Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill provides for the appointment of commissioners for the important functions in Canterbury. I point out specifically such provisions as clause 21, which puts quite onerous consultation requirements on the commissioners.

The main reason I take a call is to engage with Kennedy Graham, who made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of the commissioners and their functions. He rightly pointed out that under the Resource Management Act I, as the Minister for the Environment, have the power, under section 25(1), to appoint commissioners to take over all or some of the resource management functions. I also endorse the remarks made by the member that the Government’s real concerns—and I think they are widely held—are around water management in Canterbury. We have a big challenge there.

He asked why the Government has chosen not to use those section 25(1) powers and appoint commissioners to get on top of those issues in the area of water, rather than use the provisions that are in Part 2, whereby the commissioners will take over all of the functions of Environment Canterbury. That is a good question, and I will respond to it. The great difficulty is that if I use those powers, effectively I will have a set of commissioners in charge of Environment Canterbury as well as the elected council. My advice, and the advice from Environment Canterbury itself, was that it would be very difficult to splice out of Environment Canterbury these all-important water functions. We could end up in the worst world, which is almost a two-headed monster. Nobody would be sure who was in charge.

If there is agreement on anything around the water issues in Canterbury, I think it is that clear and strategic leadership is required. I am not satisfied, nor were the key parties that I consulted, that using those section 25(1) powers—for which the threshold to use them has clearly been met—would get us on top of the issue. In fact, it would make it worse. But I equally challenge Kennedy Graham in this respect. He and his colleague Sue Kedgley have given an impassioned plea that it is an affront to democracy to have these commissioners. Yet in his speech he said it would be fine for me to use my powers to appoint commissioners to take over the water functions. There is a logical inconsistency there. He says that it is OK for the Minister to use powers provided for in law at the moment for those commissioners to take over the most contentious and difficult issues in Canterbury, which concern water. He would support that, and he would recognise that it was a good step forward. Yet he says that to do it this way is wrong. I think there is a serious logical inconsistency in the Greens’ position in that regard.

As Rodney Hide said yesterday, the Government has taken these provisions reluctantly. But this is the right way forward. I say to members—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s exactly what the Minister wanted.

Lianne Dalziel has interjected. It is always interesting that when one cannot play the ball, one plays the man. When Labour members cannot respond to the substantive issues, they choose to go into the area of personal denigration. Whether it be in terms of—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: About whom?

For instance, Wyatt Creech.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What did I say? I said he had a conflict of interest, that’s all.

The members went a lot further than that. I point out to the ranting members of the Labour Party that this report has been prepared by four people: Wyatt Creech, Doug Martin of MartinJenkins, Greg Hill, and Doug Low of Morrison Low.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Who was the leader of the group?

The chair was Wyatt Creech. Did members on our side of the Chamber choose to be heavily party political when Mike Moore was appointed to roles, when Helen Clark was appointed to roles, and when a whole number of former Labour MPs have been appointed to roles? I really think it says something about the quality of the roles from members on Labour’s benches that they want to play the personality game. They play the personality game because they are not prepared to confront the substantive issues. Those substantive issues are that we need clear direction from Government around water management. The provisions in this part show this Government providing something that has been required for many, many years: clear leadership around water management.

I am very pleased to speak to Part 2. Before I do so, I would like to note an issue that has come to my attention that relates to the bill in its entirety. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment, I will refer to the title. The title of the bill is the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The advice to me is that Environment Canterbury is in fact the regional council’s trading name; it is not its legal identity. The legal identity for this organisation is the Canterbury Regional Council. I put it to the Committee and the Minister that this bill is inappropriately named. At the very least, this is sloppy drafting, but I suspect—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2. There is a debate very specifically on the short title of the bill. The procedure is long established that we debate Parts 1, 2, and 3, and then the last debate is on the short title. I would welcome a debate around the points the member has raised, but they are outside the debate on Part 2 that the Committee is currently having.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: I understand the Minister’s point, but my concern in the earlier point of order was that I wished to address that point under Part 1, pertaining to clause 4, and was denied the chance to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not need any further assistance. I say to the Minister that I think he is unnecessarily finessing the point. As I understood it, Brendon Burns was referring to the title because it related to aspects of Part 2, which he is perfectly entitled to do. Yes, he can talk about the title and so on later, but he was addressing it in the context of Part 2. I invite Brendon Burns to continue.

I am of course talking about Part 2 of a bill entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We know from that title that there are questions around what the bill will do in terms of temporary commissioners, what the bill might or might not do to improve water management, and now we have serious questions about whether the bill is legally appropriate. I will move from that point, but we will come back to that issue in the debate on the short title a little later.

I note clause 12, and I say I have amendments in my name to the clauses within this part relating to the appointment of commissioners. The provisions in these clauses will give powers to the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment to amend the terms of reference for those commissioners “at any time”. That removes any scrutiny by Parliament or by any other body, and it removes any input from the people whose affairs are being managed by the commissioners. I put it to the Minister, who indicated there will be from five to seven commissioners, that if one or more of them starts to take a line that is deemed to be unacceptable to the Government, the Government will have the power to remove them, again without any reference. That reinforces the autocratic—the Fijian—style of decision making that this bill embodies. It gives absolute power to the Government to remove commissioners who do not toe the line. It gives back to the Government absolute power in respect of all of the decisions around Canterbury, not just in terms of its water but in terms of all of the functions that Environment Canterbury currently has and holds. Those are important functions, and they are not just limited to water.

We have, for instance, starting in 2 days’ time an absolute ban on open fires being put in place across Christchurch. That will now become the function of commissioners. I say that Environment Canterbury has broadly done a very good job of improving the air quality of Canterbury under the way that those councillors are elected, as opposed to commissioners, which Part 2 proposes to install. Will the commissioners continue to do the good job that Environment Canterbury has done in terms of improving the air quality of Christchurch from the point where it was the worst in New Zealand, and arguably in parts of the Western World, to being a city with a very good air quality?

There are real questions around the capacity of the commissioners to do the job envisaged for them, when the Ministers have an absolute right to remove them from office or to change the terms of reference, and there will not be any scrutiny of that power. Those amendments can happen at any time by executive fiat, by ministerial decree, without any reference or even notification to Parliament or to the people of Canterbury

💬 Paul Quinn: That’s better; very nice.

Part 2 absolutely enshrines the power being put in a very small set of hands. Mr Quinn might like to see that kind of thing happen, and maybe his area of the Hutt Valley will be next to have this kind of situation imposed upon it—on its voters and its people.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Auckland was first.

If Auckland was first and Canterbury is to be second, you can bet your life that Wellington will be next in line—

💬 Paul Quinn: Aw!

Wellington will be next in line, and if it happens in the same way that it has happened in Canterbury, Mr Quinn will not be pleased, although he might maintain a public face.

First off, in speaking to Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, I make one comment in response to the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, which he addressed to me. Then, I hope, I will have a chance later to make further comments on Part 2. I was just about to say how regrettable it was that the Minister had left the Chamber, so it is very good to have him back, because we can engage in a dialogue on this, I think. In response to the Minister, who believed that he had detected an illogicality in what I had been saying, I reassure him that—

💬 David Garrett: Surely not!

No, I think not. I thank the member for that. As far as I can determine, the Green Party does not have an illogical position. Our position is this, as I was saying at the time that I spoke to Part 1. Responding to the bill as it is drafted, and understanding the intention of the Government—and particularly the Minister—to clear up water management as it sees best, there could have been another way. There could have been a way that a particular commission could have handled water, and the councillors could have continued. That was one of the recommendations, was it not? I understand, from the Minister’s intervention, the reasons why he did not proceed down that route. I do not necessarily agree, but I understand why he did not do it. It is not an illogicality on our part to seek to offer the possibility of another way to go.

