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

As we embark on the debate on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, many of the points that were made in the debate on Part 1 about this being a unique piece of legislation in terms of the loss of democratic process apply equally to this part.

The question that I would like to ask the Minister is that I note in new section 17A(1) inserted by clause 5 that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014. (2) The review must cover—(a) the governance structure of ECan; and (b) the membership of ECan; and (c) ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” I would like to just ask the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Primary Industries—because I do not think we have had an answer to this question throughout this entire debate—about the notion put up that the Government somehow has some sort of support or mandate for this legislation. I think Nicky Wagner, as she was polling her electorate about how unpopular she has become in terms of the Phillipstown School issues and this particular legislation, tried to make a claim that there was overwhelming support in Canterbury for not only Part 1 but Part 2. We know that in terms of the evidence given to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were five submissions in favour and 90 submissions opposed. She forgot about that little detail in her various dissertations.

But I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that there is widespread support in the community, apart from the National Party in gumboots—Federated Farmers—apart from Ngāi Tahu, and apart from Local Government New Zealand. Apart from Ngāi Tahu, those other two organisations are not grassroots, widespread representation of Canterbury. Where is the support and the mandate for this legislation? There is none. Not one speaker from the National Government—not Ms Wagner, not “Curly”, nor any of the others—has managed to get up—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes, that is entirely—the member will withdraw that comment.

How do you know it was directed at him?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will withdraw the comment.

I withdraw. Not Aaron Gilmore—sorry, that is just clarification for those who are listening tonight. We sucked him out of the pack like the old ace in the pack of cards. He woke up. Not Aaron Gilmore, who promised that there would be Environment Canterbury elections on time—

💬 Nicky Wagner: He got here. At least he’s got here.

Oh, they are all awake now, including the clucker over there from Christchurch Central. All the low-altitude flyers on that side promised there would be elections on schedule, and then they broke that promise. I would like one of them to get up. I would like the low-altitude flyer over there who has just come back into Parliament, Mr Gilmore—or Ms Wagner, or others—to get up and make one attempt to explain to the people why he feels that National has a mandate to put through this legislation. Would the member like to answer the question now? Oh no, silence. He was quick to take a point of order about such things as haircuts, but, apart from that, no—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: The member likes—

If he has got something to say, would the member like to answer the question? Could the member get up now—and I would be happy to yield to him—and answer where he believes his Government has a mandate to put this legislation through? Does he have a mandate or not? Is there an explanation?

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Say something sensible.

Oh, “Say something sensible.” So that member does not believe that he requires a mandate, or public support, to put through a measure that effectively cauterises the democratic rights of people in the province in which he has resided now and again over the last 2 or 3 years. I will ask him again: where is the mandate for that?

💬 Aaron Gilmore: It’s called election day.

Oh no, “It’s called an election.” That member does not get the legislation. Look, I have to say it is only three pages long, so try reading it. It cancels an election—it cancels an election. Does that low-altitude flyer now residing back in Canterbury not actually get it? He does not read the bill. He does not have a mandate. He says that that is a silly concept to put forward. He says: “Say something sensible. Stop calling for a mandate.” And now, for some reason, he believes that there was an election, when he cancelled it. Well, I have to say that the man who once claimed that he had cheated me in the MBA programme at Canterbury University, when he was not even there—I mean, his CV is growing by the day—this boy is really good. Maybe he should do a political science class and work out what an election is. What a fool!

I say to that member and to all those members opposite that as the Ministers, under Part 2, actually go on to review Environment Canterbury, I wonder whether they will take public submissions for that review. I wonder whether they will actually want to hear from the public, who by that stage, if this legislation is passed, will have lost their democratic rights for two election periods of time. I wonder whether they will allow people to come and say to the National Government: “Why is it you broke your cast-iron promise? Why is it Nick Smith said the following: ‘I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners”—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder whether they will allow public submissions on this ministerial review, so that people can ask why it was that the then Minister of Local Government, or Cabinet Minister—and he still is now—Nick Smith, said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013.” We have not had the Minister—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s this year.

That is this year—that is right. In case Aaron Gilmore missed it—the lunar calendar prevails—that is this year, 2013. He has probably got a degree in astroscience as well, tacked on to—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: He wrote the first one.

He probably did—he probably did. He probably did, indeed.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: The Gilmore calendar.

Yes, absolutely. So I wonder whether the Ministers will take submissions. Not one Minister in the chair, not the Minister of Local Government or his stand-in, or any member—including the Canterbury members, and I do not count Mr Gilmore as one; he is the fly-in, fly-out member now and again—not one of those members has stood up and provided justification for this legislation. They have not even got up and defended Nick Smith for breaking his promise—and all the other Cabinet Ministers—because it is utterly indefensible.

I would like to know from the Minister whether, in this great review that Ministers will undertake on 1 March 2014 covering governance, membership, and powers and functions, they will be taking public submissions. Hang on, the empty tin is rattling. Will they be taking public submissions? Oh, silence. They do not know—do not know. Mr Gilmore is hiding under the desk. I am sure he has got the answer. Will they be taking public submissions? I invite a Minister to get up and actually answer that question. I think, after being done over, as the people of Canterbury have, and after being lied to—lied to—as the people of Canterbury have, they deserve to know whether they will actually have a say and a part in that review. It will have been so long that they may forget what the vote is, given that it has been taken away from them.

It will be interesting in the Christchurch local body elections to see whether the venom is released from people who disagree with this measure, because there is widespread opposition to this. Not one member of Parliament—I will give Nicky Wagner some credit. She did get up and say that, as I said, Federated Farmers, Local Government New Zealand, and Ngāi Tahu had said it was a great thing. There were two other submissions in support of it, but she could not remember those.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: The irrigators.

The irrigators. But she forgot that 90 of the 95 submissions were against it. But she in her little world, orbiting in the same stratosphere as Mr Gilmore does from time to time, believes that the Government has widespread support. But I ask Mr Gilmore again: can he point to that support? Can he point to a mandate, given that he is the fresh-faced little boy who won the lollipop raffle and got back into Parliament? You know, he won the lollipop raffle, got an extra packet of jellybeans, and bounced back in here on the taxpayers’ purse. He should do his job tonight. He should get on his feet and he should actually answer some questions as a Government member. He should not just sit there vegetating and doing nothing.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Talk to the bill, Clayton.

