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

The House is in Committee. Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Translation?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all. We are the people, we are the culture, we are from the four corners of the Earth. How is that? Has that got you, Trevor? Good. We are on. Members, the House is in Committee for further consideration of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and consideration of the Child Support Amendment Bill. Members, we turn first to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. When the Committee’s consideration of this bill was interrupted, it was debating clauses 1 through to 3. The Hon Damien O’Connor had the call, and has 4 minutes and 37 seconds remaining if he so wishes. I recognise the honourable member Grant Robertson.

And I recognise the Chair, as well—thank you very much. We are debating clauses 1 to 3, traditionally known as the title and commencement clauses, and in particular I do want to address the title of the bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It is that word “temporary” in the title that concerns me greatly, because they are rapidly becoming permanent, not temporary, commissioners.

The approach that this Government took initially was for this to be a temporary measure. Nick Smith said: “whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” That is what he said—“whatever the circumstances,”—and yet we have in front of us today a bill that really is not about temporary commissioners any more. It is about making permanent the taking away of democracy from the people of Canterbury. So this bill is misnamed. It should not be called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, because this Government appears to have no intention of returning democracy to Canterbury.

Yet, time and again, not only has the Government told the people of New Zealand that this would be temporary and that there would be elections in 2013 but also its officials have told this Government that it should move to a different model. In fact, if the officials had had their way, this bill would have been called the “Environment Canterbury (Mixed Model of Commissioners and Elected Officials) Bill”, because that is what was proposed by the officials. The Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment recommended to the Government that it move to a model where there was at least some democratic representation on Environment Canterbury. But, no, the Government dismissed that. It did not want to see democracy returned in any form whatsoever for the people of Canterbury when it comes to their regional council.

The Government was not interested in a mixed-governance model like this. David Carter actually, when he was the Minister, said that he was interested in such a model, but the mind was changed, and it was changed fundamentally because this legislation is not about democracy; this legislation is about irrigation. That is what this legislation is about. The bill could easily be titled the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Ensuring We Can Get Irrigation for Our Mates) Bill”. That is what it could be called, because the Government is actually being quite clear that this is all about irrigation.

Let us just stop for a moment and think about a country where democracy can be suspended in a large region—suspended not just temporarily but on into the future—so that a small group of people get to benefit financially or get to benefit in terms of irrigation for them. What kind of country is that? It is no kind of country that I want to be part of. It stinks of cronyism. It is anti-democratic; fundamentally, that is what this bill is. It is anti-democratic. It is not about some temporary arrangement for some misguided view that perhaps there was chaos reigning down in Canterbury. It is an arrangement where democracy has now been denied, for two successive elections, to the people of Canterbury. It should actually be called the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy) Bill”, because that is what this bill is doing. It is saying to the people of Canterbury that the needs and wants of a small group of people for their irrigation is far more important than the democratic will of the people. That is a shame and a stain upon this Government.

The Government was told time and time again in this process that it did not need to carry on this intervention. Again, from the regulatory impact statement from the officials: “given the progress made by the Commissioners, there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention,”—so the Government had the advice from the officials. The commissioners themselves said that they would prefer a mixed-governance model, and yet the Government carried on and said: “We don’t want to see democracy returned to the people of Canterbury.” That is not on. It is no way to run a region, and it is no way to run a country, to base it on cronyism and inside deals.

It is time this Government got real and remembered that this is a country that is founded on democratic principles. It does not get to trade those away in deals with multinationals overseas or Skycity in New Zealand, and it does not get to take away the rights of people in New Zealand to have a say.

This bill should be renamed. It is the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy) Bill”. It is not about temporary commissioners; it is about taking away democratic rights from New Zealanders, and that is a shame on this Government.

Malo le soifua, Mr Chairman. It is good to be in the Committee to further have these discussions around the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. As the Committee will be aware, this bill proposes a process that is at complete odds with the fundamental beliefs New Zealanders have regarding the importance of democracy and upholding the strong historical basis of our governance order. Irrespective of whether it be local government or central government, the governance order that New Zealanders, the younger generation, have grown up with is government by the people, of the people, for the people. This bill proposes to set aside for the second time in a row the basic and fundamental right of the people of Canterbury to hold free and democratic local body elections.