It is not the Green Party’s preferred way, but it is not the case that there would necessarily be confusion between a commission and the councillors. Dear Lord, we have a New Zealand Cabinet with 20 or 22 portfolios! They are delineated; to some extent they overlap. We understand there has to be give and take between Cabinet Ministers in Cabinet. It does not follow that there is chaos and confusion reigning supreme. It would not necessarily follow with Environment Canterbury, either.

But the main point is that if we are looking at the logicality of the Green Party’s position, it is this: the Government should never have gone down the route of disbanding an elected regional council, because that strikes at the heart of local democracy. If a Government does that, it unleashes a tiger, especially in a country, as I said in the second reading debate, where our constitution is more fragile than we like to acknowledge. The Green Party would have preferred the council to have continued as the elected body, with its proper mandate, for the proper term.

How might we have cleared up the imperfections of water management? We would have given the council the extra powers that the Government is now giving to an non-appointed body that at least the chief executive, and the council, I believe, had requested 4 years ago. [Interruption] It is the height of illogicality, if we are addressing the point of illogicality, I say to Mr Garrett, that the Government should proceed to disband a council, then set up an unelected body and give it the powers that the council should have had in the first place. So our point is that the Government should never have gone down this route in the first place. If there were major problems of water management, it could have appointed advisers—Dame Bazley or others—to assist, and it could have given the council the powers to do the job.

I rise to speak to Part 2, “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. I am rather concerned about the way the Government has referred to some of its own actions in the past—or some of our actions in the past—without mentioning the most obvious one.

Part 2 goes through the technical details of the replacement of Environment Canterbury. I will talk about the amount of notice, essentially, that people are being given in respect of what is happening with their roles. We got about a month’s notice to the elected members of Environment Canterbury, which reminds me of the approach that an earlier National Government took when it sacked overnight every member of every area health board during the urgency that followed the Budget that even the then Minister of Finance described as the “mother of all Budgets”. I was in Parliament at that time and I recall the debate incredibly clearly, because I knew people who were on area health boards across the political spectrum from a range of different political backgrounds. Many of them had budgeted for the fact that they were undertaking that work as elected members of the area health board. They had no idea that this was going to happen, and, as a result, a number of people had resigned permanent positions and full-time jobs in order to devote their energy and attention to their work on the area health board. Then completely out of the blue they were all sacked.

There was the rather strange situation where the Government of the day and the Hon Simon Upton—I remember this as if it were yesterday, because I feel a sense of déjà vu with what is happening here—at the same time as the 1991 Budget released a green and white paper on health that signalled the most radical reform in health this country had ever seen. Before the consultation had even begun, National had decided that elected members would have no part in the future of New Zealand’s health system.

It is a bit ironic, really—we are not allowed to use other words in this Chamber—that we heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, ask the Hon Ruth Dyson and myself where we were when Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board. We said that we were not in Parliament. He said that it was not relevant, because anything that happened before one arrived in this Parliament did not count. He asked us where we were. Well, we were not here, so I do not know what sort of answer he expected to elicit from that response. He was not in Parliament either, because he was elected the same year I was, and probably recalls these debates very, very clearly as well. That was the longest period of time that Parliament had been in urgency. In fact, we were called back the following Monday, and it was the first time since the Second World War that Parliament had sat on a Monday. So we have had this situation before.

How is this relevant to Part 2? I refer members to clause 9, “Elected members cease to hold office on close of day before replacement day”. It states that “(1) On the close of the day before the replacement day, the elected members of ECan then holding office (the ‘elected members’) cease to hold office. (2) This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say. (3) An elected member is not entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office.” That is pretty much exactly the clause that went into the health amendments that came around during the course of the urgency debate after the 1991 Budget was presented to Parliament. An elected member’s not being entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office caused problems from one end of the country to the other. People had relied on having an income from the role they had been playing on their district health board. I am not sure of the circumstances of the individual members of Environment Canterbury, but to get 1 month’s notice that the position they have been democratically elected to hold is being cancelled cannot be anything other than a breach of natural justice. It is important that we debate these issues, because people’s interests are being affected by the way this legislation is being worked through.

We come to the question of timing. What timing does this bill sets out? It states: “The responsible Ministers”—well, “The irresponsible Ministers” might have been a good amendment for that clause—“must determine the replacement day and give notice of it—(a) in the Gazette; and (b) to the elected members of ECan.” We heard from the Minister yesterday that we are looking at 1 May for the replacement day. That is kind of an ironic day because, of course, it is International Workers’ Day. Although these people are not employees of Environment Canterbury in any way, shape, or form, they might have made commitments based on the income they have been receiving. That does not seem to faze the Minister whatsoever. In fact, as I understand it, the Government will pay the commissioners significantly more than Environment Canterbury councillors are being paid, because they will be employed on a commission, as opposed to being elected to represent the democratic interests of the Canterbury region.

I will also talk about the timing in terms of how long this measure lasts for. The 2010 election for members of Environment Canterbury is deferred by clause 22, and members of Environment Canterbury elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day. The resumption day—that was the word I was looking for—relates to the period at which this measure is overturned, or the 2013 election of local bodies, whichever comes first. The problem is that I suspect the reason for this time frame is that the Government has decided to defer the decision it has already made to cancel regional government in Canterbury, and, I personally believe, to cancel regional Government across New Zealand, as we saw with the super-city in Auckland. This is really a forerunner to what is about to happen right across the country.

The Government does not want that to be an election issue next year for the general election, and I believe that is why this particular process has been chosen. If we honestly took this bill out to a broad, consultative process that included this bill’s going to a select committee, those councillors who put themselves up for election could have their say. Whether I agree with their politics or not, I admire people who are prepared to put themselves forward for some of these roles. Sometimes performing a role for Environment Canterbury can be a bit of a thankless task. It has a reputation—a lot of anecdote has driven the report, as I have already referred to once in this Chamber—and that makes it hard for people to take on these particular roles. In this particular case, the Government has not allowed those people to have a public say. They should be able to be held to account within their own constituencies. A select committee should be meeting down in Canterbury now and travelling throughout the region, letting those who stood for election and who were successful in that regard have their say about what has really gone on in this particular case. Maybe the individual councils could be asked to debate the issues as councils, rather than the mayors and chief executives being the only ones who are entitled to express an opinion in respect of what is appropriate in terms of our regional democracy.

That is what I keep coming back to. I honestly believe that the Government has deliberately made this decision at this time. It has used the urgency motion, cloaked the bill in secrecy up until this point, and simply allowed for a ramming through of a process that destroys regional democracy in the Canterbury region. I believe that this is a promise of things to come, and that this Government has made a decision. Unfortunately the Minister of Local Government has not yet taken a call on this bill today. I am hoping that he will get up and take a call on it, because it is vitally important to democracy in New Zealand.

The previous Chairperson, the Hon Rick Barker, asked us to be very focused in our comments on this part, and it is extremely easy to be focused on Part 2, because it is the heart of the bill. This is where the coup d’état takes place. Part 2 is called “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. This is where we strip the 14 democratically elected councillors of their powers. As a previous speaker has pointed out, it would be an illegal act to do so, because there is no statutory basis for doing so. This bill is making legal what would be an illegal act: namely, replacing the 14 democratically elected councillors of Canterbury.

💬 Hon Member: Rubbish.

Some of my National colleagues are saying “Rubbish”, but that is the truth. The Minister acknowledged yesterday in a briefing to Opposition members that there was no statutory basis to get rid of these 14 democratically elected councillors, so he had to use this bill to do it.

The other extraordinary thing about this part is that it gives the politically appointed commissioners, who will be there to implement the will of the Minister, the powers that the democratically elected councillors have been begging for for years. What is also extremely interesting in this part is that the terms of reference for the commissioners are not in this bill. This is the critical thing: what will their terms of reference be? What will they be up to? It is not spelt out. It is just left to the Minister, after the bill has been rammed through Parliament, to decide on the terms of reference. The reason is that he does not want us or the people of Canterbury to know ahead of time what the terms of reference will be.