Talk to the bill! Well, the bill is actually about you, Mr Gilmore, and your ilk taking away the rights of the people of Canterbury. That is actually what it is about. I will say again that it is only three pages, the print is probably big enough, and there are not too many big words in it—apart from taking away elections—and he might want to read it. So I say earn your $150,000, Mr Gilmore. Stand up tonight as the newly minted member from somewhere, actually answer some questions, and answer the questions as to where the mandate is, where the public support for this bill is, and why you—and every member of your Government, through you—broke your promise. Oh, hang on. The genius is silent on that. He does not have an answer, or, I suspect—more accurately—he knows the truth. It is in writing, it is on the record of the House, and there is absolutely no defence and no justification for his actions or those of anybody else.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the next general election when he pokes his head out of whatever burrow geographically he puts himself in—when he pokes his head out of a particular burrow and puts his head up for election—and is asked on the stump why he did this. The next general election, of course, will be right in the middle of the next period when Cantabrians are experiencing a lack of democracy at the regional government level. It will be interesting. I wonder whether Nicky Wagner in her recent poll of Christchurch Central asked about the Environment Canterbury issue. If she did, why does she not release the poll results?

This Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill deals with a review of the powers and functions of Environment Canterbury under Part 3 of the principal Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. That part of the principal Act deals with water conservation orders. In the Green Party’s view, there would be no need for the review of water conservation orders in 2014 if the Government was committed to doing something now. It should be committed to doing something now, because in Canterbury we have a legal situation with water conservation orders where the provisions that apply under the Resource Management Act in Canterbury are quite different from anywhere else in New Zealand. The purpose of water conservation orders outside of Canterbury is “to recognise and sustain outstanding amenity or intrinsic values, and to preserve, as far as possible in its natural state, any water body that is considered outstanding”, and to protect habitat, fisheries, recreational, scientific, ecological, and other characteristics of a river or lake that is considered to be outstanding. Yet in Canterbury that does not apply. Those provisions have been substantially weakened by the principal Act, and when officials’ advice was that there was no justification for continuing this different regime in Canterbury, why does the bill continue it? Why does the bill not repeal that? When we were debating Part 1, I challenged the Minister of Local Government to answer the question as to why Ministers have decided to go against the advice of officials, and I repeat that challenge. It is not legally good practice to have two different regimes applying in different parts of the country.

New Zealanders love our wild and scenic rivers. They love rivers like the Rākaia and the Ahuriri, which are protected by water conservation orders. They are an important part of our way of life and our identity, and they are places for people to enjoy recreationally. When we are losing wild and scenic rivers, internationally and in New Zealand, because they have been channelised with stopbanks for flood protection purposes, and they are being taken for irrigation to turn fields green, it is really important that we protect the rivers that remain. This bill certainly repeals the references to the Hurunui River water conservation order, and that is because Fish and Game withdrew its application for a water conservation order to protect and preserve that river, because it recognised that it would not be of much value, given the weakened provisions that apply. There have been no other applications for water conservation orders since the principal Act was passed.

The bill should reinstate Part 9 of the Resource Management Act, which applies elsewhere in New Zealand. Because it does not, it means that we are not getting the protection that some of our Canterbury rivers deserve. In 2010 I rafted the Clarence River. That is a multi-day rafting trip on one of the most scenic and enjoyable grade 2 and 3 rafting rivers in New Zealand. The river starts at Lake Tennyson. People start rafting near the Acheron homestead, and the river is nature’s own highway. It goes through the tawny tussock lands of Molesworth Station, through the Clarence Reserve, and down that fault line between the inward and seaward Kaikōuras. The Clarence River deserves to be protected by a water conservation order because it is one of our outstanding rivers. Yet because the south bank is in Canterbury, and the weakened provisions in the principal Act would apply, why would the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Fish and Game apply to protect that river?

We have seen no progress on protecting our outstanding wild and scenic rivers under this Government. We had two major reports on water conservation orders by the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment last year, recommending greater attention and expansion of the ways in which water conservation orders work and their application to the land in the catchment. Yet what has this Government done? Absolutely nothing. That is because this Government does not care about our rivers, except as a source of irrigation and to generate hydro power. It has had the opportunity to repeal those sections in the principal Act, and, as Fish and Game said, that would be a demonstrable example of good faith in restoring the law in Canterbury as it prevails elsewhere in the country, yet the Minister has failed to take that opportunity, the Government has failed, and there has been no explanation from Ministers on the Government benches as to why it has rejected that advice, when it would be a sign—

I would like to acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from my fellow Canterbury MP Eugenie Sage. Hearing her talk with such expertise and knowledge about water and conservation in Canterbury, one wonders why she was sacked as a regional councillor by the National Government, and why it is we are here debating this motion tonight. I want to talk to clause 5 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and pick on a clause that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove spoke to around the timetable for the review that will be carried out in March 2014. To reiterate some of the questions that my colleague asked on that, we would like the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, to take a call and let us know whether the public will have input into this review in 2014. Will this be another chance for Cantabrians to try to have their voices heard? They can beat their heads against a wall, because they overwhelmingly submitted against the piece of legislation we are debating here tonight. I think we have heard that over and over again. Fundamentally, this is a Government that does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. This is a Government that does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to make the best decisions for their province. We want to know whether they will have a chance to have another say on this in 2014.

One wonders what form this review will take in 2014. When you go through the number of submissions that were heard and what this Government—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: 95.

There were 95 submissions, 90 of which were opposed. Then you look at the regulatory impact statement to this piece of legislation and you see all the advice. Not only was the commissioner saying “For goodness’ sake, return to some form of democracy in Canterbury.” but you have advice from numerous organisations. Treasury gave advice that, actually, a transitional arrangement was preferable. We have the Canterbury Mayoral Forum—which this Government actually likes to hide behind and say that it was asked by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum to do it—quoted in the regulatory impact statement as saying that it would like to see a return to at least a transitional arrangement. This is a Government that is ignoring the views of Cantabrians.

As we have heard most expertly from my Canterbury colleague Eugenie Sage, there are a couple of things that lie beneath this. One is the need for National to deliver on irrigation. It is not that the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury; it is that it did not like the elected council, because it would not let the Government do what it wanted to and to deliver on its election promises around irrigation. So, hey presto, here is a solution: cancel the elections and appoint some people to get through what you want, your political agenda. It is truly shocking that we are standing here debating a piece of legislation that is about the cancellation of elections in pursuit of a political agenda by a political party.

Also lurking beneath this legislation is the Government’s desire to explore the notion of a unitary authority for Canterbury. We have the Government making noises in this direction. We have seen this happen in Auckland. It is not going to work in Canterbury.

💬 Nicky Wagner: How do you know?

