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

We now come to clauses 1 to 3. I just remind members that they are very narrow, tight debates, specifically on what the clauses relate to.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it just one debate for all three?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, no, at the moment they are separate, but if you want to move—oh, sorry. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

I move that clauses 1 to 3 be taken as one debate. Do I seek leave for that?

Well, yes, they are, in fact—my apology—so we do not have to put that leave.

It is a privilege to speak before my colleague Dr Megan Woods. I do look forward to what she will say in the debate shortly, as a Cantabrian and someone who has spoken passionately about this issue before, alongside her colleague and mine Ruth Dyson, from whom I expect we will also hear.

This is a debate that needs to be had in this Parliament, because it is one that affects all of the people of Canterbury, as their democracy has been taken away from them. The debate around the title and commencement in clauses 1 to 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill lends itself to some suggestions about, of course, making sure that democracy is restored sooner, but more specifically that the title of the bill is made more appropriate and tighter to what is actually happening in the bill. We see, as we canvassed in the earlier debate, that rights of appeal are disappearing. So it might be more appropriate to talk about the “Environment Canterbury (Rights of Appeal Removal) Amendment Bill”—that would somehow seem to reflect more nearly what is going on here—or the “Environment Canterbury (Failure to Restore Proper Democracy) Amendment Bill”.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Is this the modern face of the Labour Party?

These are the kinds of things that are happening in this bill that are hidden behind a title that seems somewhat more positive, perhaps, to those who are at home who hear the simple title as it is expressed on the Order Paper: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Something is being suggested here that is neutral when, in fact, the bill has some unfortunate side effects, if we can be so kind as to call them side effects.

Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber was interjecting in the debate, and I must say that I look forward also to his contribution, because we have had very few from the Government side of the Committee in this debate. There has been a remarkable silence, and one wonders why that is, when we have a bill that is doing so much harm in the view of the majority of Cantabrians, that the Government will not get up and justify this bill—

💬 Andrew Williams: Unjustifiable.

—and perhaps explain why it is choosing to put it through in this way, with this kind of generous sounding title, when there are mischiefs being done to the people of Canterbury. And my colleague Andrew Williams there says that it cannot be defended, and that is perhaps why we have heard so little from the National benches. But I challenge Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber to make a decent contribution, one that does attempt to defend this bill, because someone has got to stand up and defend it.

We have not heard anything from the Minister in the chair for some time, the Minister of Local Government. He has been very quiet, and perhaps he is a little embarrassed. He has had the bill dumped on him. Maybe it should be changed to the “Environment Canterbury (Minister Has the Bill Dumped on Him) Amendment Bill”, which would also perhaps reflect something of the dynamic we are seeing in this Parliament. We are certainly not hearing from the Government as to why this bill should proceed. I think the general public are owed an explanation, but more particularly those people in Canterbury, whose democratic rights have not been restored, despite promises in that direction—very clear promises—by Nick Smith previously.

So I suggest that the Committee does consider those other options. That would make clear the real agenda in this bill, so that we are not left with this misleading title that would suggest that the bill is more harmless than it really is. Thank you.

I take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Clause 1 talks about the title of the bill. Certainly, in that title where it says “Temporary Commissioners”, that must be an incorrect title. We, surely, cannot believe that if you do away with local elected commissioners in 2010 and do not intend to replace them until 2016—that is 6 years. That is hardly temporary. Not many people would ever look on something as being temporary when it has a 6-year lifespan and shelf life. In that regard, it is quite misleading to say that these are temporary commissioners, when in fact they are not.

In 2010 the National Government said that this would be just a temporary arrangement while it sorted out the Environment Canterbury situation. Then Canterbury got hit with the earthquake 1 year later, and there were some understandable difficulties there, with the major February earthquake suddenly hitting Canterbury, which gave some reason to try to consolidate things in Canterbury and get things back on a level footing. At that time, therefore, one could understand that there was a need for a temporary situation—a sort of holding situation—to try to get things back on their feet. But, having now seen 2 years go by—we have just gone past 22 February, which is 2 years down the track from the major, secondary earthquake in Canterbury—it is quite false to be still talking about temporary commissioners. When we have heard from all sorts of officials and from Dame Margaret Bazley that there should be a transition back to more permanent and elected people, getting rid of the temporary commissioners, then certainly that is the way that it should be going.

New Zealanders have gone to war for democracy, for the right to vote, and to stand up for what is right and proper in a civilised world. Cantabrians are no lesser people in our democratic system. They also deserve the right to have a vote—to go to the ballot box, put their name on a piece of paper, and say whom they would like to elect. It is unfair for Cantabrians to be stretched out for 6 years and be told this is a temporary situation. After only 3 years, already they are saying: “This is enough. We’ve had enough. We don’t need this to continue.”

