Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I have to say at the start that I cannot recall any legislation that has enraged my electorate as much as this has. It sort of beggars belief, really, that in this day and age we have a Government that wanders into our region and says: “We don’t like what your regional council are doing. They’re not allocating enough water to the irrigators. Some of their performance standards aren’t very good. We’re going to get rid of them, and we’re going to appoint commissioners.” That was bad enough. Thousands and thousands of people who had never before gone on to the streets to protest marched against the removal of Canterbury’s right to vote for a democratically elected regional council. That was bad enough. We, perhaps foolishly, believed the word of the Hon Dr Nick Smith at the time. Some people might laugh and say: “Well, fancy that.”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: More fool you.

No, I understand your cynicism, but I am still of the view that when a member of Parliament makes a public statement about something as important as citizens’ right to vote, all of us should be able to believe their word. I do not care what party they are from, I would really like to think that we should be able to trust their word. What Nick Smith said to Canterbury was this: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” Those are the very words—an exact quote—from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who, of course, at the time was Minister of Local Government. We believed him. We thought it was bad enough that we were having our vote taken off us for 2 years, but we thought that, well, come 2013 we would get our right to vote back again.

Then we had a new Minister, a Cantabrian, come along. I remember the first time he came to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Hon Nick Smith was at the select committee as a member during that time. We asked him about the quite tense relationship between local government and the Minister. David Carter, who had been in the job 5 minutes, said to the select committee, which included Nick Smith: “Oh, that was under the previous Minister. Now the relationships are really good.” Talk about embarrassing and whacking your colleague in front of other party representatives at the select committee. I was gobsmacked. Anyway, along rides David Carter, a Canterbury member of Parliament, and he said: “No, blow that. There’s still not enough water allocated to the irrigators, and I am going to keep the loss of vote going for another 3 years.” So now we get this absolute nonsense, an abuse of power, and a disgraceful blemish on the face of our parliamentary law—the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Actually, it is: “Let’s get the water through to the irrigators so they can put dairy farms all through Canterbury and South Canterbury. When they have done that to our satisfaction, we’ll give Canterbury people the right to vote.” Well, this is going to be the downfall of this Government in our region. People are so angry about it. On top of all of the other things that have upset people in our region, this is the crowning glory.

I want to stress that point, though, that what has upset people more than anything is that they fell for the story that Nick Smith told them. Nick Smith said publicly that we would get our vote back by the end of 2013—that is, this year. Every other region in the whole country will have a right to vote for its regional council. Tragically, half of the people do not even take up that opportunity. I guess that is a democratic right as well—to not vote—but I personally think it is abuse of the democracy that people before us have fought for. But in Canterbury we will not be getting that right back for another 3 years.

The second point I want to mention is another point that has not been debated a lot during the passage of the bill so far, and I think it is one of the most important. We have a form of statutory protection available in New Zealand that is called a water conservation order. We do not have very many. Fish and Game New Zealand is the body that has really promoted and brought into effect water conservation orders. I know that they have been described in the Chamber in the past. They are like the national parks of waterways. Despite the regulatory impact statement recommending that we get our water conservation orders back again, this bill maintains that special protection for our rivers has gone as well. So it is not just our regional council vote; it is also the special protection that is given through water conservation orders. Let me read part of the regulatory impact statement, from paragraph 45 at page 11: “The [water conservation order] processes are set to return to those in the RMA (the special provisions are scheduled to lapse at the expiration of the Act). ECan has advised it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury [water conservation orders] and is not aware of any new applications for [water conservation orders] in the Canterbury region.” This is the critical bit and is in the Government’s own regulatory impact statement on this bill: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Primary Industries consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for [water conservation orders] in the Canterbury region.” The Government’s own advisers said: “Give back to Canterbury that special protection of water conservation orders.” And what did the Government do? Despite advice from three separate departments, all singing from the same song sheet, the Government just threw it out.

I actually feel quite sorry for the incoming Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain—talk about being handed a hospital pass. I do not imagine that that Minister has any idea at all of the damage that has been done by this legislation in my electorate and in my region. If he did, I think he would have taken it back to his Cabinet colleagues and said: “This is wrong. This is making a liar out of the Hon Dr Nick Smith,”—and most colleagues would not do that—“and it is denying, throwing out, the advice from three key ministries in regards to water conservation orders.”

I want to just conclude my first comments on this legislation by again commending Fish and Game New Zealand, which has done extraordinary work for us. We are very proud of our waterways in Canterbury. We are very concerned about the threat that they are under. We know the degradation that has already been caused by overuse and by inappropriate use. We know that additional take in some of our waterways may actually be fatal to them, and we do not want to see that. We understand the need to support business—of course we do. But some parts of our country cannot sustain heavy irrigation and dairy use, and some of our rivers just cannot have any more water taken from them. So our iconic rivers, the Ahuriri, the Rākaia, and the Rangitata, and we have got, of course, Lake Ellesmere—these are the waterways that are under threat in our region. They are under threat because this Government has chosen to put irrigation ahead of democracy. When the members of the select committee came to Christchurch they laughed at people who said: “You have taken away our right to vote and we want it back.” They said: “Ha, so what? What’s the big deal?”.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was only the National members.

It was the National members.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Who laughed?

Why is that a big deal? Paul Goldsmith, you would be better off, frankly, if I may offer you a little bit of advice, not to draw attention to yourself, because you will be better identified as one of the members who laughed at my—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: He was shocking.

He was shocking. Now that he has brought himself to our attention, he was shocking. The people of Canterbury asked for their right to vote back. The National members said: “Why is taking away your right to vote such a big deal?”. People in other countries have fought and died for the right to vote. We thought we pretty well had it sussed. We thought it was part of our culture, part of our entitlement—a treasure. Actually, in Canterbury I think we regard it more highly than anyone, particularly amongst women, because of the women whom we have had leading the right for women to vote.

Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is really the guts of the whole matter, because this is about the right to have a vote in 2013 being taken away from the people of Canterbury. I am really disappointed that the three Ministers of Local Government from the National Government, who were elected to Parliament under a democratic vote, into a democratic Parliament—well, at least on this side—could ignore the wishes of the people of Canterbury in such a cavalier manner.

It all started with Nick Smith. Nick Smith made a solemn promise to the people of Canterbury. He said this: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.”—October 2013. He is a man who was in Cabinet, who had to leave Cabinet because of some shonky behaviour, and who is now back in Cabinet, so I suppose we should not be surprised that he broke his word. But he gave his solemn promise to the people of Canterbury, and what is so sad and what makes me angry is that they believed him. They actually believed him and thought: “Yes, this’ll happen. Nick Smith has said it.” Well, he got the rumpty-dumpty and off he went, and in the Government brought—what is his name—David Carter. He was less than memorable—less than memorable, I have to say—in his role—

💬 Hon Chris Tremain: He’s the Speaker.

—as Minister of Local Government. I know he is going to be an extremely good Speaker—when it comes to questions, I do want him to look this way—but when it came to being the Minister of Local Government, did he, a Cantabrian born and bred—the Carter family, I believe, have lived in the Canterbury area for generations—listen to the people of Canterbury? Did he honour the words of Nick Smith, the previous Minister? No, he did not. He did not even blink, and he carried on with this bill.

And then we come to the hapless new Minister of Local Government, a member who already faces all sorts of problems in his own area. I think he is under serious threat from Stuart Nash, who does not want an amalgamation of local authorities in Napier and Hastings. The local member, now the Minister of Local Government, wants a major amalgamation. I suppose he would support an election for them, but why does he not support an election for the people of Canterbury? So I say to the Minister: “You’re a terrible disappointment, Minister, because you had the opportunity—you had the opportunity, Minister”—[Interruption] I keep saying “Minister”, Mr Chairman. I am talking to the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You said “you”.

Yes, “You, Minister”. You had the opportunity, Minister, to have made a difference. You had the opportunity to say: “Stop this bill. We made promises. We said there would be elections to Environment Canterbury in 2013.”

I think one of the most powerful submissions I heard on the Local Government and Environment Committee, though, was from the Human Rights Commission. In came Mr Rutherford. I have to say, I was not really expecting any great strokes. I thought he would come in with a quiet little submission. After all, he has been appointed by this Government, and it must have some expectations from him. He came in with a very strong submission. He submitted that “In effect the current proposal means the Government would be in breach of its international obligations and its commitment …”, and that it needed to have an election. Here is the Chief Human Rights Commissioner saying that the Government would be in breach and that it was against basic human rights not to have an election.

And now we have got the new member returned to the House today, Mr Aaron Gilmore. I thought I would bring him into the debate, because he knows a lot about a little. He was a member who used to be in Christchurch. Actually, he shifted up to Lyall Bay, Rongotai, thinking there might be a little opening for him there. However, he is now whizzing back to Christchurch. I want to see him get up and speak in support of the people of Canterbury, because he said he wants to represent Canterbury people again. I read that. He said he wants to represent Canterbury people again. I want to see him get up on his hind legs and say to the people that they deserve the opportunity to have a democratic vote in 2013. I want to make this commitment in this House: if we were in Government, there would be a vote in 2013, and when we are in Government in 2014, they will not wait until 2016 for a vote.

💬 John Hayes: You won’t be Government in 2014.

Oh yes we will, Mr Hayes. I will tell you something, Mr John Hayes: you will be roundly beaten in the Wairarapa. There has never been a more unpopular member in the Wairarapa than that member. He is chirping away, but it will not be for long. There will be a reprieve for us, because he will not be here after the next election. We will have an election for Environment Canterbury after we become the Government.

The hidden agenda of this whole debate is all about the Government wanting to delay elections to give the farmers irrigation, which is more important than people and a democratic vote. But also it plans to have a major amalgamation of local authorities in the Canterbury area. That is why the election is being delayed—nothing to do with the competency and ability of people in Canterbury to be able to run Environment Canterbury and to elect good people to the Environment Canterbury council. There is every ability to be able do that. There were very good people on that council, and I would like to acknowledge Eugenie Sage, who was one of those members and a person who worked incredibly hard. But they were all told that they were hopeless, that the council needed to be changed, but that there would be a vote when things came right. Well, things have come right in Canterbury. You cannot go on blaming it on the earthquake for ever. That is what this Government is doing.

This is a very important bill we are debating tonight. It goes to the fundamental issue of the country we live in, and that is democracy—the democratic right of people to choose their elected representatives to make decisions on their behalf—and this Government is riding roughshod over the people of Canterbury. It is not good enough. We will restore their right to vote when we are in Government in the very near future.

I would like to thank Annette King for her kind comments. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill—this noxious bill—is all about trust. It is about broken promises by the Government to restore democracy in Canterbury in the elections that are due in October of this year. The Government has broken those promises, and it has done that because it does not trust the people of Canterbury to elect a regional council that will be compliant and deliver the water from the aquifers and rivers of Canterbury to the farmers and irrigators. That is why we have this bill. The Official Information Act request that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society did in 2010 exposed the Government’s agenda. It wanted commissioners and it wanted changes to the Rākaia water conservation order so that TrustPower could get water from the Rākaia River for irrigation. It wants to promote major irrigation development, and we saw that yesterday with that $1.7 million grant to Central Plains Water, which will result in more pollution of the aquifers and more pollution of Te Waihora, Lake Ellesmere. That is to be followed by another subsidy of $4 million by the Ministry for Primary Industries. It is this massive irrigation water exploitation scheme that the Government has for Canterbury that is behind this noxious bill.