The John Key - National Government first took away the rights of the people of Canterbury in 2010 by forcing through the original piece of legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act. That legislation got rid of the then elected people’s representatives in Environment Canterbury, and, by force of that legislation, the people’s representatives were replaced with seven Government-appointed commissioners. Again by force, through that legislation, the people of Canterbury continued to be taxed to pay for the Government-appointed commissioners. I recall, as many will, including the people of Canterbury, that the Government sugar-coated that proposal by imposing on the people of Canterbury a promise: a promise that the people of Canterbury would have their democratic elections in 2013. That is this year. This Government included that promise in that original Act—the Act that we now debate, and its amendments. The original promise was that the people of Canterbury would hold their democratic and free elections in 2013. This Government and this bill will now break that promise.

Ordinarily, if any hard-working citizen of our country, whether they be from the north or south—in this case, the Canterbury people—breaks any law, whether it be traffic laws or otherwise, the consequences are that they are imposed with either a fine or a jail term. Yet this Government will break this law, the original promise from 2010, by changing the legislation, by ramming through another piece of legislation. It is now saying: “Look, you’re not going to hold your elections this year. Instead, you’ll hold your elections in 2016.” This is the silly part of it. Ordinarily any citizen breaking the law would be fined or thrown into jail, and yet this Government is able to get away with it, avoiding any consequential ramifications from breaking its legal promise and again imposing another promise by amending the original Act to say that now Environment Canterbury and the people of Canterbury can hold their local body elections only in 2016. That sends a message that this Government has forgotten about the people of Canterbury, has forgotten about the value of democratic rights. That sends a strong message that this Government places no value on the rights of the people of Canterbury to be able to vote for their own representatives.

The people of Canterbury will recall that the original Act was rammed through this Parliament by this Government under urgency in a single day. New Zealanders were not given the opportunity to have a say then, least of all the people of Canterbury. I suspect that because this Government—and none of the Ministers has been able to say once and for all whether they intend to consult with the people of Canterbury about the changes that they are proposing, particularly with the review that they are intending to bring in. So the people of Canterbury, unfortunately, will, under this Government, have to continue to pay taxes without representation. Yet the Government’s own Cabinet papers in 2010 stated that the deferral of the 2010 election should be only a temporary measure, as it “did not allow for the rights of the people to participate”. In other words, this Government was told to keep its promise in its own parliamentary papers. Its own Cabinet papers advised it that it should honour its promise—the promise that the people of Canterbury could hold democratic elections in 2013.

Those same Cabinet documents explicitly state that the intent was to return to a democratically elected council as soon as the Government-appointed commissioners’ task was completed. In the Cabinet papers on this amendment bill, we have both Ministers—the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, and the then Minister of Local Government, David Carter—state categorically and clearly that any option except the return to a fully elected council would limit the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury compared with the rest of the country and violate article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In other words, this bill means the Government would be in breach of its commitment in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to protect, promote, and fulfil the rights of people in New Zealand. As the Human Rights Commission submitted in its submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee, the greater concern is how the Government will justify their deliberate determination to get rid of the rights of the people of Canterbury—rights many New Zealanders paid the ultimate sacrifice in defence and protection of. Those fundamental rights are now being cast aside by this bill being introduced by the Government.

My colleague Grant Robertson referred to the regulatory impact analysis, and I want to give acknowledgment to the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment because it is a thorough analysis of this bill and the impact. They truly recognise that this analysis and the proposal by this Government had no public consultation whatsoever. It is in their recommendation that public consultation take place. But we know, from sad experience so far under the term of this Government, that it despises, almost, talking to the people who are going to be affected by its decisions.

In the regulatory impact analysis there are five options given. The authors of this report recommend option one, which states: “The intention of Option One is that ECan will return to a fully locally elected democratic body under a transitional plan …”. Here we have the advice from the two critical Government departments advising the Government on what it ought to be doing, and yet this Government decides on “Option Three: Legislation to extend or entrench …”. So, despite the original advice given that this should be only a temporary measure, despite the promise of this Government that 2013 is when it will hold elections, despite the words of the then Ministers that it is best if they quickly hold elections so that they do not entrench this kind of behaviour, and despite the recommendation of the authors of the regulatory impact analysis that they quickly return to a fully locally elected democratic body, what this Government does is it accepts option three. Option three entrenches a governing body of commissioners appointed by this Government. I think that for the people of Canterbury the message they will hear from this bill is that they have been a forgotten public, that they are forgotten Cantabrians, and that their democracy, their rights to be able to elect their own local government representatives, are being denied under this bill.