What is happening here is that, basically, the Government is trying to hide behind the commissioners’ situation and the Environment Canterbury situation in terms of the water rights in Canterbury. The Government is using the democratic process and abusing the democratic process to prop up an arrangement it has put in place for water management in Canterbury. That is a great shame, because the two do not necessarily meet eye to eye. You have the needs of the rural community and the farming community and the needs out there on the Canterbury Plains up against the needs and the democratic rights of people living in Christchurch and in the greater Christchurch urban metropolitan area. Quite frankly, those things are at odds. It is a shame that this Government is basically giving away those rights, to ensure that some of those water arrangements are upheld.

We at the Local Government and Environment Committee were all very disappointed to hear the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, David Rutherford, say that this was a huge attack on democracy, that this was not the correct thing. The people in Canterbury needed some reassurance—they were very delicate. He said that they were very exposed, that they were feeling very threatened by their predicament in Canterbury, and that the last thing Cantabrians needed was to have their democratic vote and their democratic rights also removed from them. When you are in a difficult situation, when you do not have a lot, and when you are facing a lot of adversity, the last thing you want to lose also is your democratic right. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner said that. He also said—and I know National members of the committee took offence to this—that New Zealand went to war to stop such regimes from occurring in Europe, and we cannot point the finger at regimes in Fiji and other places that do not provide democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner very clearly said that we stand up for democracy.

I am very pleased to take a call in this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, as the representative for West Coast - Tasman. We are very conscious of the health and well-being of our visitors “over the hill”, as we say, there in Canterbury, and we are, of course, alarmed at what is happening here in the Committee.

I will focus on the three clauses here. The one word I go to, following on from my colleague Mr Williams, is “temporary”, which is something that we assume means “for a short period of time”. The concern we have is that we have heard many assurances given, originally from the Minister Nick Smith. You cannot trust much of what he says on most things, I have to say, but particularly in this area where he has proven, in black and white, in this House, time and time again, to the public of Canterbury, to the public of the West Coast, to everyone, that he was not going to allow the continuation of something. It was in his words temporary, but, indeed, by anyone else’s definition, it would not be.

The word “temporary” means “briefly”, “impermanent”, “not permanently”, “transitionally”. The issue is that by anyone’s definition this is not temporary. It is 6 years, by my colleague’s assessment—if we can trust that. How can we trust this piece of legislation when we are given assurances from the mouth of Nick Smith—from the horse’s mouth? He gave us assurances, but in fact a court of law has said in respect of that Minister—or member, as he was—that you cannot trust what comes from his mouth.

This piece of legislation, initiated by him, with assurances given by him, is in the Committee, and the Government expects us—myself as MP for West Coast - Tasman, the good people of Canterbury, and the MPs from Canterbury and the South Island—to trust the Government. “Oh, this is temporary!”, he said. Well, clauses 1, 2, and 3 deal with the title, the commencement, and the amendment to the principal Act, and in respect of temporary commissioners and improved water management, we do not know whether in fact these are permanent appointments that will just be rolled on. Dare I say, the outcome of the next election might determine whether the title of this bill is indeed accurate or whether it is as misleading as the assurances given by the Minister Nick Smith at the time.

So we have an obligation here as representatives in the South Island, as Her Majesty’s Opposition, to challenge the Government for indeed putting through legislation and putting through a title that is misleading or could be misleading. So, once again, it comes back to this—and we have raised it, dare I say, time and time again in speeches in the Chamber: how can we trust this Government? Up and down the country, local government and territorial local authorities—the Minister of Local Government will have spoken to them. He will be getting it in the ear, I am sure, as he goes around trying to patch up the mess left by the Hon Nick Smith. He will be trying to patch it up and trying to build some confidence back.

There is indeed a collaboration of South Island mayors and territorial local authorities, because they know they have to lobby the Government to get a fair deal, to get even temporary relief from some of the pressures from central government and the fact that the Government is now going to say: “You’re not going to be able to put up rates, but you are going to have to do this and this and this, and we will not allow you to do any social programmes in your community.” I have got people jumping up and down now because Tasman District Council is pulling back on social programmes. The Government is saying quite clearly “that is what you have to do”, and, indeed, it does not know where this Government is going with local government reform.

The title of this bill, saying “temporary commissioners for Canterbury”, in my view—in my cynical view, my suspicious view—is misleading, because the Government intends after the next election to push through and appoint more commissioners up and down this country, wherever territorial local authorities dare question the Government’s objectives.

What a misnomer of a title: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. A much more accurate title for the bill would be the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy and More Irrigation) Bill”. The earthquakes in Christchurch would be a reason why democracy—

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.