As the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has said, this is a bill to fast track the building of dams in Canterbury. That is what it is all about. I predict that one of the terms of reference will be to facilitate the building of dams in Canterbury. By giving terms of reference such as these, the two Ministers will basically be able to implement their agenda. I make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this bill and the replacement of the democratically elected councillors with commissioners is to ram through the building of dams. The councillors were sacked basically because they were getting in the way of agribusiness and irrigation companies. They were annoyed because Environment Canterbury was getting in the way. It was stopping some of their big water projects. Just as Bainimarama found that democracy was an obstacle to the implementation of his plans in Fiji, this Government has also found that the democratically elected councillors were an obstacle in the way of implementing their irrigation plans, so it has abolished democracy in Canterbury.

The other thing, of course, is that at any time the Minister for the Environment may amend the terms of reference for the commissioners. At any time, with no reference to democracy or to this Parliament, the Minister can change the terms of reference for the commissioners. If the commissioners do not do exactly the Minister’s bidding, then they can be got rid of under the provisions in this part of the bill. They can be dispensed with if, for any reason, they do not completely implement the Minister’s agenda.

The Minister accused us all of being hysterical, in his earlier intervention. That is the Government’s favourite word. It said that Opposition members are hysterical over mining, they are hysterical over this bill, and they are hysterical in everything that they do. The Government must think that everyone in New Zealand is hysterical. But we are not hysterical—we are simply angry. Did the Minister really expect us to sit politely by, to yawn, and to say: “Oh well, never mind. We are just getting rid of another layer of democracy in New Zealand.”?

I wish to make only a very brief contribution on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, but I was very taken aback by the words of wisdom from Sue Kedgley, who has just resumed her seat. She said that this bill is so outrageous that it makes legal what would otherwise be illegal. Well, I have to advise the member that actually every single bill this Parliament passes is intended to make legal what would otherwise be illegal. I advise the member that that is the very business of this Parliament. Her words of outrage, saying that things would be illegal if we did not pass this bill, were quite an extraordinary contribution.

The second point I challenge the member on is her comment that the whole of the Government’s agenda is about Environment Canterbury’s stopping big projects in Canterbury from happening. Well, I ask the member which big projects she is talking about and what is stopping them. The truth is that Environment Canterbury has no plans for water. Eighteen years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we still do not have a resource management plan for water in Canterbury. I ask members on both sides of the Chamber, regardless of whether they come from a development perspective or an environmental perspective, how the interests of New Zealand are served by not having a plan. I ask whether it is really the position of the Green Party and members opposite that we do not need a plan for water in Canterbury.

I make absolutely no apologies, nor do my Government colleagues and the parties that support us, for saying that the issue of water in Canterbury is critical. We need to put a plan in place. The regional council has had 18 years, and it has not done it. It is time for the Government to take a lead, and that is why we have this bill.

I will take a different angle in Part 2 of this “Democratic Outrage Bill”. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, knows this story very well. I will relate it to clause 13 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, “Amendment of terms of reference for commissioners”, which states that the power to amend the terms of reference at any time is a ministerial power.

I refer the Minister and others in the Chamber to a different approach that was taken by Labour in 2002 with regard to the quality of water in Rotorua’s lakes. At that time the then Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, could have done the same thing. She could have brought in the “Rotorua (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill”, but she did not. We had dysfunction between the regional council, which was the equivalent of Environment Canterbury—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the Minister for the Environment who crunched the money?

—well, the member must hang on a minute, as I am getting to that—and the local body. All the non-governmental organisations were concerned that the water of Lake Rotorua and our other 14 lakes in the Rotorua area was being degraded. A delegation made up of the chair of the regional council, the then Mayor of Rotorua, Grahame Hall, and a representative of the local iwi, Ānaru Rangiheuea, came to see Minister Marian Hobbs, and the Minister told those people to get their act together. She told them to get a water plan and come back to central government, and if she did not see improvements, then she would act.

I agree with this Minister for the Environment that the Minister has the power at any time in Government to bring in legislation, but this legislation is a democratic outrage. Thank goodness Labour did not go that way. What did we do? Minister Marian Hobbs set up terms of reference on how a steering group would proceed to clean up Rotorua’s lakes, and we knew then that it was a 20-year journey. It is not a quick fix. This commission will not be able to fix up Canterbury’s water overnight. I think it is appalling that councillors will not be democratically elected at the local elections this year; Canterbury will have to wait until 2013. It is an insult to democratically elected councillors.

In 2002 we set up a water quality group for Rotorua’s lakes. It was chaired by the mayor. It was not easy, but he took leadership at that time. He worked as one of the three legs of the stool, with the regional council and with iwi, as the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. They all sat at the table, and at that time we fixed up the ownership of Rotorua’s lakes. Issues keep on cropping up that give us concern about our lakes’ water quality, and I have suggested to the mayor that he should bring in Nick Smith to fix it. But now I would tell him not to do that, as Nick Smith might say that it is not being fixed up fast enough and that the Government will appoint commissioners. The Government might go trigger-happy over democracy. Instead of working through the issue in a long-term, sustainable water quality improvement plan, it might change all those democratically elected representatives, put in commissioners, and think that that will fix it.

With regard to clause 13, the terms of reference are not even public knowledge. I think that the provision in clause 13 is an absolute outrage. The clause states that the terms of reference will be published. They should be worked out by all those who are contributing and who will fix the problem over time. We have our water quality group in Rotorua. It represents the elected representatives, who have the expertise in certain matters, as is stipulated in clause 14. They understand organisational change. I have heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, state that Labour did zip about water quality improvement in this country. I do not accept that. We worked for 7 years to bring in $70 million to fix up our lakes. The Minister can say at any time that that money from the Crown will stop if the water quality group does not achieve an outcome of improved water quality, and I think that is a very powerful tool.

I say to members of the Rotorua group to bring in the Minister if they are arguing about the lake levels or resource consent processes. I tell them to bring in the Minister, as he has the power to do something about the allocation of funding, and he will do something. However, this bill is an outrage.

Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I will make a small contribution following on a little from the Hon Steve Chadwick, the previous speaker, in respect of, firstly, the issue of water, and, secondly, the issue of Māori representation in decision making. There is no doubt that water is a major issue for Māori. It has been discussed at the Iwi Leadership Group and in our own forums. We have said to the Minister for the Environment that any discussions about this bill that would possibly jeopardise the bigger discussion with regard to water need to be taken off the table, because the substantive issue about the ownership of water will need some time to be considered seriously, and although this issue is solely about Canterbury, issues about the governance and management of water are something that we definitely want to be involved with.

Clearly, Māori have a position on water issues, and although we might operate at different levels at this point in time—for example, the bill that will be coming to the House in a couple of weeks’ time in respect of Waikato-Tainui about co-management and other issues is one line—in my own case, and in my own iwi, I tell members that we take a straight-up-and-down line that we own the water that comes out of our land. These are the sorts of things that probably need to have some greater debate, down the line.

We know that it is a serious issue, because the previous Labour Government ended up giving back the lake beds to Rotorua, as the Hon Steve Chadwick said, but without any water in them. But that is an issue that Te Arawa will indeed follow up at a point in time—possibly, even by asking the Crown to pay out for the storage of the water in our lake for the time since the settlement went through. But I will cross that bridge down the line, when our trust board possibly puts that to the Government at some point.

