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

I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I thought it might be important for people to recognise that the bill before the Committee amends the original Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which this Government passed only in 2010. People may remember that through the original Act of 2010 essentially this Government empowered itself to remove the elected members of Environment Canterbury, who were elected by the community at the time. This Government, under that Act, replaced those elected members by having seven Government-appointed commissioners. It also ought to be recognised that the reason that was argued by this Government in 2010 that gave rise to the original bill was that there were systemic and performance issues and concerns raised by Ngāi Tahu, in a report that was presented to this Government in February 2010 by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech. People might recall that the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech is a former member of the National Government under Jenny Shipley.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s right. Jenny Shipley from Mainzeal.

That is right. So that was the background to the bill that we now have—the original Act.

The bill before the Committee is to amend the original Act by—and there are a couple of issues that I suspect that people listening to the debate, particularly people in the area of Canterbury, will have some very, very serious concerns about. This bill now delays the election for Environment Canterbury until 2016 with a review occurring next year, despite the fact that the Government Minister then responsible for driving this bill, the Hon Nick Smith, had promised that the election would be held this year. I want to quote the Hon Dr Smith. His words: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” That was what was on the original bill. That 2013—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Say that again.

I will read it again for those members not listening to the quote. This is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I want to quote him, because these words are important, because in this House we live and die by the words that we use. So, as the Hon Dr Smith said: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.”

💬 Hon Member: When did he say that?

Well, that is right. The reference is to this year. This is when we are supposed to, according to the original Act, call elections for the people of Canterbury. But the bill that is before the Committee, again, introduced by only—[Interruption] The next election of regional councillors to Environment Canterbury’s governing body is to occur at the 2016 local authority elections. I put to you—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Never-never land.

Absolutely. Look, irrespective of concerns raised, irrespective of the issues that the mayors of the region have, is this the way that we do things in New Zealand? Is this the kind of New Zealand that we have—that if we are not happy with officials elected by the local community democratically, if we are not happy with their performance, we simply remove them? Is this how we are going to do things under this Government, by—

H V Ross Robertson: Dictatorship.

—dictating to the people? They were elected. They were elected by the community to do a job. Surely, rightly or wrongly, we should allow them to perform that job. But that is not so bad. The fact that a Minister of this Government promised that this year the people would be able to re-elect their representatives, and now the Government is saying: “No. That’s not going to happen. People of Canterbury, look, you’re just going to have to wait until 2016”—

💬 Darien Fenton: Tough luck.

Tough luck—absolutely.

So we looked at the bill. I have to say with the greatest respect to the new Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, I think he has been handed an absolute shocker of a bill. The whole essence of this bill denies democratic rights that his Government promised the people of Canterbury they would receive this year in this election. So while the rest of New Zealand will be happily going about campaigning to elect good men and women to represent them in various local governments throughout the country, the Government has decided: “No. People of Canterbury, you are not good enough to elect your own officials.” That is the kind of message this bill says.

I want to say that this is another broken promise by the John Key Government. Many will recall that in March 2010 Nick Smith was very clear when he said that “whatever the circumstances” the next Environment Canterbury election would be in 2013. That is just not going to happen, because the bill says that 2016 is when the election is. But there is to be a review next year. Now people are asking: “Well, what is that review about? If you are saying 2016, make it happen in 2016.” But I do not believe that the people of Canterbury will have any confidence whatsoever that this Government will keep its word. If it failed in keeping its word for 2013, and now it is saying “Yes, 2016, but we’ll run a review first in 2014”—

💬 Hon Member: Maybe 2019.

That is right.

I want to quote some submissions on this bill that were provided by some very significant individuals. I think it is important that the new Minister takes note. The Beckenham Neighbourhood Association opposes this bill. The community law centre of Canterbury opposes this bill, and it is recommending that the provisions relating to the cancellation of the 2013 election be removed. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand oppose this bill. They believe that this bill will erode not only local communities’ right to elect their own but also their right to be able to take up issues with the Environment Court, because the bill is saying that they can take redress only on matters of point of law. Well, I think that if the new Minister would talk to the community law centre in Canterbury, it would be well worth his time.

The officials’ advice, as I read, says that the bill does not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but a submission from the Human Rights Commission shows concern about the Act. It says that the way in which it was originally enacted, and the intention to extend it, contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I do not know how the new Minister views the officials’ advice, the actions of former colleagues, and how the people of Canterbury will receive this bill, but I want to say that the essence of what the community is saying is that it opposes the thrust and advance by this Government to continue postponing its democratic right to elect its local government representatives. I believe that the new Minister, who hails from the Hastings area and has a good relationship with local government, would have heard from local government there that there is no way they would accept him saying in respect of their issues of performance that the Government was going to appoint commissioners and replace elected officials. I would ask on what basis the Minister has decided to ram-shot this bill—[Interruption] Well, yes—ram it.

💬 Hon Member: What do you mean, ram it?

Well, because the Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their right to choose. The Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their freedom to be able to elect their own representatives. The Minister is not giving them a choice whatsoever.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been listening to the debate on the Committee stage of the this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, over the last few days—and for a few minutes tonight—and I have been moved to take a call. The reason I have been moved to take a call is that I come from Auckland, and I obviously have some—[Interruption] I am sorry; I apologise for that. But I know that in Auckland people would be rioting in the streets right now if this kind of provision was being put forward. I know we had Rodney Hide’s little adventure with the amalgamation of Auckland, and there was quite a lot of rioting at local level. But at the same time, what I think has happened here, from what I can see from a distance, is that the people of Canterbury are being taken advantage of. The earthquake has become an excuse for ditching democracy.