Sadly, I have to say, in April of this year this House will play host to a number of members of Parliament from across this region. It will include Fiji amongst the other countries. In addition to the debates that members of this House can participate in, in addition to some of the seminars that will be held, and in addition to us hearing from the members of Parliament from the Pacific, one of the aims of this forum is for us as a Parliament in New Zealand to be able to share with our Pacific counterparts the importance of democracy. I feel somewhat embarrassed because if any of those members of Parliament picks up on what is happening—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This title and commencement debate commenced last night and the Chair was very clear about the fact of its being a very narrow debate. I have been trying to point out the fact that the speaker who just resumed his seat was talking well broad of the mark. I would ask that the debate be contained to the title and commencement clauses.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, no. Can I refer the member to Speakers’ ruling 115/1. The ruling was actually made by me back in 2004, and by Hartley also. I will read it out to the member: “When debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” That was done as a result of a report from the Standing Orders Committee in 2003. The member was quite within his rights in the way in which he was debating.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute on this last Committee stage of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. The reason that I did want to take a call in this particular debate was because of the issues that have been raised by so many others and also points that were made in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I had the opportunity to sit on that select committee and hear submissions on this particular piece of legislation. There was considerable anger in the room, and I wanted to kind of reflect that in the Chamber here, that that degree of anger comes from the fact that this is called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Temporary commissioners were established in 2010, all of the submitters were opposed to it then, and all of us are opposed to it today.

But the real slight, I guess, in the title comes from the use of the language “improved water management” when we know perfectly well that this legislation is designed to ensure that management of the water in our Canterbury region is undertaken in a way that removes it from democratic oversight. That is deliberate. It is quite a deliberate decision to do that. I have heard Government members talk about the impact of the earthquakes with respect to this decision. It has got nothing to do with that. Back in 2010 there was a report done by a review group. It was chaired by Wyatt Creech, a former Minister in a National Government. His part of the report was quite different from the independent analysis that accompanied the report, which said that Environment Canterbury was getting back on track, and that in fact the water chapters were almost concluded. What the incoming commissioners have been able to put in place relates to all of the very hard work that was done before they came on the scene. To say that this is “improved water management” legislation really does not reflect the truth of the situation nor does it reflect the degree of anger that is felt in the Canterbury region as a result of this particular extension.

When that review came out in 2010 it was made absolutely crystal clear that elections would be held no later than the elections scheduled for late 2013. In fact at the time the Hon Nick Smith was absolutely explicit about the fact that we could return to elections even before the 2013 year, but 2013 would be the last point. So having elections reinstated by 2013 was absolutely the end point of a process, and to now have legislation extending them out to 2016 has represented a betrayal of the trust that people showed in that particular Minister at the time.

I think, as colleagues have referenced, the regulatory impact statement, again, is not reflected in the title of this bill or its commencement provisions. I would have to say that the regulatory impact statement does not meet the adequacy test of a regulatory impact statement, and that is because—and it states this—“there has not been a Crown led public consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and communities on the options in the RIS.” If you do not have that degree of consultation and engagement with the wider community, then the analysis can be flawed. But even with the flawed analysis they still came up with options one and two as the preferred options. Those two relate to the legislation to allow for a mixed governing body in the interim as we move back to a fully democratic body, or, alternatively, legislation to establish a permanent mixed governing body. In fact, the departments themselves, the department and the ministry, stated: “The net benefits of the options, when measured against the status quo … are finely balanced. The choice between the two options essentially comes down to the relative weight attached to democracy versus stability.” That to me is the essence of what is so wrong with this legislation and why Labour so strongly opposes it. In being opposed to this legislation we are on the side of the people of Canterbury.

I was very pleased to see that the deputy leader of Labour had adopted the title that we had proposed in terms of this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, the “Denial of Democracy Bill”. Our title adds “and More Irrigation Bill”. The current title of the bill reflects the spin that this Government likes to create around its dismantling of regional democracy and of environmental legislation. That is one of the reasons why 90 of the 95 submissions on the bill opposed it. The people in Canterbury want the right to vote and they are being denied that for 6 years.

People in Canterbury want better water management. This bill does not deliver that, because it promotes irrigation and it kneecaps water conservation orders. It has led through the Government-appointed commissioners to what Fish and Game has described as a very weak Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan. Those commissioners have notified that plan and it is currently open for hearings. That will not deliver improved water management, because it will not control the intensification of dairying on the Canterbury Plains and the increased pollution that that will result in.

