’s water.

We do not have any clarity. We have one Minister saying in a press statement that he is looking forward to the return of Environment Canterbury by the time the 2013 local body elections are due to take place, which means 3½ years without democratic function, yet the other Minister is saying that that is not a certainty at all. That point highlights the fact that this bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is an abrogation of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is throwing away the democratically elected body that was put in place by the people of Canterbury to make decisions around the future of water. That is just not acceptable.

I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than is provided for. We deserve to have this bill go to a select committee process for decision making, not simply be put through the House under an urgency motion, in order to do away with the chance for anybody to have any input into, and any say on, this legislation, which I think will not be good legislation in terms of the long-term results for Canterbury or for New Zealand.

I want to speak on Part 1, because I am very concerned about comments that the Minister has made in response to some of the matters that have been raised. One of the things that is so frustrating about the process we are going through is that we were to get a briefing at 11 a.m.—the Minister was late so it was about 11.45, I think, by the time he arrived—on a draft bill. Then the bill was introduced yesterday afternoon, and, of course, today’s debate will show in Hansard as being 30 March, because of the rather quaint rules that we have around urgency, even though everywhere else in the country it is 31 March. This bill will go through all of its stages on 30 March; that is how it will be recorded in Hansard.

The problem I have with this process is that there has not been an opportunity for the broader engagement that one would expect. Even in the Rodney District Council case 80 submissions were heard. There were hearings, there was public input, and actually there was a good deal of consensus. We have already heard about that from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, in respect of both sides of the Chamber recognising what was in the best interests of the council and knowing that the council was only 18 months away from a local body election. In this case, 6 months before an election, we are told that another 3½ years have to go by where the democratic deficit is applied to the people of Canterbury. All I am saying to the Minister is that if he had actually met with the other parties in the House—and I know that he has preferred to meet with those that might have a support agreement with the Government—and if he had talked right across the board, we could have worked through what was the best way to resolve this issue.

The thing that will not get enough consideration and debate in this Committee, unless we really go through it with a fine-tooth comb, is the Wyatt Creech report. I was attacked by the Minister for the Environment for daring to suggest that the former Minister Wyatt Creech had a conflict of interest. He did have a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. Whether or not the conflict of interest is perceived or real, it is still a conflict of interest. The Minister well knows that a conflict of interest, whether or not it is perceived or real, has to be notified. It has to be. A Minister, even with a perceived conflict of interest, has to withdraw from decision making, to be on the safe side, as the Minister well knows.

What I want to say about the quality of this report is that it is not a robust report, and I certainly would not want to have anyone in this country think, for one minute, that this is a sufficient quality of reporting for the kind of decision that this Parliament is being forced to make today. The reason that it is poor quality is that it is based so much on anecdote. There are several aspects of this report that I want to go through. The first is in relation to the complaints around the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury’s governance.

Let me just read into the record the actual statement from the report: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that the councillors are so polarised at times that they are dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership, and the council was too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to leading the Region. Our investigation did not bear this out.” Did anyone miss that? It stated: “Our investigation did not bear this out.”

The report further states: “ECan is meeting its legal obligations under the LGA but has been unable to establish a firm planning environment which flows through to poor relationships and decisions under the RMA.” So it is the planning function. Who is responsible for the planning function—for employing the people who work in planning and consent? Let us go through that, because that is the chief executive’s job, not the job of the council.

I will look at the section on the question of capability within Environment Canterbury itself in respect of staff. It is an entire section, titled 3.1.3 “Staffing and use of resources. Leadership/Direction.” It states: “There is a lack of overall resource management content leadership within the Consenting Section. Senior management are not RMA experts, and have backgrounds from outside the sector. Senior management are not able to provide leadership and direction on the RMA and the consenting functions—other than process components. This understanding of the RMA has been left to the third tier managers and team leaders, some of whom have been in ECan for a long time and ‘do it how they have always done it’ (according to some internal staff and external people interviewed). This issue of leadership of the consenting function is significant, and has had implications in terms of timeframe management as well as the quality of the consenting process.”

Then the report goes on to talk about the nature of the consenting process, as it was over 2 years ago. It completely fails to look at the rates of consenting that have been adopted since the time this report was referring to. Over and over again, within this report, it states “(according to some internal staff and external people interviewed)”. Those people are unnamed. Then there is a statement that in fact the comments are anecdotal and there is no evidence to back them up. Here is a really good one on “Relationships with applicants and submitters”. It states: “There is clearly a major perception gap between internal and external views of ECan. All external applicants spoken to raise concerns around perceived intransigence of staff to accept that decisions made by Hearings Commissioners/the Environment Court have set precedent. Concern was also expressed that processes are extremely slow, and that if ECan ‘lose’ a case, staff actively slow processes down and impose unworkable or impractical conditions (NB: this is anecdotal and we have not been provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion).”