I was in Cathedral Square, along with colleagues like Mojo Mathers, on a very cold and bleak day in June 2010 when thousands of Cantabrians gathered to protest and object to the 2010 principal Act. Thousands of Cantabrians have continued to demonstrate, to walk the streets, and to march to show that they oppose this attack on the fundamentals of our political system: the right to vote. That is at the heart of democracy, and it is something that Part 1 of this bill denies by postponing elections until 2016—and how can we be certain that the Government will even implement that promise—when they should be held this year.

People in Canterbury are angry. They are feeling disempowered. As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has often talked about, the psychological effects of disempowering people—not allowing them to vote after a natural disaster—make it all the worse in terms of their ability to recover and respond to that disaster. The Government continues to disempower Cantabrians by denying us the right to vote. This legislation builds on the autocratic powers that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has to not allow proper community consultation and involvement in critical decisions about the province’s recovery.

The Government has not come clean about why this bill is needed. It continues to give spurious excuses about it being due to the earthquakes, that it would get more efficient and effective governance from commissioners, but we have not seen that efficient and effective governance. We have seen a stream of self-congratulatory press releases from the commissioners, but we have not seen them responding to the views of Cantabrians that people want to vote, except that they did recommend a mixed model of commissioners and elected members, and the Government ignored that. But Cantabrians want the right to vote. They have demonstrated for that right and it is part of that strong tradition of suffrage in the region, going back to Kate Sheppard and the suffragists who ensured that women had the right to vote. We want our right to vote, and the bill denies that.

In another call I will talk more about water conservation orders, because there the Government has disregarded the advice of officials to restore the law in Canterbury as it applies to the rest of New Zealand. I would be very interested for the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, to take a call and explain why it is necessary to have a different regime for water conservation orders in Canterbury when the advice of the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Environment Canterbury commissioners was that there was no justification for continuing a different regime in Canterbury in regards to water conservation orders to that which applies to the rest of the country. So could the Minister explain, because the regulatory impact statement makes it very clear that there is no justification for that.

I rise to talk to this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. This bill is a sensible, practical response to the situation in Canterbury, and there are no hidden agendas. I just want to look at the two major provisions in this bill. The first is about changing the date that commissioners must be replaced by elected councillors at Environment Canterbury. Originally, the principal Act prescribed 2013 as the date that elections would be held, but this bill specifies that the next election will occur in 2016, at the same time as the local authority election. What is the reason for the change? The change relates to the seven appointed commissioners, who have been acting as Environment Canterbury’s governing body since 2010 and who have been doing a particularly good job. Because of the disruption caused by the earthquake, and because there is still a need to complete the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, they need to remain.

I think we should look at this strategy. This Canterbury Water Management Strategy is community-based, it is collaborative, and it is well supported throughout the province. The zone committees have been set up and they are in the process of reporting back. The next step is to complete that work and give the strategy statutory backing. It is because of the time and the energy and the input of all those people who are involved that it is felt that this should be completed before the commissioners have finished their job, and that the commissioners should, therefore, have the possibility of remaining until 2016.

However, there is also a ministerial review required, and that ministerial review must begin before 1 March 2014. That review covers several things. It covers the governance structure of Environment Canterbury, it covers the membership of Environment Canterbury, and it covers the powers and the functions of Environment Canterbury. It was interesting that there were only three submissions about this review, and all three submissions supported the idea of a review. The inclusion of this clause reflects the intention to transition back to regional governance for Canterbury and back to democracy, and to identify the best long-term governance solution to the Canterbury region.

It was very interesting listening to the submitters. It is true that the majority of submitters were against the extension of the period of time that Environment Canterbury should be managed. But their opposition was based on the disapproval of the lack of democratic elections, and we have heard the debate from the Local Government and Environment Committee as well. This was the opinion of many of the submitters to the original bill. That is what they were concerned about. They feared that they would not get a result if they did not have democratic elections. But it has been very interesting listening to those submitters. Looking back on those times since the commissioners have been there, there was general agreement that the commissioners have actually done a very good job. They have worked well with stakeholders, they were delivering the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which was community-based and collaborative, and it was also noted that their relationship with tangata whenua—that is, Ngāi Tahu—was particularly improved, and it had always been bumpy with the old Environment Canterbury council.

There is a very tangible example of this relationship and the value of this relationship. What they have been able to do is deliver a collaborative clean-up of Te Waihora—that is, Lake Ellesmere. You may be aware that Lake Ellesmere has been in a bad state for a long time. The clean-up was well overdue, and Environment Canterbury had been unable to negotiate a collaboration. That has happened, the commissioners have got it in place, and that work is being done. So, despite the fears of the submitters on the original bill, the fears have not been recognised. In fact, most submitters accepted that the time that the commissioners had been in had been extremely effective. I believe that the fears of the people for this bill will be the same. So I commend this bill to the Committee.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, and we oppose this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, most rigorously.

On the walls of this Chamber we have some famous names, such as Passchendaele, Gallipoli, Egypt, Messines, and other great battles where our young soldiers, servicemen and servicewomen, went off to fight for democracy for this country and to bring freedom from oppression. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, came to our Local Government and Environment Committee and indirectly commented that it was a poor reflection on this country that in fact we had fought for democracy but democracy was being taken away from New Zealanders. For the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to liken us to other regimes around the world that have removed democracy from their people was quite astonishing. It was so astonishing that the members from the National Party sitting on that select committee took exception to it and challenged the commissioner over the comments that he had made, but he did not back down. And despite some heated retort from those National Party members, who did not like to be compared to Fiji, who did not like to be compared to regimes in Europe in the First and Second World Wars, they had to stomach those comments from the Chief Human Rights Commissioner.

He stated: “The commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content—or the continuing need for the legislation—is an abuse of the democratic process and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians … In our view”—that is, the commission’s view—“the present legislation has the potential to further exacerbate the resentment that has arisen in Canterbury as a result …”. He also said: “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced, and its continuance, is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.”

💬 John Hayes: Rubbish.