Nicky Wagner, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, asks me how I know. Sorry, Ms Wagner, I will tell you why it will not work. It will not work, because it has been tried before. It was called the Canterbury Provincial Government, and the very reason that the provincial government had to be abolished in 1876, the very same tensions that existed, mean that a unitary authority that brings together the city of Christchurch and the city of Timaru and tries to put these competing interests together—you can sit there and laugh, Ms Wagner, but I regret to inform you that those very same tensions are there. If you hold a review and you let public submissions be heard in 2014, you may just find that out. The very competing interest about the economic agendas of the two parts of the province will come to the fore again.

This has been tried before, and we can see—[Interruption] I would like Ms Wagner, rather than sitting in her chair and sniggering, to take a call and tell us whether the people of Christchurch will have a chance to have their voices heard in March 2014, why it is that she thinks a unitary authority—which she was very quick to defend with her interjections, I would like to note—will work, and whether she would like to tell us that this really is the Government’s agenda. We know that water and irrigation are one of its agendas, and we are hearing very much here that, actually, the unitary authority—what we were saying is lurking beneath—seems to be coming to the surface a little bit more in the Chamber tonight. So, Ms Wagner, we welcome your taking a call and explaining to us on this—

💬 Nicky Wagner: Mr Chair.

Are you seeking a call to explain this, Ms Wagner?

💬 Nicky Wagner: Yes. Mr Chair.

No, you are welcome to take a call after me, and we look forward to answers on this. We have put forward a range of reasons why we oppose this bill. You cannot get more fundamental than standing in a House of Representatives and saying that we oppose this bill because it is taking away the right of Cantabrians to elect their members. National knows that this bill is not popular, and that is why the chair of the select committee, Ms Wagner, is polling her own electorate at the moment. She knows that this, in combination with her failure to protect Phillipstown School, has done her some damage, because the people of Canterbury do not support this legislation. The people of Canterbury do not want their vote cancelled yet again. They have had it done once, and they certainly do not want it done again.

There is a moral obligation on this Government, as elected representatives themselves, to restore democracy to Canterbury. Labour will return it to an elected regional council after we are elected in 2014, because that is the right and proper way. To hide behind notions of the earthquake—well, actually, earthquakes do not stop you voting. I would like you to point to other parts of the world when you take your call—which we are awaiting with great anticipation—where it was necessary to cancel elections after a disaster, because I did notice that in the select committee report on the legislation the earthquakes are used as a justification for the extension, yet again, of the denial of Cantabrians’ right to vote. So we welcome hearing the select committee chair’s view on that.

Labour opposes this legislation, quite simply because it is wrong to deny people their democratic rights, but we do welcome, and await with anticipation, a call from Ms Wagner where she will answer the questions we have put forward in the Committee tonight. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to speak to this bill today, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and particularly to talk about Part 2, because Part 2 focuses on the ministerial review that must be heard before 1 March 2014.

In this bill it is quite clear what that ministerial review will cover. First of all, it covers the governance structure of Environment Canterbury. This means we can have a discussion about that governance structure, and it has been interesting to hear the discussion here tonight. It is an open discussion that can be had by the people of Canterbury. The bill also discusses the membership of Environment Canterbury and Environment Canterbury’s powers and functions.

It was particularly interesting listening to Mr Clayton Cosgrove about the submissions on this bill. There were only three submissions on this part of the bill, and those three submissions all supported the idea of a review, so we had three submissions in support of this part of the bill. The inclusion of clause 5 reflects the intention to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to democracy and to identify the best long-term governance solutions for the Canterbury region. The bill did not seek to specify the process, so that process will have to be worked through, or to limit its scope, but you can be assured that the review will be comprehensive.

So I think what we have been discussing tonight in Part 2 is the importance of this review, the fact that it will be held by 1 March 2014, and the fact that it will be comprehensive. I commend this bill to the Committee.

Was it not very interesting, hearing that from Nicky Wagner, the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who obviously does not understand the process of submissions in that she misled, in a sense, the people of New Zealand listening tonight by saying that only three people submitted on Part 2? Well, the average New Zealander does not submit to something on the basis of parts of a bill, Ms Wagner. The average New Zealander—if you know anything about democracy—simply gets told about a bill and they simply submit on a bill. They do not submit on parts of a bill. Only those who are very, very knowledgable about legislation will submit on a part of a bill. So that was extremely misleading.

But it is understandable because this Government has commented on the five submitters who supported the overall bill and has ignored the 90 others, out of the 95 submitters, who opposed the bill. So, typically, it makes note of Federated Farmers, it makes note of Business New Zealand, and it makes note of its cronies and mates who support it, but it ignores the other 90 because that is not convenient. It was very interesting sitting around that committee table—in Christchurch, as well—hearing how the National Party members gave lip-service to many of the submitters. They patronised them. In the case of the Hon Nick Smith, a young 14-year-old submitted to the bill—a 14-year-old—and the Hon Nick Smith said to him: “Why should we be listening to you when you can’t even vote? You’re not even eligible to vote.” It was shocking.

💬 Nicky Wagner: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to point out that the Hon Nick Smith—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no. [Interruption] Order! No, that is a debatable point. It is not for me to judge the validity of comments made. They are debatable points. Members wanting to disagree can take another call.

So in this regard, let us just remind the National Party that after the next general election, when there is a new Government, there will be local body elections in Canterbury. The Labour Party has said that, New Zealand First has said that, and the Green Party has said that. There will be elections in Canterbury, for all of Canterbury, for all elements of local government in Canterbury, after the next general election. We will ensure that that happens. Any Cantabrians listening to this tonight need to remember that with a change of Government there will be elections in Canterbury.

Can I also remind the people sitting on the other benches over there—the people sitting there smirking, who smirked through the submissions at the select committee—that they sit on a very, very slim majority in some cases. We are talking about democracy here. We are talking about election to local government, but I will remind the member Nicky Wagner, for instance, who is sitting on 12,064 votes, up against Brendon Burns on 12,017 votes, that she is sitting on a very slim majority and that majority will not be there in 18 months’ time if she continues with it. I will remind “Curly-tops” over to the right—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Oh, sorry—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, do not say “sorry”. We have already had a caution on this. If any member is going to breach my rulings, their speech will be terminated. The member will withdraw his comment immediately.

I am sorry. I withdraw, Mr Chairman. I do not know the gentleman himself, but I was just referring to a former comment about that individual. But in terms of Mr Aaron Gilmore, I will remind him that he got 10,225 votes and lost to Lianne Dalziel, who got 15,559. At the same time during the same election—and we were going for only the party vote—New Zealand First got 1,801. So in terms of Christchurch East—which the Prime Minister descended on in a helicopter and visited only by helicopter; he thought that was sufficient to go and visit the Christchurch suburbs—you are dog tucker in terms of Christchurch East. Your party is dog tucker. You are gone—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! You must not bring the Chair into the debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You are certainly not dog tucker—nothing like the sort. I would never ever think of you as dog tucker—do not ever think that.