It is clear that Māori want to have a say about water, but at this point in time, unfortunately, systems like local bodies, and sometimes even Parliament, do not necessarily allow for that input to come through. The system does not necessarily allow that to come through, but the Māori Party takes a view that relationships to local bodies are about a Treaty relationship that we take seriously. We suggest that in that Treaty relationship, any decisions are all about both parties coming to agreement through discussion, and obviously the right of veto of one party over the other is an important issue. It is about the views we present as a Māori Party, and we would hope that Māori partners, through sitting next to the Treaty partner on local bodies, or as commissioners or otherwise, have an important statement to make. We have asked the Minister, in respect of that, about a Treaty relationship in the bigger picture down the line, and specifically we have placed that issue with him about this and water. We hope that he has taken that on board.

We look towards Treaty relationships as being a way that might advance Māori aspirations and understanding about the importance of water. With regard to our feedback from Ngāi Tahu, we understand that up until this point they have not necessarily had the ability to make real inroads in the decision making around water. As the Minister has already said, Ngāi Tahu are reluctantly moving to support the passage of this bill. But there is the issue in respect of representation, and Ngāi Tahu have expressed frustration at their lack of involvement.

We have been given assurances from the Minister that Ngāi Tahu will have a position in and around the commission, and at the table, and although having possibly just one position is not the beginning and ending of everything, two points are to be made: firstly, we have a position that is important; and, secondly, we should not believe that just having a position by itself represents the sole Māori view. In fact, we have expertise throughout Māoridom that could come into that commission, to provide valuable input. So just one person should not be relied on to give the Māori input. But the good thing, as I say, is that the Minister is recognising the importance of having tangata whenua involvement in water. It would have been really good for the Hon Rodney Hide if he had seen this issue in terms of the Auckland super-city proposal, but obviously he did not.

I will close by saying that the discussion at our caucus was about what happens after the commission has completed its term in 3 or 4 years’ time, having given its position and worked through all of the issues in respect of water that have been debated throughout the last day and a little bit. What will happen afterwards? Does it mean that, OK, we will go back to democratically elected positions? Well, maybe we will, and that has been the subject of debate throughout the last day or so. But my point to the Minister, and certainly from our caucus, is that having set the precedent for allowing Ngāi Tahu, as an example, to have input into the decision-making process at least through the commission, that line should be maintained after the end of the commission’s time by allowing it a position in the decision-making process, as of right, and outlined against the Treaty responsibilities and the Treaty perspective.

We hope that as we move through—let us complete the time, yes, but after that, we want to see Māori participation. Because basically, it ain’t going to happen by simply believing that the democratic process will deliver a Māori input, just as it has not happened in the past in Canterbury. That ain’t gonna happen—not in Canterbury. So we are looking at having set positions in those councils, to ensure that the Māori input, which is important in terms of a perspective about water, and other things, is heard and given, and is allowed to contribute in the best interests of the community.

I will speak to clauses 12, 13, and 14 in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. They show some very disturbing tendencies in this Government’s approach to local government, and they reflect many of the elements that we have debated and identified in Auckland over recent months—in fact, over the last year or so.

Clause 12, on the appointment of commissioners, shows there is a distinct lack of transparency in the legislation, with the terms of reference for the commissioners to be determined by the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment, with no scrutiny by Parliament. Under clause 13 the terms of reference are able to be amended “at any time” by the Ministers. So the provisions give the Ministers, who were referred to by councillor Jo Kane as “Jekyll and Hide” in the now-famous Timaru Herald story, complete carte blanche to determine the terms of reference for the commissioners. That is very, very reminiscent of the kind of approach that Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are taking in Auckland. They are appointing all of the first round of directors to all the council-controlled organisations, so they will be controlling 75 percent of the assets of the new Auckland Council. It is a heavy-handed approach, which has no regard whatsoever for democratic accountability or for the important role that Parliament plays in scrutinising these sorts of appointments.

Clause 13 gives the Ministers the ability to amend the terms of reference “at any time”, and the unrestricted power in clause 17(3), allows that “The responsible Ministers may in their complete discretion remove a commissioner by written notice at any time.” Well, this is Government by fiat; this is where our democracy has got to. Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will basically run a puppet show in Canterbury, to make damn sure that they get what they want and run their agenda through. The commissioners will be on a very short leash, and the Ministers will be pulling the strings to make sure that they get the kinds of outcomes that they are looking for in water management in Canterbury.

Clause 14 states that the commissioners must have collective knowledge and expertise, and requires them to have knowledge and expertise in “organisational change”. There are no requirements for them to have any knowledge of science, because as we know the regional council has been science-led rather than science-informed, and it would be a very dangerous thing if the commissioners were led by science! I find that remarkable, given this Minister’s many, many statements in this House about the importance of good science. I have heard him say that on a number of issues in my short time in this Chamber. It is clear that the Ministers think that the council has not given sufficient weight to economic matters, and when we read this bill we find that the kind of direction in which this Government, under its hand-picked commissioners, will push Environment Canterbury is also pretty clear.

The other disturbing element is clause 14(1)(b), which requires the commissioners to have knowledge and expertise not in science but in “fresh water management”. I ask who will be dealing with the other very important responsibilities of the district council over the next 3½ years. As members will know, public transport and regional transport planning are key responsibilities of the Canterbury Regional Council, so who will be responsible for ensuring good governance of the regional transport strategy? Environment Canterbury has led some very impressive gains, actually, in public transport. Under Environment Canterbury’s management of public passenger transport, there has been a steady growth in patronage, a coordination of services, the tendering of contracts, and a record 17.5 million public passenger trips made across the region in the year to June 2009. That is impressive by anyone’s standards, and under Environment Canterbury’s management Christchurch was the first city in Australasia to achieve integrated planning.

Firstly, I will continue to respond to the Minister for the Environment from where I was when I was interrupted last time. The Minister knows full well that there is a process under the Local Government Act by which a democratically elected council can be replaced, but a number of steps have to be gone through. It has to be proved that the democratically elected council is dysfunctional, etc. The Minister brought in his mate Wyatt Creech and gave him the instruction to try to denigrate the council and a clear mandate to try to undermine Environment Canterbury, but unfortunately Mr Creech was not able to deliver, which must have been very disappointing for the Minister. He did not enable the Minister to say that the council was dysfunctional, so he did not enable him to take the steps under the Local Government Act to get rid of the councillors. Whacking this bill through circumvents what should be due process under the Local Government Act.

It was also interesting, when the Minister was rebutting various comments, that one of the comments he did not seek to rebut was my prediction that the regional council in Canterbury would never be reinstated. It will never be reinstated, because the Government has an agenda to get rid of all of the regional councils around New Zealand. The bill states in clause 23(1): “The members of ECan elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day.”, but that clause will never be activated, because those members will never come into being. It is interesting, as the co-leader of the Greens Russel Norman said last night, that this is so similar to what is happening in Fiji, which we all thump the table about in this Chamber. Bainimarama said he was just going to abolish democracy for a little wee while, but he would bring it back later. This is what this bill is saying. It is going to get rid of 14 democratically elected councillors and replace them with unelected and unaccountable commissioners—just for a wee while. Actually, folks, it will be for ever, because the Government is not about to bring them back.

The other point I was making is that the terms of reference here are completely unknown. I guarantee that these terms of reference will be written up. As official information papers will reveal, they will be already written up; it is just that the Minister does not want us or Canterbury people to know. The terms of reference could be anything. They could say “We will build roads only in Canterbury. We will get rid of public transport. We want you to facilitate the building of dams.” They could say anything; we do not know.

The other point is that this is another example of how central government—and this is a very sinister development—is dictating what happens at the local government level. The cornerstone of local government is that locally elected representatives decide on what happens at the local level. Under this bill, not only does the Minister get to appoint his political buddies as the commissioners but also he gives them very explicit instructions. So we now have a second example of central government dictating to local government and undermining the whole principle of local government. We have this in Auckland, and now we have it in Canterbury. In Auckland, for the first time ever, central government is dictating how many council-controlled organisations will be established in Auckland, and who will be on them. In every single other council in New Zealand it is up to the local council to decide whether it wants to have council-controlled organisations and, if so, who will be on them. But this Government is directly intervening and dictating to local government. That is what is happening here: it is dictating to the commissioners what they will do, what their agenda will be, and how they will meet the Minister’s wishes. This is very sinister. This is a coup d’état.