Well, that is very good coming from Mr John Hayes from the Wairarapa, who, similarly, will probably turn to the Wairarapa people very shortly and say that he also does not support the Wairarapa having a view on its own democratic representation. Mr Hayes, perhaps at next year’s 2014 election you will be prepared to stand up and say “Do I stand with Wairarapa, or do I stand with my National Party mates and sell them down the river?”. I know, Mr Hayes, where you will be: you will be selling them down the river. But, hopefully—hopefully—the people of the Wairarapa will sell you down the river at the same time.

We sat through the hearings and we listened to 95 oral submissions. Ninety out of 95 oral submissions opposed this bill—90 out of 95. I have sat on all sorts of things in my time in local and central government, but I have never seen such an overwhelming level of opposition to something. The only ones who supported it were the regular mates of the National Party, Federated Farmers, and the other mates of the National Party, the regular stooges, Business New Zealand and that, who go along to support their good old mates, because they know that there is something in it for them if they support the National Party.

It was also amazing that when we read the regulatory impact report on this bill we saw that Dame Margaret Bazley and her commissioners—who, we have heard, have done a good job, and who the Minister of Local Government also said have done a very good job—also recommended that there be a transition back to a democratic process in Canterbury. For Dame Margaret Bazley herself, who is so esteemed within the Public Service, and her commissioners to recommend that we return to democracy in Canterbury, and for that advice to be ignored—and for the ministry’s advice to the Government to be ignored—is a sad indictment on this Government.

But it is not surprising, because it has got a history of doing that in Auckland. The National Party, in its election manifesto prior to the last election, said it would consult with the people of Auckland on the outcomes of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. What happened? National got re-elected, and the party manifesto and the party promise to consult with the people of Auckland went out the window. Within 9 days of the royal commission reporting and recommending a restructuring of Auckland along certain lines, this National Government threw it out. It threw it out the window—an 800-page report costing close to $5 million, with international consultants from all over the world bringing best practice to the recommendations for Auckland—and replaced it with a 33 or 34-page report printed on A4 photocopy paper from Rodney Hide, with his plan for Auckland.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on this bill.

What I am saying is that there is a systemic problem here with this National Party, with this Government, in that it does not believe in democracy. It did not believe in democracy in Auckland. It does not believe in democracy in Canterbury. Quite clearly, National is moving to remove democracy from other parts of New Zealand, because it has got its eyes on the Wairarapa, it has got its eyes on Napier and Hastings, it has got its eyes on the Waikato area, it has got its eyes on other parts of New Zealand as well. Quite frankly, National would like to make local government bodies just extensions of the ministries in Wellington. If National could have local government bodies as extensions of the ministries in Wellington, where it could control them from the ministerial level, it would love to do that—it would love to do that. People in local government, including mayors and councillors throughout New Zealand who are National Party—or former National Party—supporters—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! No, we are actually on Part 1, and I would actually ask the member to come back to Part 1. These other things may be of interest to some members, but they are not in relation to the bill. We are on Part 1.

Coming back to Canterbury and the lack of democracy, which is mirrored in this whole situation, it is also because of the need, basically, to control water. Around the world the one thing that people go to war for—countries go to war for, States and regions go to war for—is water. In this case, much of this stems back to the control of water; control by Federated Farmers and farmers of water in Canterbury, against the wishes of the greater population of Canterbury. National knows that to meet the demands of Federated Farmers in Canterbury and to ensure that those water rights are preserved and absolutely guaranteed for its farmer mates, it needs to make sure that there is no return to widespread democracy in Canterbury.

It is disappointing. We certainly would have liked to see a transition back, as Dame Margaret Bazley recommended. Certainly, in the next Government New Zealand First will ensure that that does happen. I liked to hear the fact that the Labour Party has confirmed that it supports it, as well. We can say to the people of Canterbury that help is on its way. To the people of Canterbury: help is on its way. We are not going to allow this to continue, and we are going to continue to honour those who fought for this country, as shown on the walls in this Chamber, so that they did not go to fight for democracy for nothing.

It is interesting that Nicky Wagner said that Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill was really just a technical matter about a date—just a small matter of a date. A small matter of 2013 being the date, like how 31 December 2014 is, I think, when Phillipstown school is due to merge with Woolston School. That is just a date as well—just a date. In fact, I notice in changes to section 4(1) of the Act that what is actually happening here is the replacement of the definition of the 2013 election—the definition of the 2013 election. How Orwellian can you get? The definition of the 2013 election becomes “2016 election”. The Government is actually changing the definition of the 2013 election, and trying to tell us that you can have something in 2016 and it can still be the 2013 election.

In all seriousness, I think it is important for the Committee and those people watching and listening to Parliament tonight to understand the significance of what the Government is proposing to do in this bill. The Government is proposing to cancel an election; to take away—further take away—the rights of our people in a large region of country to vote. Just stop and consider for a moment what that means. What kind of country are we living in when the central government decides that local people in a large region do not have the right to exercise their vote? I found a quote that I think sums this up. This quote is: “Elections are central to democracy but they are not always, on their own, a magic or quick-fix solution,”. That sounds like something that, perhaps, the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, might say, or one of the other National members, but no, it was Frank Bainimarama talking about Fiji. That is what he said—“Elections are central to democracy but they are not … a magic or quick-fix solution,”. The National Party members, as Andrew Williams said, may not like being compared to Fiji, but I would actually wager that there is a chance of an election in Fiji before there will be an election for Environment Canterbury under this Government. That is how bad things have got. This kind of decision is being made—

💬 John Hayes: You’re exaggerating.

John Hayes says I am exaggerating—John Hayes says I am exaggerating. Do the people of Canterbury have the right today to cast a vote for their regional council, Mr Hayes? Silence from Mr Hayes on the other side of the Chamber—silence now, because the people of Canterbury do not. There is no way I can exaggerate this issue.

💬 John Hayes: Yes, there is.