Then the report goes on to list common themes raised by external parties, and what do we have? The report refers to “Intransigence when confronted with challenging situations ‘ECan not getting its own way and deliberately slowing processes down or reacting publicly’. Science led rather than science informed … Large numbers of staff are ‘green’ in orientation … A vacuum of economic, social or cultural consideration …”.

This report is outrageous. It would never ever withstand judicial review, because the quality of the advice it gives is based almost entirely on anecdote. Let us go through a scenario. Let us say a National Party member of Parliament who is living in Timaru approaches the local Timaru mayor and says that the Government’s two Ministers would quite like to get stuck into Environment Canterbury, and asks whether the mayor could arrange for the mayors to write a letter. So a letter is written to the Ministers, but what is interesting about the letter that is written to the Ministers is that it completely breaches the process that has been agreed to between the mayoral forum and Environment Canterbury, which is a heads-up, no-surprises approach. Even that is mentioned in the report. The mayors did not bother to even consult with their own councils—not one. Environment Canterbury councillor Jo Kane did an Official Information Act request to all of the mayors and councils in the region, and what did she find out? Not one of them had had it debated in their local councils.

So we have the mayors making these decisions on their own behalf and not consulting with other elected people, and what happens? The entire elected, democratic function of our environmental regulator goes completely out the window. A lot of concerns have been raised about this. Jo Kane was interesting in the Timaru Herald this morning. She said: “I feel like I have been on The Apprentice and Donald Trump has told me that I’m fired. Except this time it’s not Donald Trump, it’s Rodney Hide and Nick Smith—or Jekyll and Hide as I like to call them.”

The problem is that we saw this report coming to this Parliament by way of a letter from the Minister for the Environment just a couple of months ago. There was no engagement with the broader stakeholders. I think that 20 groups were consulted in the development of the Creech report. We certainly have not been consulted about our way forward. I do not know how long the Minister has spent with each individual council. I know that he visited the individual councils, but it was not sufficient to be doing this.

First, I agree entirely with Brendon Burns, who said earlier that the regional council Environment Canterbury will not be reinstated. It is an open secret that this Government is trying to get rid of the regional councils in New Zealand; we know that. Getting rid of the regional council in Canterbury is just its first foray. I predict that that council will never be reinstated. This is the end of regional councils in Canterbury. We will never see a regional council in Canterbury again.

All over the world, it is common for dictatorships—it is their hallmark—that do not like what democratically elected representatives are trying to do to get rid of them. That is what happened in Fiji. Bainimarama did not like what some of his democratically elected representatives were doing, so he got rid of them. That is exactly what has happened here. We have a coup d’état in Canterbury. I took the trouble to look up what the definition of a coup d’état is. It is the sudden, unconstitutional getting rid of a Government, usually by a small group within the existing Government. That is exactly what has happened here. It is a bloodless coup d’état. It has happened in a completely unconstitutional way through the actions of a small group within the existing Government, using time-worn techniques.

What are the time-worn techniques? First of all, one goes about discrediting the democratically elected council. First, the Minister for the Environment got the Creech report from Mr Creech, who is one of the Minister’s mates. He is a former deputy leader of the National Party. Mr Creech dashed around Canterbury over a period of 3 weeks and interviewed 20 people. He came up with a report that seeks to discredit the regional council, a democratically elected council; the report says it is so inefficient that we must get rid of it. Mr Creech tried desperately hard to say there was a statutory basis for dismissing the elected councillors, but, sadly for Mr Creech, despite his very best efforts, he was unable to find any statutory basis for dismissing them. In fact, he was forced to conclude—poor man—despite his mission to utterly discredit Environment Canterbury, that it was meeting its legal obligations under the Local Government Act. The report states that “the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.” So there was absolutely no statutory basis for getting rid of the council, whatsoever. The Minister acknowledged when briefing us yesterday that he was not able to use the provisions of the Local Government Act to get rid of Environment Canterbury, so he has had to have recourse to this legislation.

The other point is that Cantabrians need to be aware of the bigger picture here. What we see is not just the hand of Nick Smith and the National Government but also the hand of Rodney Hide. What is ACT’s agenda? ACT’s agenda is quite explicit. Like all new-right Governments, ACT members want to shrink democracy. They want to privatise and corporatise as many aspects of democracy as they can. They have done that with the governance of Auckland. They have produced a coup d’état in Auckland. They have corporatised Auckland. The situation in Canterbury is eerily similar. There is a pattern, and now they have done it to Canterbury. It is the same sorts of time-worn techniques: discredit the council by saying there is a huge problem, then summarily dismiss it without any statutory basis for doing so, and replace it with hand-picked political appointees—and I can imagine who the rest of them might be.