Thirdly, the Port Hills. We have now the Speaker of the House, David Carter, who got 12,640 votes and lost to the Hon Ruth Dyson, with 15,737 votes. Lost again—another electorate lost again—and in that electorate New Zealand First got 1,609 party votes. I am reminding the National Party, you will be gone—

Order! The speech is terminated. I have cautioned the member.

I would have thought, Mr Chairman, that the debate on Part 2, which is the more substantive part of the bill, is a debate that is probably overarching, and probably you will hear quite robust discussions from this side of the Chamber. So when my colleague there who spoke just then, the member Andrew Williams, talked about dog tucker, it reminded me of a saying that the farmers will appreciate, and that is it does not matter how much perfume you pour on pig kaka, it stinks. It still stinks. That is really how many people whom I have heard from refer to this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and the way this Government is treating the members of the public, particularly the people of Canterbury.

The substantive part, Part 2, essentially removes the promise, breaks the promise that the Government made that elections would be this year, 2013. It is now saying elections will take place in 2016. This part of the bill also establishes this review in 2014. The question being asked by my colleagues Dr Megan Woods and Clayton Cosgrove as to whether there would be public consultation for that review is an important question that needs to be addressed. I would hope that the Minister of Local Government—any Minister—will confirm whether there is public consultation on this. I will tell you why. Whatever the case behind this bill, the people of Canterbury have told the Local Government and Environment Committee that there is no justification for cancelling their elections. As ratepayers, Canterbury residents deserve a say in who represents them and makes decisions on their behalf. The people of Canterbury feel strongly that this is a basic right. This has been backed up by numerous submissions. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, submitted that “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.” I have to say that residents have been outraged over their treatment. Time after time this Government either fails to act for them—to consult or listen to them—or overrides their rights for the Government’s goals.

If there is any doubt about the passion of the people of Canterbury, I refer you to 19 September 2012. The day after the first reading of this bill there was a protest at the Bridge of Remembrance in Christchurch against the axing or merging of 31 local schools and the decision to delay the Environment Canterbury elections till 2016, and the perceived loss of democracy in that city—that entire city. If you do not believe that, I refer you to 27 September 2012. The Christchurch City Council voted overwhelmingly to express its opposition to the move and to seek a meeting with the Minister to ask why the elections were postponed. On 12 December a 1,000-strong crowd rallied in Latimer Square, calling for a return to democracy. Those are just examples of how the people of Canterbury are saying to this Government: “We want our democracy back.” The Government does not have the right to remove the basic rights that these people are entitled to.

I am going to ask the question: will the Minister confirm whether there will be public consultation in terms of the review? I tell you that this is so important. If there is silence from that side of the Chamber, then I am going to refer this Committee to the regulatory impact statement. It says: “We recognise that there has not been a Crown led public consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and communities on the options in the RIS … In our view, it would be appropriate for further specific consultation to be undertaken …”. Here are the authors of the regulatory impact statement identifying that there has been no public consultation prior to this bill being introduced. If there is silence, and this Government will not confirm one way or the other that it is its intention to consult with the public over the review in 2014, then the message will remain with the people of Canterbury and the general public that it does not intend to do so, despite the rhetoric from some on that side of the Chamber.

I think it is important because despite an earlier comment from that side of the Chamber—I agree with Mr Andrew Williams—overwhelmingly the submissions made by the public on this bill have been a general no, a general vote against this bill. Let me quote some of the names. I think this is important. Adam Brasell votes against this bill. He says: “The removal of voting rights and democratic procedures …” is wrong. “The taxation of Canterbury residents without representation.” is something that they are up in arms about. Alan MacRae opposes the bill. Angela McPherson opposes the bill. She believes that the Government’s plan for Canterbury is a “takeover of governance and resources.” Annette and Michael Hamblett oppose the elections being delayed until 2016, concerned that the bill will continue to undermine water conservation orders. Chrys Horn opposes the bill. Cliff Mason opposes the bill. Dirk De Lu opposes the bill. Dr Bronwyn Hayward opposes the bill. Edward Snowdon opposes the bill. Elsie Edgerton-Till opposes the bill. George Moon opposes the bill. Helen Elizabeth Lowe opposes the bill. James Adams opposes the bill.

What I am pointing out is that these are real people in Canterbury who are opposed to what this Government is proposing. I have heard tonight that the Government intends to do consultation on this review, but we on this side of the Chamber are asking whether the Minister will confirm one way or another that the people of Canterbury will be consulted in the review that this bill introduces. If it will consult with them, then it needs to tell us tonight whether that is going to be the case. I tell you why: if the Government does not say one way or the other tonight, then the people of Canterbury are left with what is in the regulatory impact statement, where it says that the public were not consulted. They should have been consulted, particularly when this Government breaks a promise. This year is 2013. At the end of this year New Zealand will conduct the election of our local body representatives, except for Canterbury. Canterbury people expected to elect their own representatives. It is not right, and I point out that in this particular section that we are talking about tonight not only is the Government removing elected representatives, but it then goes ahead and pays the unelected representatives from the rates of the people of Canterbury, who have not had a say about who their representatives are.

So it is really very, very important that the Government be quite clear: is it going to consult with the people of Canterbury over this bill and the proposed review or not? It is a simple question. I am hopeful that the new Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government, will take up the reins. As I have said before, I have listed off names of individuals who have taken the time to come before the select committee and oppose this particular bill. I think the least that this Government can do is to invite those people to come forward and talk about why it is that they oppose the change, the postponement of the election that this Government is proposing. It is a simple fact. If the Government is going to use taxpayer money to pay for certain individuals to run a city, it is the right of the people paying taxes to be able to elect those representatives. That is not the Government’s right. I pose the question again: is this the kind of future that we are looking towards under this Government—that any time you dislike the people’s representative, you remove them?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Chuck them out.

Absolutely—you chuck them out. Is that the kind—

💬 Hon Member: Is this Fiji?

Absolutely.

💬 Hon Member: Bainimarama.

Is this the Bainimarama culture that has been brought in? Is this Government just too close to Frank Bainimarama that that is the sort of thing that we can foresee in the future? If it is, I tell you: the people of Canterbury will vote this Government out.

I would like to speak to Part 2 of this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and I would like to focus on clause 5, which provides for the proposed review of the governance structure, membership, and powers and functions of Environment Canterbury. Like others before me, I have the same questions around public participation, and about whether the public will be genuinely involved in this process of the review or will they continue to be, as they have already been, sidelined, marginalised, and disempowered. I also have questions around the transparency of the process. Will the process be transparent? Will we understand and get to see the reasoning and rationale for the decisions that they have come up with, the factors that have been involved and weighed upon in making any decisions? I also would like to know how consistent, in particular, the powers will be for the new Environment Canterbury, when we get the council back, compared with other regional governance powers. This is particularly important in relation not only to water conservation orders but also to powers relating to the management of our environment.