There is no way, because democracy has been taken away from the people of Canterbury. It is not possible to exaggerate that, Mr Hayes. What that is is a fundamental assault on the democratic values of this country. I actually thought, despite all the differences I might have with National Party members, that they would stand up for democracy; that they would actually believe that this mattered, but they do not.

💬 Hon Annette King: Arrogant.

They are arrogant and they do not care about giving the people of Canterbury a say in who governs their region. John Hayes says it is an exaggeration; it is not, Mr Hayes. They do not have a say in this.

💬 John Hayes: Anything that keeps Kerry Burke out.

See, here we go. It is all about personalities for the National Party. It is all about personalities and trying to take down the right to a democratic process for the people of Canterbury because of some personal score that John Hayes and the National Party want to have.

It is interesting. David Carter, when he was responding to some questions about this when he was the Minister of Local Government, said that the problem with the regional council was that it was “ineffective and dysfunctional”. Well, if that definition or criteria of being “ineffective and dysfunctional” was a problem, the whole National Party would be out today. Mr Hayes would certainly be out, because “ineffective and dysfunctional” describes him to a T. So this Government has fundamentally undermined democracy, but if we look at this provision in Part 1, let us see who else thinks that this is a bad idea, because it is not just us, it is not just the Opposition parties, and it is not just the people of Canterbury, but it is actually the Government’s own officials. The Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Internal Affairs actually told the Government not to do this—not to extend the bill out. They actually said: “Let’s work through a process of having a mix of commissioners and elected people and work their way to a fully democratically elected council.” That was the advice from officials.

Funnily enough, it was also the advice that the Government was getting from the commissioners themselves. The commissioners themselves were saying: “We think we should move to a more democratic model, but this Government wouldn’t have it.” But even within this Government, there were people who wanted it. Nick Smith went on the record and said that we would be seeing democratic elections in Canterbury. So we have got the commissioners, we have got the Ministry for the Environment, we have got the Department of Internal Affairs—

💬 Hon Annette King: The people.

—and the people of Canterbury, but this Government carries on in its arrogant way, saying: “We know best. We know what’s right for the people of Canterbury. We know”—this Government tells us—“that the people of Canterbury will be better served by not having a say.” Well, that fundamentally undermines the principles that this country is built on. That is why David Rutherford and the Human Rights Commission came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and told it—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: What did he say?

—Lianne Dalziel wants to know what he said. It is worth quoting again: “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced, and its continuance, is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.” New Zealand likes to stand up in the world and tell the rest of the world about the importance of human rights. John Hayes, when he used to run the UN division—proudly run the UN division—of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, was part of saying that New Zealand would go out in the world and promote human rights, and yet inside New Zealand this Government tarnishes our image by promoting legislation like this, which fundamentally undermines those human rights.

I want to move on briefly to another aspect of this, which is covered under Part 1, and that is the question around water conservation orders. I think it is very important that we get to the heart of what this is about. This is about water and this is about irrigation, and about the fact that that party over there was concerned that the people of Canterbury might have some different ideas about how water would be used. But let us be absolutely clear. As Eugenie Sage has said—and she has a Supplementary Order Paper on this—there is now a process in place for water conservation orders in the Canterbury region that is different from everywhere else in New Zealand, and there is now no justification for carrying that on. We have just seen a decision the other day about the Rākaia River going through under the process covered in this legislation, which meant that no one in the public was able to have a proper say through the Environment Court and the decision was simply rammed through. So now they are in a position where they can apply to have a resource consent to build a canal. There are all sorts of things that come out of that decision, and that decision did not go through the same process that would have been in place for any other water conservation order anywhere else in New Zealand.

That is the problem with this legislation: the Government cannot make the case to extend out this denial of democracy to New Zealanders. It might have thought it could have made the case originally. It might have thought it was possible for it to say at the start, in 2010, that it could do this. But when it shows up here today and says that it wants to carry it on to 2016, that is a fundamental breach of human rights, it is a fundamental breach of democracy—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Broken promise.

—and it is a broken promise, and this Government cannot mount a defence for that because it is anti-democratic. But it is also very important when we look at the regulatory impact statement—and my colleague Lianne Dalziel is a well-known exponent of the regulatory impact statement, which is a very important thing to look at.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh no, don’t use my speech!

Ha, ha! I am going to introduce the member’s speech by making brief reference to the regulatory impact statement, because it is important. In the regulatory impact statement, the point is made: “The extension of the Commissioners’ terms would continue to deny Canterbury residents the opportunity to vote for representatives … Also, given the progress made by the Commissioners, there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention, which was used in response to ECan’s previous serious and systemic dysfunction.” So even if the National Government tries to sell us the argument from 2010, what the officials are saying through the regulatory impact statement is that that justification no longer exists. So fundamentally and at its principle, this legislation is wrong, but it is also wrong in practice. It is wrong, because there is now no argument, and we have heard no argument from the National Government, that justifies this.

This is an incredibly sad day for this Parliament, to be here and standing having to debate whether or not a region’s people are allowed to vote for their own representatives. I thought that was fundamental in our democracy; it is quite clear that National does not. We have committed to telling the people of Canterbury that when we are elected to Government next year, they will have the right to vote for their representatives, because that is what is fair and right in this country.

Let us remember why the original legislation was brought to this House. It was brought in because of the failure of Environment Canterbury—the failure of Environment Canterbury—to bring in an operative water plan. So let us hear it in this Chamber for the irrigators. Let us hear it for the water users in Canterbury, who have only benefited from the bill that was brought in, and they will benefit from the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, as well. Yes, we heard an awful lot of submissions while we were in Christchurch, and we sat in Wellington. A lot of them were pro forma submissions. Although the numbers might sound good, many, many of them were pro forma submissions. I was going through them this evening in my office and they all said virtually the same thing. But there were some submissions that stood out. I am going to use just one or two of those today.