Cantabrians need to be aware that this move is part of ”Rogernomics Part 2”—and it is good to have Roger Douglas here listening to this, because that is what it is all about. ACT realises that it is thwarted in this particular electoral cycle in its ambition to sell off the State-owned enterprises, to privatise them at the governmental level. It is not able to do it in this term of Government. It will be done in the next term of Government, if National is re-elected. So ACT has turned its attention to local government, and that is where it is focusing “Rogernomics Part 2”. Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government, is quietly going around New Zealand and getting rid of as much local government as possible. ACT has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland; now it is getting rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. What will be next? Where is the next excuse to get rid of yet another layer of democratically elected councillors and replace them—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Oh, come on!

This is exactly what the National Government has done. It is an indisputable fact. The Government has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland. Now it has got rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is an indisputable fact. And it has got rid of it by unconstitutional means.

What really surprises me is that it has managed to fool many people in Canterbury, just as it initially fooled many people in Auckland. Many of the mayors in Canterbury have gone along with it. All sorts of personal agendas are at stake. They have gone along with it in a cavalier fashion, saying: “Oh, who cares? We have just wiped out another layer of democracy. Who cares? It is just democracy.” Democracy is what our ancestors fought for, and women fought for the vote. People all around the world are fighting for democracy, but we have just cavalierly dismissed eight democratically elected councils in Auckland, and now we are dismissing this council, and the people of Canterbury are saying: “Oh, well, what does it matter? We’ll just replace them with some political appointees, with some political hacks that will do the Government’s agenda. We’ll just get rid of the council—no problem.” But we will never get back that layer of democracy.

The regional councillors were proving a bit inconvenient for the Government. They were not ramming through its agenda of getting hold of the water in Canterbury and building large irrigation dams. Because they were inconvenient they are to be wiped out and replaced by politically appointed commissioners so that the Government will be able to implement its agenda, very explicitly, without any obstacles. The Government goes around the world saying how terrible what has happened in Fiji is, when exactly what has happened in Fiji is happening in Canterbury. It is happening with the passage of this bill.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Not true!

It is exactly true. I guarantee that the people of Fiji will get to vote before the people of Canterbury ever get to vote for a regional council again. The people of Canterbury will not get to vote, because the regional council will never be reinstated. The people of Canterbury need to wake up. This is the agenda. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. It is an agenda to wipe out layers of local democracy, to privatise and corporatise the remainder of local government, and to enable this Government to impose its will on the people of Canterbury. It is, as I have said, a coup d’état—an unconstitutional getting rid of a Government by a small group of people. That is the definition of a coup d’état. That is what this is.

It was very interesting to see the letter from the people of Canterbury. It points out that there should be no taxation without representation. The letter refers to the “outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy”. In respect of replacing the councillors, the writers of the letter say that if they are not going to have a voice in local government, then they will not pay for it—they will not pay their rates. The letter states: “If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision makers, then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision makers it chooses to put in their place.” That is what those people are intending to do.

I rise to take my first call in respect of Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so very, very happily, because the people of my electorate have been asking for an improvement in Environment Canterbury for a hang of a long time—since before I was elected as the MP for Aoraki. I rise to my feet a little heavy in heart, because the quality of this debate appals me. The absolute scaremongering, with the talk of a coup d’état and the removal of democracy, is a load of hogwash. This bill allows a return to elected councillors.

💬 Sue Kedgley: It’ll never happen.

We say it will, and this bill allows for it, either in 2013 or before 2013. It would be helpful to stick to the facts, I say to Ms Kedgley—it would be helpful to stick to the facts. Let me give members some more facts. You see, the people of my electorate have been complaining about Environment Canterbury’s inability to manage water from an environmental perspective, a recreational perspective, a cultural perspective, and an economic perspective, for far too long—far too long. Yet we have had consensus with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We have had groups getting together with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, yet there was no end in sight—none whatsoever—and no progress in sight. It was the inability of Environment Canterbury to perform its statutory duties in terms of managing the water of the region that has brought this bill about.

I will pay tribute to some people. I pay tribute to Alec Neill, because he has tried his damnedest to get things turned round, and I feel we need to acknowledge that. It has not been enough; he has found himself unable to achieve the progress he wanted to. There has been improvement in respect of consenting, but what the Opposition forgets to tell us is that the number of consents issued is hugely less, anyway. Environment Canterbury has been dealing with about half the workload. Hello—90 percent for half the workload is still bad. I pay tribute to the regional councillors from my electorate, Mark Oldfield and Angus McKay. Those guys have also tried their damnedest to address the concerns of their constituents within the region. But still, tens of thousands of dollars later—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars later—people have got nowhere when it comes to the management of water in the region.