The Minister for the Environment, in introducing Part 2, “Replacement of governing body of ECan”, said he had made the decision to appoint commissioners very reluctantly. That sort of suggests that there were some viable options for him to consider, and I would like to know what those options were.

Part 2 of the bill really goes to the crux of what we are debating and what this measure is all about. It is about replacing legally elected political representatives with people who will be appointed by the responsible Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. Clause 7 sets out the technicalities of appointing commissioners. The commissioners will be political appointments. They will be accountable to the Ministers only; they will not be accountable to the public of the Canterbury region. The public will not have a say, or be able to have a say, in the decisions that that political body will be making. In many ways, it will be very similar to what we have with regard to the Auckland Transition Agency in the Auckland region. Aucklanders are now up in arms that we have political appointees working behind the scenes and responding to the Minister’s wishes and will, and that the public is left out of those decisions.

I would say that every citizen of Canterbury ought to be angry because of the significant change that will come about as a result of this Government imposing its will on the people of the Canterbury region. This is the kind of action that just turns people off politicians. It gives politicians a bad name, because often what the public will see is that when politicians get a little bit of power, it goes to their heads. And then what do they do? They impose their will on the people who elected them there.

But, more important, the responsible Ministers are taking away local council representation that was elected in 2007. Furthermore, this Government will not even allow the people of Canterbury to elect their representatives this year. So for the next while the Government will dictate to the people of Canterbury its will, and it will dictate to the people of Canterbury what it wants to do with regard to the environment of Canterbury.

Clause 8 provides for the replacement day, so the Government is to determine when the elected members will be replaced. Clause 9 is the significant clause, in my view. It removes the elected members of Environment Canterbury who are holding office. This is the significant change, and I ask the Minister whether he consulted with the people of Canterbury about doing that. Was any widespread consultation undertaken similar to what was undertaken in Auckland, where the royal commission took 18 months and consulted with people throughout that region? I would say there was not, but I would like to hear whether that was an option for the Minister and what his reason was for not undertaking it. I have a letter here from councillor Eugenie Sage, who writes: “The Creech report is based on a 3-week review in November 2009—interviews with less than 20 stakeholders.” There were interviews with fewer than 20 stakeholders out of a population of 500,000-plus.

We have to ask ourselves what the reason was for not undertaking broad-based consultation. It sends some really strong messages: firstly, that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, thinks he knows better than to do that; secondly, that he thinks the officials elected by the people of Canterbury have no brains of their own with which to make political decisions; and, thirdly, that he thinks the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury, many of whom would have voted for National, are people of no significance whatsoever and should not have a say. The Minister Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government think they know better than those people, and that is what they are saying.

I will make a few comments about clause 14 to start with, and then I will move away from there. Yesterday, when the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, had us up in the fifth floor meeting room to tell us about the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, he said that if we knew of anyone who would be useful, we could put a name forward. That did not sound like Dr Smith’s usually very honourable pattern, but some people come to mind.

If we look at it, we see that those people have to have organisational change. In respect of water management and local authority governance and management, two names spring to mind straight away. First of all there is Bob Harvey, who will not be Mayor of Waitakere City any more. He has more experience as mayor than anyone. The Minister should have a really good, close look at Bob Harvey, because he has wide knowledge and would probably most generously help the people of Canterbury. The second person is also a mayor in the Auckland region, with vast experience in water matters: Andrew Williams. Only this week we heard about his expertise in water matters—irrigation of just a single tree, but it is a start! I think he should be considered.

The problem is that the Minister of Local Government must support him as well. That would show us who the real boss is, whether it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith or the Hon Rodney Hide. You see, the people in Auckland who will have their jobs taken from them without any say will have a certain amount of feeling for the people of Canterbury. They will understand what it is like when all of a sudden they are ridden roughshod over.

It is interesting to look at the sort of people who will put their names forward. I now nominate a National member. My friends who sit around me think I am too close to National at times, but I put forward the name of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He would be ideal. He was too busy before.

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although entertaining, this speech is straying somewhat. But I am happy if this is an indication that the debate is drawing to a close.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for her comments. Mr Hawkins is specifically referring to clause 14; he said that at the beginning [Interruption]. I am on my feet. Although there was a little bit of light banter and light humour—I have no difficulty with that—the member knows that it is a very limited debate and I am sure he will talk about Environment Canterbury and clause 14, which he has mentioned.

That point of order shows that National members have not read the bill; otherwise they would know what is in clause 14. That clause is very, very important.

As I was saying, I think Jim Bolger—he has the time now, because he will not be running KiwiRail—could be running the water management in Canterbury. It may flow even better than his friends seem to.

I also say that it is very important how much the commissioners will be paid. The ratepayers of Canterbury will be footing the bill, but they will have no say. They will be putting up the money so that the commissioners can be paid, but there will be no representation from where the money is coming from. I think most people in New Zealand think it is fair that if they pay, they have a say. That is fundamental. It is what happens in New Zealand. If we look at clause 18, we see that Joe Bloggs and other people from Canterbury will not have a say over how much the commissioners get paid and who will pay them. People in Canterbury will open their wallets and see that money is being plucked out by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide without their having a say.

I am happy to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I intend to speak on clauses 9 to 22, starting with clause 9, and in particular the reference made to the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. Clause 9(2) states: “This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It was not so long ago that we had National members railing in this Chamber against any change to electoral laws without bipartisan support. But it appears that that applies only at the national level, and at the local government level the Government can do whatever it likes. If it does not like the decisions being made by local authorities, then it will just ride roughshod over the electoral laws that govern those local authorities, and do whatever it likes.

Clause 9(2) overrides the Local Electoral Act and it does not have bipartisan support. At least two parties in this Parliament have spoken very strongly against it, yet nobody from National is willing to stand up and say why he or she thinks the democratic rights of people with regard to their local authorities should receive a lesser amount of importance and attention than their democratic rights to elect their nationwide Government. It creates two tiers of government in New Zealand, one tier being clearly subordinate to the other. It says that once a nationwide Government is elected, the nationwide Government can completely override the democratically elected local authorities.

We have seen this twice in this House under this National Government already. We saw it with the Auckland super-city where under urgency the Government effectively sacked all of the Auckland local authorities and replaced them with the Auckland Transition Agency. All stages of the legislation were passed straight through under urgency, with no chance for the public to have a say, and no chance for the people whose roles were affected by that decision to have a say, and that is exactly what we are seeing here. Through clause 9(2) in particular, the Government is completely overriding local electoral law and installing a new regime that it will totally and utterly control. Democracy at a local government level in Canterbury, with regard to what was previously Environment Canterbury, is now dead. There is no democracy there. It will be ultimately controlled by the Ministers.

Clause 13 states: “The responsible Ministers may at any time amend the terms of reference for the commissioners …”. At any time the Ministers decide that they want to do something a bit differently, because they are not happy—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Gone by lunchtime.

The terms of reference could be gone by lunchtime. The Ministers could decide that they are not happy with what the commissioners are doing and completely change their terms of reference. Of course, if the Ministers are not happy with what the commissioners do with their changed terms of reference, under clause 17(3) they are entitled to simply remove them. The Ministers can simply sack the commissioners, and that is no problem whatsoever. If the Ministers are dissatisfied with what the commissioners are doing, they have ultimate control over what goes on with what was formerly Environment Canterbury. This measure gives the Government ultimate control. There will be no consultation. Ministers can do whatever they like without any reference to the local authorities. The local people will have no say. They had an opportunity to elect a council and it is being removed by this Government, with the local people having no chance to have a say.