One of them is the Waitaki Irrigators Collective Ltd submission, and I am very unashamedly going to quote from it. That is a collective that represents something like five or six irrigation schemes throughout the Waitaki Valley mostly, which is in the southern area of Environment Canterbury. But the farmers in those irrigation areas have been very badly affected by the non-performance of Environment Canterbury over the 7 or 8 years that I have been a member, up until Nick Smith, as Minister for the Environment, took the brave step of bringing in commissioners to actually get a water plan operative—something that the former Labour Government could not in any way face up to doing. He made the brave step to bring in the commissioners, and I can report from the lower half of Environment Canterbury’s area that the performance has, in fact, increased tenfold. In fact, the number of complaints coming into my office has dwindled down to less, I might suggest, than a trickle. We have a good relationship between the farmer constituents, the Environment Canterbury commissioners, and the Environment Canterbury officers.

So just turning to this submission, I just want to quote a little bit from it, if I may: “Although the [Canterbury Water Management Strategy]”—which, of course, is the strategy initiated by the mayors of the Canterbury region, who, by the way, to a man supported the original bill that brought in the commissioners; to a man or, should I say, to a council, they were the ones that initiated the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—“was established under the elected council structure, it is questionable whether so much could have been achieved over the past two or three years under the elected councillor model, given the severe disruption and difficulties caused by the Canterbury earthquakes to the staff and resources of the Environment Canterbury.” It goes on to say: “The previous structure often meant that those elected to the Council represented particular philosophical positions in relation to water use and management. As issues became difficult to resolve, these positions tended to become entrenched—”. And did we not see that playing out in Environment Canterbury before Nick Smith stepped in and took the brave, brave step of appointing commissioners? Did we not see that? I saw that in my electorate. I saw that with a lack of direction from Environment Canterbury at the time, with its elected representatives and officials, which failed to deliver to all the constituents in the catchment of Environment Canterbury.

It goes on to say—and I accept this as well—“Whilst a return to some form of effective democratic leadership …”—the collective members are the practitioners. They see what goes on. They are not sitting in their list bailiwicks in Christchurch having a view on these things; these are the people who are actually working within the Environment Canterbury boundaries. They say: “Whilst a return to some form of effective democratic leadership of Canterbury should be a medium to long-term goal, [the Waitaki Irrigation Collective] believes that the current situation of having appointed Commissioners leading Environment Canterbury and governing the implementation of the [Canterbury Water Management Strategy] should be maintained for the time being, as per the Bill’s provisions.” And why do they say that? They do not say that because they have been jacked up by the Green Party to come in and have a wail to the select committee; they say that because they represent the irrigators, who are the productive heart of South Canterbury, and they say that because they have experienced the non-performance of Environment Canterbury under the former regime. Eugenie Sage was one of those councillors who was dismissed. They have operated under that former regime. They understand very clearly from practice that the commissioners are doing a good job, and they support their continuation.

I wish to speak to this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, which steals democracy from the people of Canterbury. I was astounded, like many others, when the Government moved to remove democracy in Canterbury back in 2010. I was actually one of those who did not believe the heartfelt assurances of Nick Smith that democracy would be returned in 2013, because I knew there was just too much that the Government wanted to do while it had the commissioners in place. So I was deeply cynical, and so were many others, and I am very sad that my cynicism has been justified.

The theft of democracy is nothing less than insulting to the people of Canterbury, and it has been made worse by the pathetic excuses that have been offered and that I have had to hear tonight. There is a claim that we will lose the commissioners’ valuable, wonderful expertise. This is nonsense. There are lots of options, if we really want to retain their expertise, to keep them on in an advisory capacity. My colleague in Christchurch Nicky Wagner feels that they have done a great job. If the Government really feels that the commissioners have done such a great job, then why is it not moving to accept their primary preferred option for restoring democracy in Christchurch?

The other even more insulting excuse we have heard tonight for continuing the removal of democracy in Canterbury has been the earthquakes. As someone who personally has been deeply and profoundly affected by the earthquakes—I lost my home in the first one, and I came back to my flat and found it ransacked, and a lot of my goods stolen, within a day or two of the earthquake—I find the use of the earthquakes as an excuse to steal our democracy deeply and profoundly insulting. In fact, it is an excuse to steal everything from our democracy—our schools, our homes, and our lands for some of us—and I find that deeply insulting. I know that there are many others who feel exactly the same way.

I would rather have my democracy returned to me and returned to the people of Canterbury than have the goods that were stolen from me 2 days after the earthquake. That is how strongly I feel about it. We know that if we move past all these pathetic excuses this is not about improved water management in the sense of caring for the environment; it is about implementing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and seeing that fully implemented so that we can see more water and land going to service the needs of irrigators.

I have lived for many years in the country and I, with my former husband, ran a business that worked with farmers. So we actually do know something firsthand about what the impact of drought is on farmers in Canterbury, and I do know that water is valuable and needed. But the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is not about drought-proofing; it is about maximising production on the land. This can have very serious impacts—downstream impacts—on water, on our rivers, and on the structure and fabric of our well-being.

This is why many people are not embracing irrigation with open arms, despite all the so-called economic benefits—because we are the ones who suffer the downstream impacts. We want to have our right to be able to express and engage with the issue of water through our democracy. It is profoundly insulting to be told: “We are going to steal your democracy in order to impose our agenda, and we are going to continue to do that because of the earthquakes.” We are not stupid. We have the right to vote, and it is very, very pleasing that Labour and the Greens will work to restore our vote in Canterbury.

I thank the Green member Mojo Mathers for her contribution, heartfelt as it is, and I congratulate her on it. But I heard Jacqui Dean, who is sort of grinning over there, talk about how there was such support for this measure. Well, Nicky Wagner last week made a similar claim. I think Jacqui Dean also alluded to the fact that there was—the woman, of course, who is an expert on water, of course, did not quite get what H2O was when someone wrote to her and asked what H2O meant, but we will not go there. She is an expert on irrigation—she sprayed the people of Canterbury, all right. That is for sure.