Actually, this bill is about making progress. It is a temporary measure—it even says that in the title. It is a temporary measure, and it is here not before time. I will quickly read some of the reaction from around the region. One of the mayors in my former electorate, Mackenzie District Mayor John O’Neill said it was: “a bold move which would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers.” So much for no consultation, guys; it has happened. Those mayors have been out asking their people for years and years what they want to happen, in a timelier and better way, and they have said that Environment Canterbury should be made to do its job. A former Waitaki constituency councillor, Dr June Slee, said: “The community knew ECan wasn’t doing its job, and this push for change was community-driven.” It is a shame that that same community appears to have been completely ignored by Opposition members in the House—completely and utterly ignored. It believes that its only community of interest is a small cohort that is anti the development of water and that does not seem to realise that the environmental standards of the water are also currently not being looked after well enough.

So this bill is a way forward—a light into the future. We are very, very positive that this is the best way to go. From my perspective, a return to democracy in 2013—or before, if at all possible—is certainly within the scope of this bill, and I am sick of hearing that it is not. Thank you.

I would also like to quote the Timaru Herald this morning. A certain “Commodore Nick Smith” appears in this morning’s Timaru Herald, and I think there is a wonderful quote that needs to go into the record.

💬 Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member opposite made a derogatory comment about the Minister in charge of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is well made. Members are to use a respectful address. Members might have all sorts of titles, but I do not see that one listed as Nick Smith’s title. The member will use a person’s correct form of address.

I thought “Commodore” was very respectful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is very clear in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this House that members are not to comment on Speakers’ or Chairpersons’ rulings. Once the ruling has been made, that is the end of it. If the member wishes to continue, he can continue, but if he makes a further reference to the ruling that has been made, I will terminate his presentation.

The quote states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” That says it all. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, does not trust the people of Canterbury. He sacks the democratically elected members of the regional council because he is wary of the results of the elections. What does that tell members? He does not trust democracy and he does not trust the people of Canterbury. That says it all.

I will talk about Part 1, and I will put forward an amendment, but I will first touch on one of the aspects that I think is perhaps the most corrosive part of this Government’s affection for oligarchy and its distaste for democracy. When Wyatt Creech was appointed to do the report on Environment Canterbury, it rang alarm bells immediately, for the reasons that my colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined. The public of Canterbury, and the public of New Zealand, know well that National is hand in glove with the interests that are pushing and going hard out to free up irrigation and water storage in the interests of dairy farming. The Government knows that Ruth Richardson and Don Brash are directors of dairy companies in Canterbury, and that they will be watching very, very carefully to see who else is appointed as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. They know that this Government has form when it comes to abrogating democratic structures and undermining our democratic institutions, and they know its preference for running our democratic institutions by putting its mates around the table so that it can run our country, our cities, and our resources in its own commercial interests.

I have listened last night and this morning to member after member on the Government benches say that Labour members are getting hysterical and emotional about democracy. I make no apologies for being emotional about our country’s democratic institutions. They are the most precious asset we have in our political traditions, and for this Government to ride roughshod over those democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its own way and run its own agenda is disgraceful. Colin King said last night that we were ranting and raving about the loss of democratic rights, and that the only reason the Government is passing this bill today is because of dysfunction in the Canterbury Regional Council. Well, where have we heard that before? Every tinpot dictator from Fiji to the Central African Republic has blamed dysfunctional institutions and squabbling politicians as they do away with democracy at the point of a gun.

Nicky Wagner said: “I support this bill, because water is a significant issue and we can do better.” Hello? The member should hold up the front page. That Canterbury MP is a disgrace for selling out the democratic rights of her electors in the community that she is supposed to be representing.

There is something wrong with our democracy. There is something wrong with our democratic institutions when members of the governing party think it is OK to shelve our democracy and to shelve our democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its agenda through, because “we can do better.”, and because Environment Canterbury is “dysfunctional”. Well, what will be next? What institution or part of the State will be next replaced by hand-picked commissioners? Which council will be next, like the one in Auckland, to be corporatised and have its assets and resources handed over to the hand-picked mates of the Government? I have put forward an amendment to Part 1 that I am calling the “second chance” amendment. It is a second chance for the Government to redeem its democratic credentials and step back from the precipice.