In fact, if the local people were dissatisfied with what it has been doing, there is a local election coming up this year and they could have replaced that council—that is the nature of democracy. But that democratic opportunity is being removed by this bill; local people will not get to have a chance to say whether they think Environment Canterbury is effective. They will not get any opportunity to vote members of the council in or out; that right is being removed for at least 3½ years. It will be at least 3½ years before people get a chance to pass judgment on what this Government is doing by removing their democratically elected local authority members.

The other thing that this bill does, in clause 18, is to give Ministers the ultimate responsibility for establishing what these commissioners will be paid. The Remuneration Authority, which sets MPs’ salaries and the salaries of the local authorities, will have no role in that. It will ultimately be up to the Ministers. So the Ministers appoint the commissioners, they determine their terms of reference, and they determine what they are to be paid. Ministers will have ultimate control over everything that the commissioners do in Environment Canterbury. Democracy is dead.

Part 2 is the guts of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which abolishes democracy in Canterbury. Later on this year people all around New Zealand will, as part of the celebration of democracy, be involved in local government elections. As someone who lives in Wellington, I will vote for my mayor and my council. However, were I to move to Canterbury or Christchurch, I would find that I was not allowed to vote for my regional council. In fact, my right to vote for the regional council would be taken away by this bill, which National and ACT are pushing through today. It is quite extraordinary that Part 2 takes away the idea of one person, one vote. We have heard a lot lately about one person, one vote from National and ACT. Part 2 states that we will start with one person, one vote, and then we will go to one person, no vote. One person, no vote is National’s preferred option for how people in Canterbury decide what happens to them.

What will be the outcome of this? In the rush to get the bill through the House, the regulatory impact statement has not had a lot of attention. It is a rushed regulatory impact statement that the Ministry for the Environment cobbled together in between generating all those national policy statements and national environmental standards—oh, that is right, we do not have any—that we have tried to get over the years. The regulatory impact statement states: “the Ministry has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” So this rushed bill is being pushed through the House without any public input or any select committee process, Part 2 abolishes the right of the people of Canterbury to elect their regional council, and we find that the Ministry for the Environment says in its regulatory impact statement that it has not had the time to fully quantify the risks and costs of the proposal. There is a very close connection between the lack of democracy in terms of the process of this bill in the House, with no select committee process, and the fact that Part 2 abolishes democracy for the people of Canterbury for the next 3 years. Part 2 is about getting rid of democracy for the people of Canterbury.

It is interesting that in order to be appointed a commissioner one needs expertise in freshwater management. Wyatt Creech actually has some expertise in freshwater management, as it turns out. He knows how to pollute fresh water, which is, of course, why he did the review of Environment Canterbury in the first place. A company he is director of has numerous convictions for polluting water, so, obviously, he has some expertise in freshwater management. Maybe he will be one of the people the Minister appoints to be a commissioner to oversee what happens in Canterbury after the abolition of elected democracy in Canterbury. He could also ask the Crafars. They have a lot of expertise in freshwater management. They were very, very effective at polluting fresh water. They did an excellent job of polluting fresh water across the central North Island, so I think it is time they spread to the South Island. It seems to me that the Minister could consider them under Part 2, which provides the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government with the power to appoint commissioners to oversee the management of water in Canterbury. Over the next period they are obviously going to need someone with expertise, and the Crafars have shown tremendous expertise in polluting fresh water in New Zealand.

It is also extraordinary that we do not even know what the terms of reference are, and that they could be changed at any time. We are voting to put this bill through the House, yet one of the key aspects of the bill, the terms of reference, is not even being made public. Not only do we not have any public process through a select committee so that the public can look at Part 2, and not only does Part 2 abolish public oversight of the regional council—because Part 2 gets rid of democratic oversight—but there is no public oversight of the terms of reference under which the commissioners will operate, because the terms of reference are still secret. Here we have a Government pushing through legislation under urgency to implement a regional governance structure, and we do not even know what the terms of reference for it will be. Will the terms of reference, for example, include maximising irrigation potential in the Canterbury region, which is what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech to Parliament this year? Will that be one of the terms of reference? I ask the Minister for the Environment to take a call. Will maximising irrigation be one of the terms of reference?

I want to speak to Part 2 of this oxymoronic Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, particularly to clauses 14, 17, and 18, and to amendments in my name.

But, first, I want to touch on comments made by the member opposite from the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, about the Māori Party supporting the bill in the hope that it will improve Māori representation on Environment Canterbury. I have to say that is a forlorn hope, on two counts. The first is that the bill disestablishes Environment Canterbury. Public comments from the Minister for the Environment made very clear that it is the death knell of Environment Canterbury; it will not see the light again in 2013, or earlier, and I challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, to correct me on that point. Second, I thought the Māori Party would have learnt by now that this Government does not want to deliver Māori aspirations for improved representation. I ask those members to look to the Auckland super-city as an example of that.

Clause 14 of the bill talks about commissioners having “collective knowledge and expertise in certain matters”. Environment Canterbury’s chair and deputy chair, Alec Neill and Jo Kane, proposed to the Minister that he could follow the model that sometimes happens in schools, where a commissioner is appointed and works alongside the principal to improve the outcomes for that school. Effectively, they were suggesting that commissioners come in to provide some of the expertise that everybody acknowledges Environment Canterbury would benefit from in terms of improving its water management and its approach to it—reinforced, one would hope, by some new legislation with new environmental safeguards and quality standards. But the Minister has not chosen to do that, so I am moving, by way of amendment, that we should appointment all the existing councillors as commissioners. That will serve to deliver the expertise that the Minister seeks in respect of organisational change, freshwater management, and local authority governance and management in terms of the Canterbury region and its people. And he might like to supplement some of the gaps in Environment Canterbury’s current representation in terms of Māori representation, which I acknowledge is a deficiency that needs to be remedied. Adopting that amendment would effectively put in place the model suggested by the chair and the deputy chair of Environment Canterbury.

I turn now to make a comment about the idea of the council being dysfunctional, which we have heard once or twice through the course of this debate. Again, I would like to quote from the Creech report on that issue: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … Mostly, the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” So there is no case to say that it was a dysfunctional council. It had its tensions, it had its challenges, and it was starting to come to terms with the issues around the management of water, in particular.

I also note that clause 14(1)(b) requires the commissioners to have expertise in freshwater management. Well, fresh water is a huge challenge. It is a big part of Environment Canterbury’s job, but the Minister went for the doctor in respect of Environment Canterbury, even though the Creech review identified that it was doing a good job in respect of its other functions—notably, public transport. In fact, public transport is the biggest percentage of its current budget. The council is acknowledged within Australasia as having delivered some of the best results for public transport by way of integrated planning, ticketing, and real-time information. It is acknowledged across Australasia for the bus services it provides, the way that they are integrated, and how they work.

In clause 17 there is a provision that the commissioners must call an election when their work is complete. By way of amendment, I propose that once the commissioners have completed their work in terms of bringing together a proposed regional policy statement or plan, as defined in clause 61 of the bill, there must be an election. Let us not wait until 2013. If the Government is genuine in saying—even if it is a mixed message—it wants to resume some sort of democracy in Canterbury, let the commissioners come in and do their job, and if it is such an easy task to pick up and perform, let us have the election as soon as that task is completed. That is covered in my amendment to clause 17.

I am proposing an amendment to clause 18 to make the commissioners’ remuneration the same as the councillors’ remuneration. At the moment, an Environment Canterbury councillor earns in the order of $50,000 a year.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Set by the Remuneration Authority.

That is right; it is set by the authority that deals with salaries in this building. That is an appropriate mechanism. This is ratepayers’ money. I have ratepayers who have struggled to meet their Environment Canterbury rates, especially last year, when their rates increased by 10.8 percent. The reason for that increase was the council was deadlocked regarding starting to charge farmers for the management of water supplies. The rates of constituents in poor areas of my constituency such as Phillipstown, Linwood, Shirley, and Mairehau went up by 8 percent more than would have been necessary if there had been a decision to impose a part-charge rate on the farming community, which was appropriate. It is coming into place this year, so that is good to see.