I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in the new Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain. Chris Tremain and I came into Parliament together, and I had high hopes for the integrity of that Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

However, to be fair, Mr Chair, I do think he has been handed something that no incoming Minister of Local Government would want to have to deal with. He has certainly been handed the short straw, particularly given the promises of previous Ministers, such as the Hon Nick Smith, who promised in 2010 that, whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury would take place no later than the elections scheduled for late 2013. I would like to hear from the Minister who is now in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, what the explanation is for the delay. Has he been back and spoken to the former Minister and said: “You made that promise.”? How does he justify taking away the right of the people of Canterbury to choose the people who lead them, particularly in the circumstances of Christchurch? We have seen dreadful earthquakes in Christchurch and we have seen the people of Canterbury trying to bring themselves together and having to put up with the imposition and the arrogance we are seeing from Wellington about the Christchurch rebuild. People who say anything opposing the Government’s will about the Christchurch rebuild actually get criticised. They are told that they are carping and being a bit of a nuisance—a bit of a nuisance.

I think that is what this bill is about, actually. The people of Canterbury are seen as a nuisance. They are seen as a nuisance and that is what this bill is about. It is about a bunch of people in Canterbury who are a nuisance to the Government and who have been completely disregarded. So those people who are a nuisance do not deserve the right to vote in the people who will represent them!

This year, as my colleague Su’a William Sio pointed out, we will be having local body elections up and down the country. We will be having them in Auckland. We are going to have a fantastic election in Auckland. We are looking forward to that. People will be coming together and talking about what it is that they want for their city. They will be talking about what it is they want for their region. They will be talking about the issues that are important to them, and they will be making democratic decisions and deciding whom they are going to vote for, but what this bill does is deny those rights to the people of Canterbury. It is another broken promise—another broken promise—that we have seen from John Key’s Government.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: An outright lie.

In fact, it is an outright lie, as my colleague says. Of course, as we know, John Key should have listened when the Hon Nick Smith made that promise. However, how many promises have we heard? How many promises have we heard from this Government? How many promises have been broken?

I was also moved to speak on this bill, because I heard that there were 95 submissions on this bill, and, of those, 90 were opposed.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I am always suspicious when we have loaded titles of legislation. It is a bit like Operation Enduring Freedom, which we had under President George Bush. We have got the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and when you hear a Government use a self-congratulatory title like that, you do wonder what is going on.

Well, the real effect of the Government’s actions in respect of this legislation has to be put alongside other legislation. This Government has neutered the freshwater policy statement that came out of Judge Sheppard and went through the Land and Water Forum. The Land and Water Forum came up with a consensual solution that was pretty close to where Judge Sheppard and his panel had got to. The Government then responded to behind-the-door pressure and undermined that. We have had this legislation undermining water conservation orders in the Canterbury area. Everywhere else in New Zealand, except in Canterbury, water conservation orders bind the regional council. They can be changed only through a process that ends up in the Environment Court after the Minister has had a say as to whether the amendment application should be heard, but it cannot be done by a regional council just saying: “Oh, look, we’ve changed our mind. We actually think that way back when, when New Zealand tried to protect a river like the Rākaia River”—they want to change it. But, you know, that is the effect of this legislation. It overrides water conservation orders, which is another thing that threatens water quality and water quantity in Christchurch.

And that is why I am not surprised to see some of the media criticisms of this legislation, particularly in respect of Part 1, saying that one of the background factors to this is not actually the better outcome for the planning of water in Canterbury; it is actually irrigation outcomes that the Government wants to achieve, perhaps through changing provisions in water conservation orders and also through its ill-considered subsidies that are coming from the taxpayer dollar to irrigation schemes, which are effectively increasing the capital value of farms at the cost of taxpayers. So those two factors alone make it a nonsense to call this the improved water management bill.

It is also, I think, an indictment on the poor processes of this Government that it could come to this Parliament 3 years ago and take the Draconian step that it did then, and promise that 3 years later, which sounded like a long time at the time, it would have elections. Here we go, in 2013, and it is saying that we are not now going to have elections. It promised them in 2010; now it is extending them until 2016.

What about the old principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Because that is what rates are, effectively. They are a form of taxation, and ratepayers are forced to pay under threat of their properties being sold if they do not pay their rates. You should have representation. You should have local representation. There is no good reason that we have heard from the Government to justify the extension of these commissioners in Canterbury, who have taken over the proper role of the regional council for an additional 3 years—no good reason whatsoever.

I wonder also whether it is related to the Government’s intentions to ram through, if it can, the abolition of regional councils just about everywhere, moving towards unitary authorities, which might be a good idea for a big city like Auckland, but which I am not convinced is the answer for the rest of New Zealand, yet the Government seems to be pushing forward on that trajectory. So I would like the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries, to take a call and answer the criticisms that I have made and that have been made by submitters on the bill, such as the Fish and Game Council, amongst others, who criticised this process; the Human Rights Commission; and local voters in the Canterbury region who are sad or annoyed that they have lost their rights.

The Human Rights Commission submission said: “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 legislation - is an abuse of the democratic process …”. They are very strong words from the human rights commissioner—very strong words, indeed. I will say that again: it is an abuse of the democratic process. Then the submission goes on and says: “and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians (and could even do real harm).”

I move, That the question be now put.