I would like to talk a little bit about water conservation orders. Along with other protection mechanisms such as national parks and ecological areas, water conservation orders represent a kind of bedrock of the foundation of sustainability in setting aside areas that are so high in conservation and ecological value that they can be protected for all time. I know people who put in an enormous amount of time and energy to ensure that the best possible water conservation orders or national parks are established, and I know the lengths that some people who are passionate about the rivers and protecting the rivers will go to. I know a couple who actually sold their only boat. They live in a very modest cottage. They had a boat to go boating on the Rākaia River, but they cared about the Rākaia River so much that they sold their boat in order to help fund the putting together of a water conservation order to protect that river. These people are absolutely heartbroken that, as you know, the Rākaia River water conservation order is being weakened, and that has come about through the different powers that have been given to Environment Canterbury under the original legislation and that continue to be extended.

The problem with constantly betraying the kind of social contract that we have with people, and with conservationists who are wanting to protect the environment, is that it is just not sustainable for people who care about the environment to constantly fight these battles. You think you have gained protection for a river and then discover, 10 years down the track, that what you have worked so hard for to protect that river is no longer applicable. When we are looking at the review of Environment Canterbury’s powers, for goodness’ sake, I hope that we can come to some kind of national agreement around the status of water conservation orders so that we have a consistent process and a consistent status, so that people know exactly what kind of protection they are investing their time and energy into to gain protection for these rivers, because if they are being constantly eroded, ultimately you cannot have a sustainable economy to protect the environment without these factors in place.

The other thing that I am really concerned about and have found extremely difficult—and I mentioned it in the debate on Part 1—is this continuous justification of using the earthquake to justify both the removal of democracy and, indeed, the extension of the powers of Environment Canterbury. There is just no way on earth that you can use the earthquake to justify those outcomes. As I said, after the earthquake, there were some people who went around and broke into people’s homes under the cover of the earthquake. They were highly condemned by the public when they were brought before the courts, and rightly so, and—[Bell rung]—it is the same kind of thinking that is allowing the continuing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Does the member wish to continue?

I will finish now. Thank you.

I am delighted to take a call on this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, which raises some serious concerns for this side of the Chamber about the Government’s commitment to democracy. I am disappointed not to hear too many contributions from the Government side of the Chamber defending it and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Immigration, shortly, who I am sure has a valuable contribution to make on this matter—it is certainly the case that good heads in the south need to be giving this consideration and feeding back just why it is that this decision cannot be taken sooner, why full democracy cannot be restored to the people of Canterbury sooner, and why Nick Smith’s promises to make sure that the council elections in Canterbury will take place in late 2013 are not going to be honoured.

It is a disgrace. It is another broken promise by this Government. It is a Government that talked about, in its early days, having higher standards. It talked about a brighter future. How that language has disappeared from the vocabulary. How it has disappeared from the vocabulary.

💬 Tim Macindoe: And we have delivered. We have delivered.

We are hearing from the other side that it has been delivered, so I would ask the people of New Zealand to judge whether they think that this has been delivered, whether they think a brighter future has been delivered.

Real per capita wages have dropped under this Government and that means, if we take out the technical terms, that people are hurting, because the cost of living has gone up and wages have not kept pace. Inequalities are greater than they have ever been, and I do not think that represents a brighter future by any stretch of a long bow.

It is also a Government that promised not to raise GST and then promptly did. It fits into the pattern of broken promises, it is fair to say. We see that the wage gap with Australia that was promised would be closed has this week been announced to have gone up 50 percent—50 percent—since this Government took office in 2008. We are seeing a thousand Kiwis a week leave for Oz. This is, I guess, typical of a Government that is becoming in the habit of breaking promises. It does have the worst economic record of any Government in New Zealand in the last 50 years, as I have been reminded from the other side of the Chamber.

Nick Smith was very clear, even in his Cabinet papers: he proposed that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing Environment Canterbury, but no later—no later—than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013. That is not what we are seeing here and it is a great disappointment, because we on this side of the Chamber value democracy. We think it is the appropriate way to make sure that we have the leaders in charge of making sure that populations’ interests are taken account of. So we think it is a disgrace that this is not happening.

The Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, submitted that the view of the Human Rights Commission 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. So we have condemnation from those who have examined the issue. We have a gut feeling, we have an uprising in Christchurch and thereabouts saying that this is just wrong, and we have many, many, many other examples that we could draw to mind. Councillor Glenn Livingstone has said there are strong feelings in the city over the issue and that that has been galvanised by the debacle over the restructuring of Christchurch’s schools.

There is a groundswell of feeling here. There is a view that is shared by the people of Canterbury and shared by all of those people who are concerned for democracy. We need this Government to stump up, we need it to announce that there will be proper elections, and we need it to honour its promises. We have seen it break too many promises, and the people of New Zealand are disappointed—particularly those who did support this Government once upon a time are disappointed that it is failing to deliver. They feel that they have been let down by this Government—and rightly so. We see that people are urging us—I was out there on the street, collecting asset sales signatures not so long ago—to petition for an early election, because people believe in democracy and they are getting sick and tired of this Government. So I just want to say that is something that needs urgent attention, we need basic democratic rights restored, and we need the new Minister—

I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by picking up the point that my colleague Dr David Clark—recently promoted, and a well-deserved promotion—the member of Parliament for Dunedin North, concluded on, and that is the huge disappointment and anger that people in Canterbury feel about this legislation and the primary Act that it is amending. I suppose the most important reason, the driving force, for the disappointment and anger is the fact that we trusted the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he said publicly, consistently, and strongly: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” We believed the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Some people think we may have been foolish to believe him, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that if a member of Parliament says that in this House or out in the public arena, if he is quoted in the media, if he says so on TV, on the radio, in the press, we should be able to believe them. But we have discovered that that was an absolute direct lie to the people of Canterbury, which has made us incredibly frustrated and angry.

The anger was very evident at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. The current member of Parliament for Christchurch Central got very agitated during those hearings, when members of the public, while presenting their submissions, got so upset and expressed it in very strong ways. I know that she is concerned about the impact of this legislation on her wafer-thin majority in Christchurch Central, because she has been polling recently. The poll that Nicky Wagner has conducted asked six questions, none of which directly related to this bill, but actually all of which arose as a result of this amendment legislation. Her poll in Christchurch Central asked how people were going to vote in the next election with their party vote and with their candidate vote, and whether they knew who the MP for Christchurch Central was. I would love to see the results of that. I think a lot of them said: “Who cares?”. Then, in a very courageous move, she asked them to rate her. What did they think of her performance? I would love to see the results of that too. And then she asked whom they had voted for in the last election, both in the party vote and in the electoral vote.