I say this. When she talked about local authorities and experts who supported the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, she neglected to say, of course, firstly, that in the submission process there were 95 submissions. The Minister will know this backwards. There were 95 submissions, and five of those submissions supported the extension. Among the submitters cited by Ms Wagner was Ngāi Tahu, a credible organisation; then we had Local Government New Zealand—very grassroots, I would have thought, in Canterbury—and then we had those erstwhile bastions of non-political behaviour, Federated Farmers. One could argue that Federated Farmers have a real stake in proceedings given their penchant for irrigation, as we know.

But a fact that Ms Dean neglected to provide us with was that the Christchurch City Council—and we all know where Bob Parker’s allegiance lies. We all know he is a creature of this Government, and we all know that Gerry Brownlee regrets every day, as he heads for the 7-Eleven on the way home, actually creating that individual with the power he has. The Christchurch City Council, of course, on 22 September passed a resolution—I think it was unanimous; even Bob voted for it—to oppose this extension. It is true that some of those on the Christchurch City Council, as Ms Dean said, have articulated complaints about Environment Canterbury as it was before the commissioners moved in, but even the Christchurch City Council, in the end, opposed this extension.

I say to colleagues that what this extension is about is something very, very simple. We know in Canterbury that this Government does not want people standing up, whether they be business people—and remember it was business people who literally, but not in my time in Canterbury, crashed the barricades in the earthquake to get information because they were so frustrated at the lack of communication in Ms Wagner’s electorate. This Government does not want an election where people who may be elected to Environment Canterbury prior to the 2014 general election might stand up and become a vehicle to articulate the difficulties, and the hurts, and the opposition to many of the things that this Government is doing in Canterbury, not just around irrigation and those normal, generic Environment Canterbury activities.

The Government does not want a group of people elected who would get up and add to the opposition around schools, for instance. We see the Minister of Education there—that genius—and what she has done to Canterbury schools. An elected group of people might articulate against and oppose some of the Draconian measures that Gerry Brownlee has put in place, as he refuses to listen to people. Government members do not want an agency or a group of people elected who have a mandate and who could oppose their view.

Aaron Gilmore got sworn in today, so I am told. Aaron Gilmore, of course, old “Curly” in the corner, came up beaming like a Cheshire cat, like the young fellow who got the lollypop in the raffle. What we forget about dear old Aaron Gilmore, the genius from Christchurch who knows everything, is, of course, that he was part of the group in the National Government who broke their promise to the people of Canterbury. So I invite him as the newly sworn-in member to get up and tell us why it was that Nick Smith gave a cast-iron guarantee that there would not be an extension. He was part of that Government. I want Aaron Gilmore to explain why, when the Department of Internal Affairs recommended to the Minister a transitional provision—option 1, to transition to democracy—the Government ditched it. He was part of that. I invite him to front up, as he does occasionally on his Facebook page—and, oh, there is a story to tell there, but we will get to that another time. I invite him to front up on his Facebook page and tell the people of Canterbury, newly sworn-in as he is, why he broke that promise. [Bell rung]

💬 John Hayes: Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

It is all right, “Sir Les”; I have got the call. Thank you to John Hayes for providing a moment of jocularity within Parliament. We needed that. Your timing was excellent.

I invite Aaron Gilmore to go to the people of Canterbury and articulate that—articulate that. Actually, I ask the Government and I ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Courts—and maybe he could ask the Minister in charge of the bill—why it is that this Government does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to elect sound representatives from among their number to represent them and responsibly take part in the management of our province. Why is that? Would the Minister in the chair like to respond? Why is it that the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury to elect sound men and women from amongst their number to represent—[Interruption]; sorry, I am happy to let him go—and to lead the people of Canterbury and help manage our province.

The fact is that it does not. If it did, it would rescind this measure, it would burn this bill, and it would allow an election to take place on schedule as it promised—as Mr Hayes promised, as Jacqui Dean promised as part of the Government, and Nicky Wagner, “Curly”, and the others over there. They were part of a Government that promised the people of Canterbury—a cast-iron promise, as Nick Smith said—that they would be allowed to have an election.

If ever there was a time when we needed to restore democracy, it is now. The truth is we have dysfunction on the Christchurch City Council. We have a Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission who does a very good impression of a blunderbuss. He is not a conciliator. You will not solve the many conflicts around the world by making Gerry Brownlee an ambassador, I will tell you that. He is not a conciliator. He is not one who can bring people together.

💬 Andrew Williams: Finland.

No, not even in Finland—no, no, no. You will not see Gerry Brownlee being the diplomat. So you have a Christchurch City Council that has difficulties with the mayor and the chief executive officer, and there is dysfunction there. It is at odds with the Minister for earthquake recovery. If there was ever a time to bring some sanity back and some democracy, and allow Canterbury to elect people to represent it and have some balance, and maybe even allow those elected people to have their own view—and maybe that would oppose the Government; maybe there would be disagreement but the last time I checked, that was a healthy thing in a democracy—the time is now.

But, oh, no; these guys over here in Government want to listen to only those people who will sing their song. They want to listen to only people who will say “Yes, Minister. Yes, Minister.” Well, Hekia Parata has come on the wrong side of that.

💬 John Hayes: No, she hasn’t.

Oh, no she has not! Well, I just say to “Sir Les” to go down to Christchurch, go to Phillipstown School, talk to Tony Simpson or any of the principals who were told by the Minister at 4 o’clock yesterday that a 30 percent roll increase—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I am quite happy to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are not on this.

I am quite happy to—quite happy to.

💬 Hon Hekia Parata: That is so untrue. That is so untrue.

Well, the Minister of Education calls Tony Simpson a liar—the Minister calls Tony Simpson a liar. Let us get that on the record, because that is what Tony Simpson told me and the other people who were in the room. But the Minister calls Tony Simpson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have mentioned to the member to come back to the bill.