The temperature forecast in Canterbury is 27 degrees and things are really starting to heat up. I noted that the member for Rangitata, Jo Goodhew, did not choose to deny comments from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about the fact that the criticism of Environment Canterbury from the mayors of Canterbury emerged following a conversation between that member and the Mayor of Timaru. Nothing was said in response to those points raised. Jo Goodhew went on to say that the bill allows for the return of Environment Canterbury by 2013 or before. She was very pointed on that issue, when, in fact, as was made clear before, the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, is saying that he is not sure that that will happen. He is still leaving open the idea of installing a regional water authority.

Sue Kedgley is absolutely correct: this is the death knell of Environment Canterbury. There is no prospect of it ever being reinstated, certainly not under this Government—not a chance. The member for Rangitata went on to say that Alec Neill had done a darn good job in trying to turn round Environment Canterbury. Alec Neill was actually the chairman of the consents committee for some years—the years, in fact, that the Government says that Environment Canterbury failed to deliver on the time frames necessary for meeting resource consents. I am sure Alec Neill tried to do his best in that job, but he was stuck with the same problem that Environment Canterbury has had throughout, and that is that it needed supporting legislation, which this Government has failed to bring through and—I acknowledge—the previous Government failed to bring through, in order to provide it with a better framework. I agree with that, but this Minister has had nearly 18 months in office; he could have brought that forward or he could have brought forward the option that Alec Neill himself suggested, which is that the commissioners work alongside the elected democratic representatives and implement the changes that are necessary. So there we go.

I noticed also that tribute was paid by the member for Rangitata to councillors Mackay and Oldfield. I note that they were two of the four councillors whom I took to the Auditor-General last year and had a complaint upheld about in respect of conflicts of interest over water. The Minister accused me last night of attacking Environment Canterbury. Far from it; I just say that processes need to be clear and transparent, and when people have conflicts of interest those conflicts need to be managed appropriately. But I tell members of the Committee that I would still rather have those four councillors and the other 10 councillors back in front of me as an elector in Canterbury in October than an appointed panel of commissioners whom Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will choose and ram down the throats of voters in Canterbury. That is what we are getting. That is absolutely what we are getting with this bill.

Another allegation was that Labour is opposed to development. That is absolutely untrue; we want to see development. There was huge development in Canterbury over the 9 years we were in Government in respect of the use of water resources. We say that from now on we should make sure that the balance is there and that the environmental protections are there, because no member opposite can pretend—and I challenge the Minister or another MP opposite to take a call on this issue—that the existing water quality in Canterbury is acceptable. Where in this bill is there anything about improving water quality? It is about new allocation of water, in rapid fashion; it is not about improving water quality.

I turn to clause 3 of the bill and note that the Minister could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions, powers, and duties of councillors in relation to water, and have them work alongside the council, certainly in respect of its other statutory responsibilities. But, no, the Minister—really, Mr Hide—has chosen to go for the doctor and absolutely disestablish Environment Canterbury, and we will not see it again. This is the end of Environment Canterbury.

I note further also, as Dr Bryan Jenkins said on Morning Report this morning, that Environment Canterbury has been asking for additional powers for the last 4 years. [Interruption] Yes, I acknowledge that we could have done it; we should have done it. I acknowledge that point, but where is this Government—the Government of action, supposedly? Where has its response been on that? Where has its delivery been on that point? It has not happened.

The other point I would like to make is that the commitment of the Government in this bill to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework is shallow rather than substantive. It does not take regard of the vision and principles of the strategy, a very good document and an agreed document from my region of Canterbury. It is not being enshrined in this bill; it is simply referred to in terms of the vision and principles. There is no requirement in this bill to put the terms of the document into practice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith I just want to say that I did not pay anybody. When members are interjecting they should interject in the third person.

There have been many quite hysterical claims of conspiracies and the like, and I think it would be worthwhile simply to put on the record a few of the basic facts that give a background to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill.

You see, both Labour and Green members have established that this bill is a very sophisticated conspiracy; that the Government has engineered a whole lot of groups to be anti - Environment Canterbury to enable this bill to be passed. Well, the first thing I would like to ask those members is whether they really believe that National members in Opposition were able to manipulate the respected staff of the Ministry for the Environment so that when they wrote their briefing to the incoming Government they raised very serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. That is an extraordinary claim and I ask members to respond to it.

Secondly, I point to the Environment Court decisions and the decisions of independent commissioners who have raised serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. Are members opposite really claiming that, somehow, through this Roger Douglas - driven conspiracy, we have been able to manipulate the decisions of independent commissioners and the Environment Court to make critical comments about Environment Canterbury? So great is the conspiracy that somehow we have got Trevor Mallard into it, as well, because Trevor Mallard is on the public record as saying very clearly that Environment Canterbury was in serious trouble. He knew that when he was Minister. He went—

💬 Hon Member: Has anything changed since then?