That poll will be reflecting the anger and frustration that Cantabrians feel at this legislation not just taking away our democratic right to vote, not just making an absolute liar of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, which I think in itself is a pretty offensive thing for colleagues to do, but also taking away our water conservation orders, and that is referred to in Part 2, in new section 17A(2)(c), inserted by clause 5, “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3”. Those are the reasons that Cantabrians are so angry. We are losing our vote. We have been lied to. We are very angry and frustrated and disappointed that we believed a Minister who said we would have our right to vote back this year. We were angry that it was taken away, but we were assured, regardless of the circumstances, Nick Smith said, that we would have our vote back next year.

Of course, we know that the submissions to the select committee were overwhelmingly reflective of the points I am making—of anger, of frustration, of extreme disappointment. There were 95 submissions received on this legislation, and 90 out of 95 were opposed to it. What bit of that maths is too hard for Government members to understand? Ninety out of 95 submissions said they did not agree with it. People said it undermined their basic democratic rights. Well, that is actually not rocket science. That is the point of the legislation. The point of the legislation is to take away our democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner was very upset, not just about the outcome of this legislation, but about the totally undemocratic process that it had undergone in order to be introduced. He talked about the Cabinet paper that accompanied the original legislation. It was specifically stated in the Cabinet paper that the deferral of what was then the 2010 election should be seen only as a temporary measure because of concerns that it constrained the right to public participation.

I suppose as a member from Canterbury what I am most disappointed about is that the Minister who took over from Nick Smith, the Rt Hon David Carter, who signed this paper off, is also a Cantabrian. I really thought that when the new Minister, the Hon Chris Tremain, was given the job, he might say: “You’ve got to be joking.” Why would anyone in their right mind—and I have always assumed that he is in his right mind—why would any Minister in their right mind, want their name attached to this filth, this bit of dirt, this blight on the face of democracy? Why would any Minister want their name attached to it? However, I suppose that is the price you pay for getting into Cabinet. But I certainly know that other members would have said: “No—enough. I’d rather make an honest man out of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith.”

The final point I want to make is one I referred to earlier, and it is also alluded to in Part 2. It is the continuation of the removal of the water conservation order processes. In paragraph 45 on page 11 of the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill, it says this: “The WCO 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 that it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury WCOs and is not aware of any new applications for WCOs in the Canterbury Region.” This is the critical bit. In the Government’s own regulatory impact statement, it says this: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Primary Industries”—three critical advisers on this legislation—“consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for WCOs in the Canterbury region.” Maybe the Government was waiting for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to say that it is all right to get back to proper processes under the Resource Management Act for water conservation orders. Maybe it was waiting for some sign, for the stars to be in alignment. Frankly, there is very little else that could happen to give advice to Ministers that this legislation is the wrong thing to do in regard to water conservation orders.

Their own regulatory impact statement—unanimous advice from the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry for Primary Industries—says that this should not happen. And once again we see ignorant, arrogant, dismissive—I do not know the corrective adjective to use, because it just beggars belief to think that a Minister in his right mind would ignore that advice, would ignore 90 out of 95 submissions, and would ignore, I suspect, the pleading of the chair of the select committee, the current member for Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner. I am sure that she would have raised concerns about this bill. But if she raised concerns about this bill as quietly as she has raised concerns about Phillipstown School, no wonder this bill is going ahead and no wonder Phillipstown School is scheduled to close at the end of the year.

This bill is a huge disappointment. It has caused anger and frustration for people in Canterbury. That was strongly expressed at the select committee. It has made a liar out of a Minister who has recently been returned to Cabinet, and I personally am offended at that. I do not think there should be any attempt by this Parliament to position a Minister of the Crown into that position. I am sure the Hon Dr Nick Smith deeply resents it as well. This legislation, just frankly, should not proceed. It is wrong. In Canterbury we have endured a lot and we have shown how resilient we are. We are now asking for one request to be granted, and that is for our right to vote for our own regional council to be restored to us in the way that was promised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is not a big ask, and it is one that I want Parliament to reflect on.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to just follow on from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson’s comments. Cantabrians are not just losing the right to vote; they are losing appeal rights. One of the provisions of the existing legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which was passed in 2010, was to deny Cantabrians the right to appeal regional plans and also changes to water conservation orders. Normally, those processes carry with them appeal rights to the Environment Court. I can understand, at one level, the National Government wanting to sort out the regional water plan in Canterbury. I do not think that that justified the abolition of the regional council back in 2010, but given that that was the Government’s intent, I can understand its desire to sort out the water plan. But what I cannot understand is why, 3 years after that, it needs to retain the right to change that plan without appeal rights to the Environment Court. It is outrageous that not only have Cantabrians lost the right to elect their councillors but they have lost the right—which New Zealanders have in every other part of the country—to appeal provisions and plans that they disagree with to the Environment Court.

I see with some suspicion that in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we have the promise that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014.” Then it says that the review must cover, amongst other things, “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” It worries me that we are going to see through that review process new proposals that we are not yet aware of that may, for example, for ever take away the appeal rights on plan provisions in respect of the regional plan of Environment Canterbury. We may also see the abolition of Environment Canterbury and the merger of it with the Christchurch City Council. Neither of those things has been acknowledged by the Government as yet, but you wait—you wait. Well, not you, Mr Chairman. We should wait, because I, for one, am suspicious that there is an ulterior motive here. I cannot understand why else the Government would breach its promise of 3 years ago.

💬 Su’a William Sio: What do you think that might be?

I think the ulterior motives are the reorganisation of the councils in Canterbury to a vast degree, and the effective subjugation of those interested in environmental outcomes in the rivers of Canterbury—having their interests subjugated to the more powerful interests of some people who do not want to do enough to improve water quality in the region or who want to extract more water from those lowland rivers, particularly, than is sustainable. I think that this extension, together with these powers and functions of Environment Canterbury that are talked about in Part 3 in respect of their being reviewed, as well as looking at the membership of Environment Canterbury—again, code for looking at whether it should bring all of these bodies together—portend some future changes for Canterbury that I think will not suit Canterbury well in the long run.