I am more than happy to, Mr Chairperson—more than happy to. So given you have these almost insurmountable—almost insurmountable—problems in Canterbury, surely it is time to unleash a bit of passion down there, and let people have a say. Let people have a say, let people have a vote, and let people elect men and women from amongst them to lead that province and be part of it. That is the bit that the Government does not get. We will have a world-class city and province in Canterbury if people are allowed to be part of that process—part of the rebuild not just of buildings but of their lives, of the social fabric, and of the key institutions like, for instance, Environment Canterbury.

But I find it interesting that the National Party, the sort of free-market, anything goes, live-and-let-live party, the so-called bastion of democracy, as its members would argue, is the one that came to the House today and put forward a bill that disallows people from having a vote and a say. It has made history in its party today with this piece of legislation, because it is barring people from a basic democratic right.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very happy to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 1 of this bill. In particular, I want to speak to the extension of the date that this bill is putting into place. I want to dwell on some of the comments and the arguments that we have heard from members opposite tonight, because they actually disturb me. They probably disturb me as much as the Law Society was disturbed at the breach of law that this piece of legislation was bringing to the people of Canterbury. I hurried back here tonight to speak on this bill after being at a rally for Christchurch schools where, I can report to members opposite, the Minister, and members from Christchurch, there is far from satisfaction, and this is all embedded.

I want to take people back to 19 September last year, 2012, when the people of Christchurch gathered to show their dissatisfaction with the extension of the rolling over of the Environment Canterbury elections from 2013 to 2016. What did they do? They gathered at the Bridge of Remembrance, and they had a very clear message. They did not want their vote taken away. They did not want their schools taken. In fact, they were asking for democracy all round. This was a very special day when they gathered to ask for this—this, of course, being Women’s Suffrage Day, a day when Christchurch can rightly be proud of its heritage in being a crucible of democracy in this country.

What did we have going on from the Government, the people who, ironically, are elected to represent us? It had the taking away of our votes. For the people of Christchurch this is galling. It is galling that their votes have been taken away. It is galling that their schools are being closed. It is galling they are not being listened to, and it is galling that they are being run roughshod over by this Government. When people gather in Christchurch at these rallies for democracy, which seem to happen at a regular pace, there are chants that go up—and they are reported in The Press—with people saying: “What do we want? Democracy. When do we want it? Now.” This is happening—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh no, don’t they say 2016?

No, they do not say 2016. They say they want it now. Labour is proud that we have given an undertaking that when we are elected in 2014 to be the Government, we will reinstate elections. It shocks me as a member of Parliament that I have to stand here and talk about reinstating elections in this country. It just beggars belief.

What have we heard from Jacqui Dean? Jacqui Dean talked about people coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee who were jacked up by various political parties to come and wail at the select committee. The arrogance shown by this member pretty much sums up why it is that tempers have boiled over at the select committee. This is the way the people of Canterbury, who came to tell the select committee that they did object to their votes being taken away and they did object to their democratic rights being taken away, are now described in this House, the House of Representatives of New Zealanders—as coming to have a wail to the select committee. This is up there with Gerry Brownlee describing the people of Christchurch as carpers and moaners, and telling them that they are just buggerising around on Facebook. This is unacceptable and shows no respect for the people of Canterbury. It shows no respect for the people of Christchurch. This is a Government that shows absolutely no respect for the people of Christchurch.

At one of these rallies for democracy I had the pleasure of meeting two of my constituents, who were objecting to the extension of this date from 2013 to 2016. This was a very special couple of constituents whom I met. In fact, it was a couple in their mid-80s. They live in Riccarton, and this was the first time in their entire lives that they had ever been on a protest. It was the first time in their lives that they had actually sought to, you know, actually make clear to a Government their view that they did not like what was going on, but they were so affronted that their right to vote was being taken away from them by a Government that was elected in this country. The fact that people in their mid-80s are having to take to the street to talk about their—

I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. A lot of the speeches we have heard tonight have come from MPs from Christchurch and from Canterbury, and that is as it should be. They are representing the people most directly affected. Nobody, however, must believe that this is just Christchurch’s problem. This is not just Canterbury’s problem. This is a problem—this bill and this extension of the denial of democracy—for every single New Zealander who believes in living in an open and transparent democracy, where people have a chance to select their representatives, to select the people who will make decisions on their behalf. That is what is being denied to people in Canterbury for another 3 years.

This is actually creating a second class of citizen in New Zealand. We will have first-class New Zealanders who have the right to elect their representatives, and we will continue to have second-class New Zealanders in Canterbury denied the right to elect their representatives at the regional level. In a few months’ time I will have the opportunity to vote for a mayor, for councillors, and for regional councillors. That is a right that Cantabrians deserve as well as anybody else.

Let us look at the chronology here. In April 2010 the Canterbury Regional Council, Environment Canterbury, was deemed to be dysfunctional. Let us just accept for the sake of the argument—which actually I do not and many others do not—that that council was dysfunctional. A Government that had the political will to enable democracy, to facilitate democracy, could, between April 2010 and October 2010, have enabled a legitimate and a democratic election of new regional councillors for Canterbury. It may have required legislation—I am not sure off the top of my head of the requirements in terms of the closure of nominations and all of those things. However, I am convinced that had a Government of the day come to this House, if necessary, to pass special legislation to enable democracy in Canterbury in 2010, that would have happened. It could have elected a new regional council and got on with the business of representing Cantabrians.

We have heard from the Government that the commissioners are doing a splendid job. It is the best thing since sliced bread, apparently. We are hearing that the extension is sensible and practical—the decision to deny democracy on the grounds of being sensible and practical. This is extraordinary from a Government that talks a great deal about choice, supported by the remnants of one of its support parties. “Choice” is a word it uses a great deal. Where is the choice in this decision? This is being imposed on people. Is it not interesting? A former Labour-led Government that occasionally made decisions to do things it believed to be in the best interests of people—from this side, and from this party now in Government, nanny State was its favourite—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into three bills, the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill without amendment, and progress on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.