What he said was: “I went to the Prime Minister, suggested we take action, and the Prime Minister said it would be politically difficult.” The fact that Mr Mallard went to the Prime Minister says that, in his conscience, he knew he had a genuine problem, but he did not, for political reasons, have the courage to address the significant issues in Canterbury.

I also challenge members of the Opposition, particularly Mr Brendon Burns, who say that absolutely nothing in this bill deals with issues of water quality or some of the other very real issues in Canterbury. I refer the member to the many pages of schedule 1 of the bill that state what the commissioners are required to have regard to in their decision making. They make absolute reference to issues of water quality, to drinking-water standards, to the very essence of indigenous biodiversity, and to a whole range of other key environmental factors that we are putting into law today to make progress on water management.

I was amused by the contribution from Mr Phil Twyford. He says that the changes that are occurring in Auckland are all part of a right-wing conspiracy. Well, that is interesting. I thought that they came from a royal commission report. I ask Mr Twyford whether he knows who commissioned the royal commission report. It was the previous Labour Government. These conspiracy theories that somehow National had control of the previous Labour Cabinet and somehow National organised a royal commission to write a report to provide for the introduction of the super-city in Auckland expose the lightweight contributions that we have had from Labour members. They are hiding behind shadows and trying to find conspiracies.

The issue is very simple: we have a problem with water management in Canterbury. It is a longstanding problem. It has required addressing for years. I acknowledge Mr Brendon Burns for at least acknowledging that the previous Labour Government failed to address these issues. It is time for leadership on water management in Canterbury, and that is what is appropriately provided for in this bill.

I think that the speech that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, has just given confirms that this is not about caring for Canterbury’s water. It is not about caring for our natural resources, looking to the future, or having a democratic base for our decision making in respect of our environmental concerns. It is all about politics.

Mr Chair, does a Minister not have to be in the chair during the Committee stage?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am not going to be as difficult as that if the Minister wants to get a glass of water.

It is all right; the Minister is able to resume his seat. I think it is a great tragedy—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): After all, this is about water, is it not?

—and that is a tragedy too—when we have such an important issue as the future of Canterbury’s water management that the Minister has decided to play pure politics on the basis of this short period in his life—admittedly, not as short as the period of his life when he served as deputy leader of his party—when he has the responsibility of being the Minister for the Environment.

I was very interested in the contribution from the member of Parliament for Rangitata, Jo Goodhew. She was deeply offensive before she took a call when making comments about Jo Kane, an elected regional councillor. Frankly, I do not think it is appropriate to make derogatory comments about elected members when they are not able to have a right of reply in this House. She talked about how hard Alec Neill had worked. Alec Neill used to be a National member of Parliament, but he did not last very long in this House. He seemed to come and go as part of a revolving-door syndrome. He has just been elected as the chair of Environment Canterbury. I ask members what his own party has done to him. It has sacked him. He is a National Party member and a former member of this House, and National has just sacked him.

An article in today’s Timaru Herald states: “Chairman Alec Neill said he was hugely disappointed with the Government’s decision.” Those are pretty strong words from Alec Neill. The article went on to state: “ ‘A council is elected for three years,’ he said. ‘These changes will put through six or seven commissioners who are appointed by the Government and who have no democratic accountability.’ ”, and that is the point. This is about a democratic right that we as residents in Canterbury have to elect our regional councillors, who will manage the issues they are mandated to manage.

In his contribution, the Minister made a lot of play about how we are at last going to have the statutory ability to manage Canterbury’s water. In this very part we are debating, Part 1, which includes the purpose clause of the bill, the Minister makes a fantastic commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy by requiring in the law for commissioners to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is about as motherhood and apple pie as we can get. Where is the statutory base for the operationalising of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy? Where is it in the purpose clause of the bill? To have appointed commissioners who will have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will not progress that strategy forward one step, yet the Minister says that that is what it is all about. He said Labour had years and years in Government but was not able to enact provisions. Now his big chance has come, but he has stuffed it up big time.

There is not one word in this law about a statutory requirement for the committees. There is not one word in the purpose clause, clause 3, about there being a requirement to implement the strategy. Perhaps that is because the strategy is still out for public comment. If he chose to, the Minister could make a reasonable excuse like that for this inability to deliver on a statutory provision for the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That would be a good one, and I give the Minister the opportunity to use that as an excuse. He could say: “On completion of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, it will be implemented.”, and he could outline the provisions. Nowhere in this bill are the people of Canterbury given any more security about the future of their water than we had last week.

I want to systematically address at least two clauses in Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and offer some comments.