Can I also endorse the comments of Ruth Dyson in respect of conservation orders. Conservation orders apply only to outstanding water bodies. There are only about 10 conservation orders in New Zealand. There are two or three in Canterbury. I cannot remember which. Is the Ahuriri River within this catchment? Is the Ahuriri River within this, or is it the Otago Regional Council? I am not sure. I think it is Canterbury. We have got the Rangitata River—

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Waitaki’s the boundary.

No, the Waitaki River does not have a conservation order on it. You would need to understand what conservation orders are. It is the Rangitata River, the Ahuriri River, and the Rākaia River. I think they are the main rivers in the Canterbury region that have conservation orders. The Rākaia River was the first conservation order that was granted in New Zealand. It went all the way to the Court of Appeal. There were scraps between all of the people who had competing claims to it. I actually remember it well, because I was a junior in the case before the Planning Tribunal. But that and the other conservation orders that are there are precious.

It is very, very hard to get a conservation order to protect a river. These few rivers that we have protected with conservation orders are listed and have rules for their protection. These few rivers that have conservation orders in the country have special protections that are attached to them that put them beyond the control of the regional council. That is after a very thorough process that starts with the Minister for the Environment having to be convinced that there is a real issue to be looked at, followed by a first hearing by a panel that is appointed by the Minister, followed by appeals to the Environment Court. The Environment Court eventually makes a recommendation, and then the Government of the day chooses whether or not it implements that by way of a statutory regulation, which then has force against the regional council.

These few rivers that we have in New Zealand that have been identified as having outstanding characteristics are truly precious; they really are truly precious. By and large, most of them rise out of our national parks and are quite high-volume rivers, but none the less they are precious rivers, both for the aquatic environment that is maintained through those river flows for fish and for the biota and for the morphology of the rivers, which are maintained by decent water flows in these braided rivers and which, in turn, protect bird habitats and other things. These rivers are absolutely precious, and this legislation—

💬 John Hayes: You’ve said that 10 times.

Well, actually, you still have not heard the message. These rivers are precious, and they should be preserved for New Zealanders and put beyond the ability of regional councils to modify them. This legislation alters the status quo of those conservation orders and puts them within the jurisdiction of Environment Canterbury without any appeal rights to any Environment Court or anything like that to change. It is wrong, it is unprincipled, and it puts at risk these precious rivers.

So the Labour Party, for those reasons and others that have been covered by my colleagues, wants the Minister of Local Government to explain why it is that it is necessary to strip our rivers in the Canterbury region that are protected by conservation orders from the legislation, which protects rivers elsewhere in the country.

I move, That the question be now put.

The silence from the Government benches has been quite astonishing, and I think it shows that there is nothing that Government members can do to defend this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, and the very spurious reasons that they gave in the first reading for its introduction. As the Christchurch Press said in an editorial, the continued suspension of democracy at Environment Canterbury is “the most radical denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent times” and it is something that “besmirches the Government” and denies Cantabrians a fundamental right. I think it is consistent with what this Government is doing in local government. The Hon David Parker talked about the way in which the bill overrides or denies the right to appeal to the Environment Court. Are we going to see that same denial of rights of appeal to the Environment Court in the local government reforms that the Government introduces later this year? Are we going to see a continuation of the centralisation of power in Wellington, and local government regarded as an agent of central government rather than having a mandate in its own right because its councillors are elected, and get that mandate from that election?

What we have seen in Environment Canterbury and in this bill, with the denial of appeal rights to the Environment Court, the appointment of commissioners, and the changes to water conservation orders, is a fundamental denial of democracy in Canterbury, and we think it is symptomatic of the other changes that this Government is putting on local councils and local government. It is rich, because this Government derides the term “nanny State”, and yet it is taking an awful amount of power to the State, to central government, and cutting right across the ability of local government to represent the people that elect it. We have seen that with the changes in the Resource Management Reform Bill, which deny the Auckland Council the right to appoint the hearing commissioners to hear submissions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Here in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, we have had councillors denied the opportunity as elected representatives to make the policies for the region through regional plans. That has been supplanted with appointed commissioners. Are we going to see the same in terms of changes to local government where we have councils around the country denied their right to make decisions on their plans through increased intervention powers for the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Local Government? We have seen that in the Local Government Act changes last year, with the Minister able to much more easily intervene.

Yet this bill that we have now could have implemented the advice of the Minister’s own commissioners at Environment Canterbury. It could have moved to a transitional model. It could have implemented the advice of officials to restore the water conservation order provisions of the Resource Management Act fully in Canterbury. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 176 in my name, which actually makes changes and inserts a new clause 10 after clause 9, which would restore the law that applies elsewhere in New Zealand to Canterbury in regard to water conservation orders. As David Parker noted, there are several water conservation orders in Canterbury. He missed Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere. There are other rivers that deserve that status. Water conservation orders are the mechanism to recognise that rivers have outstanding values that deserve protection. Both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the New Zealand Conservation Authority recognise their value and the need for a representative range of rivers throughout New Zealand to be protected through water conservation orders. What would the Government lose, except to admit that it cares about rivers only for irrigation? If it agreed to this Supplementary Order Paper, it would be restoring some measure of good faith to water management in Canterbury by making sure that we have the same law across all of New Zealand.

The Minister has not taken a call recently. I would encourage him to take a call to say why we cannot have the same law in Canterbury in relation to water conservation orders as applies everywhere else. It would be too big an ask of this Government to restore democracy, but given the radical denial of our voting rights, again without any substantive reasons from the Government, I would be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why—

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this very important Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, involving Environment Canterbury and the temporary commissioners in particular. In doing so I would like to refer to the regulatory impact statement. This was, of course, published by the Department of Internal Affairs and also by the Ministry for the Environment jointly. For those New Zealanders out there who may be watching this broadcast, and who, perhaps, are not aware of the background to the preparation of papers for Parliament, these reports are prepared by officials to give guidance to Government and to Parliament as to the recommendations of the various ministries in terms a particular bill.

I would remind the Minister of Local Government—the new incoming Minister—and I would remind the members of the National Party sitting on the other benches of what the regulatory import statement stated in regard to the commissioners for Environment Canterbury. It suggested that there were five options. Option one was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan (with provision for Minister of Local Government to review the arrangements by 2017)”; that was option one. Option two was “Legislation to establish a permanent mixed governing body for ECan”. Option three was “Legislation to extend or entrench a governing body for ECan of appointed Commissioners”. Option four was the “Status quo - returning to a fully elected governing body under the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Electoral Act 2001”. Option five was “Ministerial direction for an independent review of matters relating to ECan governance”.