I think of current councillors such as Jane Demeter, whose ward is within my electorate. I was recently approached by a couple who had installed a new fireplace under the very good Environment Canterbury - led and driven clean air accord, which the council has been putting in place. The fireplace was not working properly. I approached Councillor Demeter and she resolved the issue, and another fireplace was installed. Would I be able to approach one of the commissioners with that sort of constituency issue? Will I be able to go to them and tell them I need a resolution on this? Or are they there only to do one job—to implement a new, rapid regime in terms of water—as far as this bill is concerned? I want to know that my constituents will have representation for the taxation they will be paying.

If my constituents will be paying the commissioners’ rates, they should not pay any more for that privilege than they pay now. Those commissioners should be paid about $1,000 a week, and I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that we will not see the sort of profligacy that sometimes happens when people are appointed by the Government to these jobs. Will we see salary levels of about $1,000 a week, or, more likely, about $1,000 or $2,000 a day? I would like to know what sort of budget the Minister has in mind in terms of how this set of commissioners will operate, because it is not the Minister who will be paying the bill; it is the people in my electorate and across Canterbury. It is the Environment Canterbury ratepayers who will be paying the bill. They have every right to know what is envisaged in terms of the rate of payment to the commissioners. What is the estimate for their travelling costs? We have commissioners such as Dame Margaret Bazley, who I understand is a resident of Wellington. There will be considerable expense in terms of her airfares, hotel accommodation, and out-of-town expenses such as meals. Ratepayers across Canterbury will be picking up the tab without any recourse to the Minister, the Government, Parliament, or a select committee process for a say on it.

Not only that, but we have learnt that the Minister has the ability to alter the terms of reference for the commissioners. If they are not operating in the way that he wants, he can change the terms of reference by executive fiat without any reference back to this House. I think that is really unacceptable.

At the moment the chair of Environment Canterbury’s salary is $142,000 a year, the deputy chair is paid $56,710 a year, and the councillors are paid the grand sum of $53,294—about $1,000 a week—for the duties they perform for their constituencies across the Environment Canterbury rohe, and I think that is an appropriate level of remuneration. In fact, it is probably a little under what they should be paid in terms of the job that I know some of them do. With the call they have upon them, they act in the same way as an MP does, servicing their constituencies and acting for constituents. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how the new commissioners will perform. Will they take up that bread and butter work that regional councillors do? Will they meet constituents? Will they take up constituents’ issues? Will they iron out the red tape issues that emerge when one is dealing with a council on a consistent basis? Will they help constituents navigate through the bureaucracy? Will they deal with queries about rate demands? Will they pick up the just-published annual plan for Environment Canterbury, with a budget of, I think, $142 million? Will they pick up that task, see it through, and take on board any concerns that ratepayers have about the future of their bus service and the improvements that are needed? There is no reference in the clauses of this bill to those requirements in terms of the capacities of the commissioners.

There is no requirement for anybody to have any expertise in, or knowledge of, public transport, and that is the biggest component of the budget that Environment Canterbury deals with. It is in charge of the public transport system across Christchurch. It has done a darn good job.

I want to speak specifically to clause 22 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is interesting because the heading above this clause states: “2010 election for member of ECan”, then the title of the clause is “2010 election for members of ECan must not be held”. That is an unusual juxtaposition, is it not? We have the election but it must not be held. It is a remarkable thing. It cannot be understated what is being done in the House right now in Part 2 of this bill. The first words of an article in the Press this morning read: “The Government’s sacking of Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors will deny hundreds of thousands of Cantabrians the right to vote for regional representation this year.” That is what is being done in the House right now. It is the taking away of the democratic right of Cantabrians. It is cancelling an election. We know about countries around the world where elections are cancelled by a central government. There are names for those kinds of countries, such as banana republic. That is what the National Government is perpetuating today, with the assistance of the ACT Party, in this bill.

This is a democratic outrage. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would do this. We found that out this morning in the Timaru Herald. The article 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 had suggested—was that he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” People are wary of the outcome of elections all the time. I was particularly wary of the outcome of the 2008 general election, but nobody cancelled it. Nobody decided it was time to cancel the election because we were wary of its outcome—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We couldn’t get the numbers.

—I tell Mr Mallard that I do not think we would have even tried—but that is what Dr Nick Smith is doing through this bill today. This is anti-democratic. This is cancelling an election where the ratepayers of the Canterbury region would expect to have representation. Their rates are not being cancelled. I ask Mr Hide whether that is a proposal on the table—to cancel the rates for the people in the Canterbury region. No, they will still be paying the rates, but there will be no representation for those people. There will be no representation, because this Government has decided to cancel an election.

This is an outrage. Clause 22 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill sets this out in the baldest possible terms, without any real justification coming forward from the Government at this time. This is the first time in New Zealand local government history that councillors have been sacked like this without their interest, without their involvement, and without them actually coming forward. The Rodney District example has been raised numerous times in this House by the Government side, but that is completely different. Rodney District asked for the review, and the process of having the next election was put in place as quickly as possible. There is no guarantee in Part 2 that the 2013 election will take place.

I challenge the Minister in the chair, or members opposite, to stand up and tell us that there will be a 2013 election for the Canterbury Regional Council. No one has done it so far. I challenge the Minister in the chair to stand up and tell us he can guarantee that the people of the Canterbury region will have the opportunity to elect their regional councillors in 2013. When we look at clause 23, we do not see anything that guarantees that—there is nothing there. We know that people all around New Zealand should be very, very concerned about what is coming next. In fact, Alec Neill, a former member of this House from the National side, said in the Press this morning that this is a big call, because there is always a political downside, and, to that end, a message has been sent to other regional councils. That was said by Alec Neill, who is a former National MP and the chair of the regional council. He said that this Government is sending a message to councils right around the country that there is no guarantee that regional councils will continue under this Government.

I know that here in Wellington the performance of the Greater Wellington Regional Council comes under scrutiny from time to time, but people are happy with it. People vote in the elections and they work with that regional council. As Brendon Burns said, those regional councillors play an important role in the environmental health of the region. MPs are able to work with regional councils as closely as a lot of us do to make sure that there are good outcomes. That is at risk from clauses 22 and , 23 of this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very happy to pick up from where I left off a bit earlier on. I will move now to clause 21 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That clause sets out that “The commissioners must as soon as practicable establish a process for seeking advice from the mayors of the territorial authorities in the Canterbury region on local issues that affect the exercise of the powers, and performance of the functions, of ECan.” It is interesting that the bill states that the commissioners have to consult only the mayors; they do not have to consult the councillors. This provision basically states that there are two tiers of local authority: the mayors, who are important, and the councillors, who are also democratically elected, but who are not important. The commissioners need to talk only to the mayors. What happens in a situation where the mayor may not necessarily reflect the view of the whole council? The council itself will not get to have any say. I am very concerned that only the mayors will have the opportunity to give advice to the commissioners and that councillors will not be consulted.

I want to move back to the clauses that effectively cancel the next local government election for Environment Canterbury. They override the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. I ask the Minister of Justice, in particular, to comment on why he thinks that the electoral laws for local authorities should be overridden by this House, without any broad bipartisan support. He has argued at a national level for nationwide local government reform. It is not something that he is seeking to do at the local level, and I want to know why the Government thinks Canterbury should be treated separately from the rest of the country.