When I look at clause 3 of Part 1 of the bill, I see that the purpose of the bill is to: “provide for the replacement of the elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners who will act as the Council’s governing body until new elected members come into office following the next election;”. The Minister for the Environment could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions, powers, and duties of councillors in relation to water if that was the Government’s main concern. That would have allowed democratic governance to continue in relation to the council’s other statutory responsibilities, particularly public passenger transport and air quality, where it has led New Zealand, and also regional land transport coordination and planning, and pest control and biosecurity.

I mentioned yesterday in the second reading that the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils are far wider than the excessively narrow focus that was brought to bear in the Creech report upon the alleged imperfections of the Canterbury Regional Council. It could have been done another way. It could have been done in a way that met the stated concerns that are generally shared pertaining to water management. It is not perfect; it has not been perfect. But the overriding principle of local democracy in New Zealand could have been respected at the same time. The principle of democracy cannot be blithely calibrated according to other concerns, including economic growth, irrigation, and the expansion of dairy. Democracy is a principle that has its own intrinsic merit. It is not calibrated or qualified in any way by anything, but this Government has proceeded to do so.

I look at clause 3(b) and see that the second purpose of the bill is to “provide the Council with certain powers … relevant to the … management of fresh water”. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive, Dr Bryan Jenkins, confirmed on Morning Report today, Environment Canterbury first requested additional powers in relation to at-risk catchments and aquifers where the allocation is at or over sustainability limits. He did that 4 years ago, yet the Ministry for the Environment has been deaf to requests for improvement of the Resource Management Act, such as the provision for catchment-specific moratoria. The Government’s commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy as a way forward comes across as rather shallow and not substantive in this respect. Those provisions require the commissioner to have particular regard to “the vision and the principles” of the strategy; this is motherhood and apple pie. The substance of the strategy is in the targets. They have been revised with involvement from stakeholders since the strategy was released last November, and it is now out for public comment.

Simply having regard to the vision and principles is not what Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering committee have sought in terms of mandating legislation. They have sought that the Resource Management Act be amended so that decision makers give weight to the regional and zone implementation programmes to be developed by the stakeholder committees in each of the 10 water management zones across the region. These implementation programmes will put the strategy vision, principles, and targets into practice—it could have been done that way.

Finally, I look at clause 4, which is the interpretation. There is a so-called definition of “Environment Canterbury” in this clause.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill outlines the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of the bill is to empower the Government to rapidly address issues of the Canterbury Regional Council, and to provide the commissioners with the necessary powers. It talks about giving the power to this Government, and I have no doubt that what this Government is about to do is sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister, but there are two Ministers responsible for driving this particular issue, the Hon Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. The ordinary citizen would be thinking that this is illegal. The removal of 14 officials, who were elected by the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury—and these councillors are significant citizens of Canterbury—would be illegal, other than for this bill. Am I correct? This bill legalises the removal of 14 elected representatives of the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury, which under normal circumstances is an illegal act. But it has been made legal by the rushing through of this bill.

National’s decision to replace Environment Canterbury with Government-appointed commissioners for the next 3 ½ years is an outrageous affront to democracy. Any way you cut it, it is an affront to democracy. My colleagues are correct when they say that this is deliberate on the part of the Government. It is also a message that the Government does not care about democratic processes. I have to say that the people of Canterbury would be asking themselves what this says about their representatives. They are not insignificant individuals. They are significant members of their community. They are Alec Neill, the chairman of the council, who represents the Christchurch West constituency; Angus McKay, who represents the Rākaia constituency; Professor Bob Kirk, who represents the Christchurch South constituency; Bronwen Murray, who represents the Christchurch North constituency; David Sutherland, who represents the Christchurch East constituency; and Carole Evans, Eugenie Sage, Jo Kane, Jane Demeter, Mark Oldfield, Sir Kerry Burke, Pat Harrow, Rik Tindall, and Ross Little. My point is that they are not insignificant people. They represent the community, they were elected by Canterbury, and now they have been removed. Canterbury has been told it will not hold elections this year. It has to wait. That is all because the Government has seized the power in wanting to make its own decisions and has forced its decisions upon the people of Canterbury.

What do the local people think about it? I have heard councillor Chrissie Williams, who said that “Minister Nick Smith made a brief appearance at the Council meeting on 11 March at which Councillors were able to ask questions, but there was no report, discussion or decision by the council. He has not met with us at any other time. The Christchurch City Council does not have a view on whether intervention was required and has certainly not supported the intervention handed down by the Minister today.” To rush through a bill to take powers away from elected representatives and to give those powers, and more, to a group of appointed commissioners is a kick to the heart of democracy in this country. Is that not what they are doing? That is what this bill is about.