In this particular instance the officials of both of those ministries recommended that option one be the preferred option adopted by Government and by this Parliament. Option one, I will remind you, was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan”—in other words, a transition back to elected representation. In that regard the commissioners themselves, under Dame Margaret Bazley—probably the most experienced public servant in this country, who has led many Government departments and has now a damehood obviously for her services to public service—also recommended that there be a transition back to democratic representation in a mixed governing body. So over a period of a year or two you would have a mixture of the existing commissioners and elected representatives with the intention to then fully return to an elected body in due course.

That was a sensible solution for everyone. We could all probably live with that. We would say it is not ideal, it is not returning to full democracy, but it is a step in the right direction. I think the Hon Nick Smith would have been very supportive of that. He gave indications, certainly, in that direction. It seemed that that was a fair way to go so that everyone would basically get a reasonable shake of the stick out of this whole situation. We would have a situation where those commissioners who have sat there for a couple of years now could have helped the newly elected people to move back into the transition and helped that handover process. That often happens in all sorts of corporate situations and all sorts of governance situations, and that is a common model. Certainly that would have been a workable model. It was very interesting.

So all the advisers were suggesting this—the ministries, the commissioners—everyone was advising this. It seemed sensible. But what does this Government do? It does exactly the opposite. It just says: “No. We are not going to have elections. We are just going to leave the commissioners there, and we are going to extend this from the 2013 elections out to 2016. We are going to ignore all the advice that we have.” It is a little bit like the way it ignored the advice in Auckland where the royal commission wrote an 800-page report and the Government threw that out, and 8 days later Rodney Hide came out with a 34-page report that did exactly the opposite to what the royal commission was recommending.

That is the modus operandi of this Government, that it just ignores the advice. It just ignores the good expertise that it has around it, from the ministries, from the officials, and from the likes of Dame Margaret Bazley. The Government just ignores that and goes with how it wants to do it. That is what the Government does. When you are a money wheeler-dealer, and you are trading things around the place, and just throwing things in the pot, like Skycity and all sorts of other things, you just throw things in the pot, you run with the hares, and then you try to push your way through and forget the actual democratic consequences.

It is very interesting that this Government is working that way. Interesting too that the Christchurch City Council itself recommended that there be a return to local democracy in Canterbury. There is Mayor Bob Parker and his council saying: “No it’s time that we—

I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I wonder just how much more insult this Government can add to the injuries of the people of Canterbury. It seems that not only the Environment Canterbury debacle but the Christchurch school closures show that the Government, for all its using the Christchurch earthquakes as an excuse, does not care a jot, really, about the opinions of people who live in the Canterbury area.

I just crave your indulgence for a moment because I want to tell a story from Nelson that goes back a couple of years. But it is related to this bill intimately. We all know that Anzac Day services are non-partisan events. Anzac Day services are traditionally moments when we all respect the sacrifice of all of those who gave their lives and were injured in the course of fighting for democracy and freedom. It is extremely rare ever to hear a political speech at an Anzac Day service. Yet two Anzac Days ago in Nelson a returned serviceman of reputation and gravitas in the Nelson area had been asked to be the guest speaker. He started with some of the usual tributes that we pay, quite rightly, on Anzac Day to fallen soldiers, and recounted some of his experience. Then his tone changed and he said that one of the things that he had gone to fight for was democracy, and for the freedom for people to be represented by people whom they directly elected. One could hear in the crowd the collective intake of breath amongst the, I think, more than 1,000 people in Nelson in Anzac Park at that Dawn Service. One could hear the intake of breath as they realised where this man was going. He laid very squarely at the feet of the Government profound criticism at the abolition of democracy in Christchurch. This man lived in Nelson. He was not a Cantabrian. He had not been a member of Environment Canterbury. He was not anybody, to my knowledge, who was intimately involved with any environmental issues in the Canterbury region, but he was incensed and outraged that the Government could, at the stroke of a pen, overturn a democratically elected body and replace it in the way that this Government did.

It was a shocking speech, because, as I say, we do not expect political speeches on Anzac Day. But it was so profoundly felt by this man and by numbers around him who went up and congratulated him afterwards on being brave enough to mention it, and who were distressed and profoundly offended by this Government’s affront to democracy. Add to that, then, we had—here we go; here is the Nelson connection again—the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying of those changes in March 2010 that “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” That is now offended against. The promise that he gave unequivocally has been either completely overturned—perhaps despite Nick Smith’s protestations; I do not know whether he protested about it. I do not know whether he protested about the overturning of the commitment that he had unequivocally made, but the upshot is that it was overturned. It is difficult to understand. If one cannot take the word of a Cabinet Minister and believe that that commitment will endure, then one’s faith in the Government, in this Government, in the John Key - led Government, is profoundly shaken.

So there is another broken promise from John Key’s Government. It ended up being a lie from Nick Smith. Whether he intended it to be a lie or not, only he knows, or perhaps some of his colleagues know as well. But it ended up being a lie. At times that member has had a fleeting relationship with the truth, but on this occasion I do not know whether it was intentional or not. Whatever the upshot, the whole Government now has to wear the fact that that is a broken promise, and that the repercussions of that broken promise go far beyond Canterbury. They have rippled out to Nelson. They have rippled across the country, because there are more than just the returned servicemen—like Mr John Gardner spoke at the Anzac Day service in Nelson 2 years ago—who have been offended by this.

I would like to say a couple of words about Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of Eugenie Sage. I think this is an important measure. It goes to the points that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making earlier about appeal rights, and also to the points that Eugenie Sage made a moment ago in speaking to her Supplementary Order Paper. The regulatory impact statement prepared on the bill notes that Environment Canterbury, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Justice all considered that there was insufficient justification for continuing the special provisions for water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. In other words, they said there was no reason, no sufficient reason, to continue to exclude the Canterbury region and the water conservation rights applying there from the procedures that exist everywhere else in the country. Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper, as I understand it, would implement the advice of all those groups. It would implement that advice. It would restore to the Canterbury region the water conservation order provisions that apply everywhere else in the country.

One could argue that the water conservation orders in the Canterbury region are amongst the most important in the country. If we were to rank water conservation orders—and let us not—it would be hard to find rivers elsewhere in the country that required the protection of conservation orders to the extent that these rivers do. So I would urge the support of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would wish that the members opposite would listen to the people who are distressed about the affront to democracy and the whittling away of protection for those precious rivers, as my colleague earlier referred to them, in the Canterbury region. This bill is an affront on all sorts of levels. It is an affront to democracy, it is an affront to environmental protection, and it should be an affront to everybody who cares about the protection of our precious and rare environment in this country. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have an amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to repeal sections 46 to 59, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176. This amendment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Just for the member’s sake, in future, if a member wishes to move an amendment that is outside the scope, it has to be done by way of an instruction, and I refer the member to Standing Order 173. That might help in the future, if you want to do something outside the scope of the bill.