I move to clause 22, which deals with the election of the members of Environment Canterbury. It effectively cancels the next election for members of Environment Canterbury. It states that the voters of Canterbury will not have a say on who will represent them on important issues, such as the management of water. They will not have a say on that issue and they will not have a say on this bill. They do not have a say on the removal of the democratically elected council members. They would have had a say in October of this year, when they could have replaced the regional council, had they been dissatisfied with it. At the very least, if the people of Canterbury are not to have the opportunity to vote at an election, they should have had the opportunity to come to a select committee to have a say. The councillors who are to be removed from office by this legislation should have had the opportunity to come and put their view to parliamentarians before we vote on the matter.

I understand that the Government wants to move with some haste on this matter, but it is not unusual for truncated select committee processes to be used in situations like that. The process can be gone through reasonably quickly. But unfortunately this Government has a real reluctance, when it comes to issues of democracy, to put those matters before a select committee. It did not put most of the Auckland governance reforms before a select committee. It did not give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on the removal of their seven democratically elected councils and their replacement by the Auckland Transition Agency, which is what the first super-city bill did. The Government did not send that bill to a select committee and give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on it, and it is not giving the people of Canterbury the chance to have their say on the removal of Environment Canterbury.

Of course, as a Wellington member of Parliament, I want to know whether we are next. The Government has been to Auckland, then it went to Christchurch, so will it come to Wellington next? If so, what will be removed? Will it be the regional council? Will it be the local councils? Will the Government merge the councils in Wellington, without giving the people a chance to have a say on that? Wellington must be next on the agenda, after Auckland and Christchurch. In population terms it certainly would be. It is probably only a matter of time before Rodney Hide, Nick Smith, and their colleagues decide to get stuck in and have a crack at Wellington.

I will summarise the main concerns around the way that commissioners are appointed and about their remuneration. Basically, the commissioners will be appointed at the exclusive whim of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. The commissioners’ remuneration will be established at the whim of the Ministers, they can be removed at the whim of the Ministers, and their terms of reference are set at the whim of the Ministers. The Ministers have ultimate control over the total functioning of these commissioners. I have heard the name of one of the people who is likely to be appointed as a commissioner, and she is somebody in whom I have a lot of confidence. She did a fantastic job with the Fire Service; I think that is great. But I am concerned that her position will be undermined by the ultimate authority that the Ministers will have with regard to the position.

I move, That the question be now put.

Since the last time I spoke on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, I have tabled an amendment, which I would like to speak to. The reason I tabled the amendment came from other contributions that have been made in this Committee. We have been listening to this debate and contributing to it in a fair and reasonable way. There are concerns about the way this part of the bill has been promoted. The clause I will focus on is the one I have an amendment too, which is clause 14. I know that my colleague Brendon Burns has an amendment to remove this clause. Actually, he has an amendment that suggests that the commissioners be the current Environment Canterbury councillors, who should be appointed to the role of commissioners. I think that would give a very good signal to the people of Canterbury that at least the people whom they elected to these positions would hold these positions through to the establishment of the water plan. I think there is a certain degree of neatness around that, which is worthy of greater debate and consideration in this environment.

However, given that I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government will vote down that amendment, I have another amendment that asks for us to look at adding additional criteria to the appointment of commissioners. I will read clause 14(1) as it is at the moment: “The responsible Ministers must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of, and expertise in relation to, the following matters: (a) organisational change; and (b) freshwater management; and (c) local authority governance and management; and (d) tikanga Māori, as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (e) the Canterbury region and its people.”

That is all very well and good, but, actually, the regional council does more than undertake its responsibilities in respect of water. I am promoting three additions to subclause (1), so that collectively there is a knowledge of, an expertise in relation to, the additional matters that I have set out in my amendment, which states “environmental protection, and integrated public transport planning, and sustainable development”. I have inserted them in between the first three of the matters that are already set out there, in order to highlight that they have an importance that is relevant to the ones that are already established.

The Minister, when he gave us his briefing yesterday at 11:45 a.m., 15 minutes before the Government made the announcement, had organisational change at the top of his mind. He said that organisational change was the most important element of the new set of commissioners that would be appointed. I think if we remove sight, or any language that refers to the environmental protection obligations of the regulator, it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that these commissioners could be left with the view that their primary responsibility is around organisational change and freshwater management, and blow the rest.

When one looks at Wyatt Creech’s report, one sees that it makes that very clear. That is why they wanted to have a separate authority to deal with water. That is why I think the Government will actually do that behind the scenes if it gets back in after the next election. I think that that is a shame, because there should be a lot more openness and integrity in this whole process than this particular process has allowed.

I shall refer to another element of the Creech report. It states that Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and “master of its own expanded destiny” continues to detract from the relationship. But what is the relationship going to be between the city and the commissioners if that is the case? The Christchurch City Council has never ever debated as a council the establishment of a unitary authority in Christchurch. That is the mayor’s view. That is his point of view, and it may have been a view held by former mayors. But that is not the view of the Christchurch City Council, and I think it is wrong for us to sit here debating changes to the legislation under urgency.

I will pick up on the points that my colleague Lianne Dalziel was making in relation to the amendment that she has moved. That was the first time I was alerted to that amendment during the course of this debate. I think the Minister of Local Government, who is in the chair, needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment is not frivolous. It was made on the basis of that member being a local resident, as I am, of Canterbury, the area that is affected by the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which we are debating under urgency. He needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment would strengthen the bill. We fundamentally oppose the bill, but this amendment would make it better. I suggest to both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment that they look at the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel and take it seriously. It would make a bad bill better.

It would certainly be for us a major step forward in what has been a fundamental breach of process and of democracy in our region. I was listening to the debate a couple of speakers back, when my colleagues Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson took calls, and it struck me that a lot of people in other towns will be scared. What has happened is that our elected councillors have all been sacked; they have been given just a month’s notice. The Minister for the Environment will appoint five or seven commissioners—we do not even know the number—to do their job. The Minister on his own will define what their job will be, and he is going to decide how much they will get paid. And guess what? We are going to pay the bill! So the Minister can say that he thinks the commissioners are worth a huge amount of money, and I predict that he will say they are worth $2,000 a day. That is the going rate for this sort of job. It is a lot more than any of our existing councillors get. Then he will say to the people of Canterbury that they will have to pay for the commissioners out of their rates. That is a disgrace. Our elected representatives are being sacked without any recourse back to us. Commissioners are being appointed with no say at all from local people. The Minister by himself will decide who the commissioners are and what their job description is. He will decide how much money they will be paid a day. And we get to pay their consultancy fee. Well, I do not think the people of Canterbury will think too warmly of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide, but that will not be a particular revelation to anyone. They have never been very high on our list of people who share our concerns, anyway. But on this issue it is a fundamental breach of good process and of democracy.

The other point that I would really like the Minister to address is that I am really puzzled about what exactly the breadth of the work will be. My colleague Brendon Burns alluded to this briefly in his earlier contribution, but I ask the Minister to tell the Chamber whether the commissioners will be expected to do the constituency work, the bread and butter work, the work that keeps the community connected to the regional council. Will they be expected to do that, or will we lose all that strength and connection between our regional councillors, whom we have now, and our community?

I recently took a complaint to Environment Canterbury, to our regional council, about a proposed change to a bus route. That is one of the things that members of Parliament deal with day in and day out. We have to talk to the local authority about proposals and about the concerns of our constituents, and how we might get a win-win situation. I spoke to the man at Environment Canterbury who is responsible for this issue, and we organised a time to meet. He rang me back the next day and said that Councillor Carole Evans would like to be part of the discussion, because she is the chair of the transport committee and she was interested in the fact that I and my constituents had concerns. She wanted to be part of that discussion. Will a commissioner do that, I ask Mr Hide? Will a commissioner getting $2,000 a day of our ratepayers’ money get out of the office in Kilmore Street, come out to St Martins, drive over Glenelg Spur, as Councillor Carole Evans did, and say that he or she understands the problem and we will work together to fix it? I cannot see that happening.

I move, That the question be now put.