I will read something else from councillor Eugenie Sage: “Sacking councillors would deny 500,000 Canterbury citizens their elected voice in water management.”

💬 Paul Quinn: Another poodle.

That is what those members might think, but these people were elected. They were elected; they were not imposed upon the people. The people of Canterbury elected them through democratic process.

Mr Chair, I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The question is, That the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it. Clerk, would you please conduct a party vote.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: An hour and a half on a Part that has never been to a select committee and was introduced under urgency. An hour and a half—that’s ridiculous.

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair, I seek your guidance in reminding the member opposite that the vote is held in silence.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: In the spirit of collegiality, I give advice to the junior whip that when her member moves a closure motion, she should simply put those words. We can be petty and pedantic if she likes. I did not pull the member up on it, because she moved it and it was clear what her intention was, but it was not within the Standing Orders. If the junior whip wants to behave in that way, we can go toe for toe; otherwise, we can just have the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think that is a draw. I will ask the Clerk to continue the vote in silence—well, not the Clerk. Members will hear the call and so on in silence.

We now come to Part 2, but before we take any bidders on it I advise the Committee that we had 2 hours of debate on the previous part, and many of the speeches went well outside of what would normally be acceptable in a Committee stage speech. Many of them were second reading speeches. We have ranged far and wide. The Chair is prepared to be quite liberal about that, because the point has been made that the bill has not been to a select committee. But members should focus their attention on the fact that this is the Committee stage, we are dealing with the nuts and bolts, and the debate is on Part 2, not Part 3.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You anticipated part of my point of order, which was that we spent roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes on Part 1, 25 minutes of which were taken up by the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment—which is great because we want to be engaging with him on the issue. The point I make about that is that the Minister is intimately involved in this legislation. He wrote it, he has seen it, he has had a chance to take it through Cabinet processes, and he has had the benefit of his officials’ advice on it. The problem that the Opposition has is that we have not had that luxury of having seen the bill beforehand. The bill was introduced under urgency. Mr Chairperson, your reference to it not having gone to a select committee is true; there has been no chance for public submissions. But the fact that it was introduced under urgency means that we did not get a chance even to read it before we started to debate it. There are Speakers’ rulings that give members a little more leeway when they are debating a bill part by part under urgency in the Committee of the whole House and there has not been the chance for them to do research and prepare for the debate in the way that they might ordinarily have expected to do.

I guess my two points are that, one, the reason that we opposed closure was that we did not feel that there had been enough time for us to debate Part 1, and the Minister has been contributing a lot and that of course extended the time of the debate. By definition, if a debate goes for a length of time, the Minister’s contributing will reduce the amount of time available to the Opposition to speak on a bill that was sight unseen until the debate started. The second point is about members’ being given leeway for the fact that they have not been briefed on the legislation, and are not in a position to restrict every single comment they want to make to a particular clause in a part. Members are trying their best to do that, but I think that point has to be taken into account in the absence of a select committee process and in the absence of the bill being laid on the Table for 3 days beforehand. Mr Chairperson, had that happened, had that process been followed, you would be absolutely correct in asserting that members should follow to the letter the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in this respect, but that is not able to happen, because the bill was dropped on Opposition members. We are trying to construct our arguments as best we are able given the limited amount of time we have had.

I would like it to be understood that I for one had a few points left pertaining specifically to Part 1. I was going through it clause by clause, and I had a little bit left that I wanted to put into the debate. Mr Chairperson, I ask your indulgence that either we return to Part 1 or in the debate on Part 2 I am free to return to one or two clauses in Part 1 to register my points.

I respond to that member. I noted that in his presentation to the Committee he focused specifically on the bill clause by clause, and I was going to commend him for being one of the few speakers who did that and extrapolated wider points. I thought that was very good. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that, yes, he is correct; generally there is latitude and a wider brief is given when a bill has not been referred to a select committee. The point I would make to him, in rebuttal, is that we were debating Part 1, which is a very technical part.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: The purpose.

💬 Hon RICK BARKER: The purpose, yes. I have read the purpose clause, and a lot of it is very technical. Part 2 is quite substantial, and I expect the Chair to be more cognisant of the fact that there is a wider range of issues on that point. I also make the point that speakers referred to Part 3 very often; that was a substantial part of the debate. Had they done so in passing, there would have been no problem. I just make the point that we have had a little dispute about the hours, but we are going to continue the discussion and we will now focus on Part 2. No doubt there will be a focused and wide-ranging debate, as people want, within that context, with some generosity on the Chair’s part.

Part 2 Replacement of governing body of ECan