Nor, as other speakers have noted, is this bill about temporary commissioners, given their long tenure. Why does the Government want commissioners and not elected councillors, other than to promote irrigation? There is another reason, and that is the very autocratic way the Government is going about the recovery from the earthquakes in Canterbury. If you had an elected regional council, you would have another democratic body challenging the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and their failure to genuinely engage with Canterbury people. But no, we have these commissioners so you do not get that counterweight.

I turn now to improved water management. If this bill was genuinely about improved water management, that would mean that after nearly 3 years of the commissioners we would have had a reasonable flow in the Selwyn/Waikirikiri River instead of a largely dry riverbed. Improved water management would mean an adequate flow in the Rākaia River by reducing some of the abstraction from that river so that we do not have the risk of the river mouth of the Rākaia closing, as it did last year. Improved water management would mean that outstanding rivers such as the Hurunui River and the Clarence River would be protected by water conservation orders rather than the kneecapping of that instrument that this bill achieves by completely changing their protection and preservation purpose, by not allowing appeals to the Environment Court, and by having them recommended by the regional council rather than a special tribunal.

If this bill was genuinely about improved water management, as its euphemistic title suggests, we would see a stabilisation or a decline in the levels of nitrate nitrogen in our aquifers, not an increasing trend, as Environment Canterbury state of the environment monitoring has shown in a number of bores. If the bill was genuinely about improved water management, it would mean that river flows in rivers throughout Canterbury would be sufficiently large and sufficiently variable—as is part of the natural character of braided rivers—so that we would not see more incidences of the toxic cyanobacteria algae, as we have seen recently in the Hurunui River, which are a definite sign that we are not getting improved water management. Improved water management would be about people in Canterbury having no fear of swimming in our rivers and getting some nasty stomach bug or coming into contact with toxic cyanobacteria algae.

This bill is not about improved water management; it is about more irrigation and more water pollution. That is interesting, when we have seen the former Minister of Local Government, David Carter, want more rigorous performance measures for local councils. This bill provides no objective measures of what constitutes improved water management in Canterbury. There are no measures of or limits to contaminants in waterways that one might expect as a measure of whether we are heading towards cleaner streams. There are no measures of improved water quality in the aquifers. So the bill’s title is a complete misnomer for the denial of democracy that it promotes, the kneecapping of water conservation orders, and the very different law that applies under this bill to rivers in Canterbury in relation to water conservation orders elsewhere.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have to agree with many of my colleagues that the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is the wrong title for this particular bill for a whole range of reasons. I have got a list here of the bulk of the people who took the time to make submissions and who oppose this bill. So I would say that it is the wrong name for the bill. Probably a fitting name would be—as the member who spoke earlier, Grant Robertson, said—the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy) Bill”, because when you look through the submissions, every single submitter whose name I have here raises this issue: that their democratic right to elect their own representatives is being denied. Despite the promise made in 2010, this Government is now ready to break that promise. Another fitting name for the bill would be the “Forgotten Cantabrians Bill”, because, clearly, with this bill, it seems that this Government has no intention to value the people of Canterbury and to value their right to elect their own representatives. A better name for the bill would be the “More Irrigation Bill”, because this bill is not about the management of water; it is more about more pollution and more division within the people of Canterbury.

The bill could probably be more fittingly named the “Taxation without Representatives Bill”. If I look through the submissions, a primary concern raised by the people of Canterbury is that despite their elected representatives being removed forcibly by this Government under the original Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010, they continue to be forced to pay for the commissioners. So here again, under this bill, the Government is telling the people of Canterbury that they do not have the right to elect their representatives in 2013, despite that explicit promise. Instead, they are going to have to wait until 2016. But if the Government has broken the promise for 2013, how can the people of Canterbury have confidence that this Government will keep that promise for 2016? In the meantime, while that right has been taken away from them, they continue to be billed for the cost associated with those appointed by this Government.

Another name could be the “Entrenched Government Commissioners Bill”, because the Cabinet papers that we have been able to access say clearly that the right thing to have done there was to hold these elections early and not to entrench the Government-appointed commissioners. Yet what the Government is now doing is amending this bill and entrenching the attitude that the people of Canterbury do not know any better. The Government cannot trust the people of Canterbury to elect their own representatives. Therefore, Big Brother, the John Key - led National Government, knows better. Therefore, the people of Canterbury will not have the opportunity to elect representatives, so a fitting name would be the “Entrenched Government Commissioners Bill”.

But I think that the name of the bill that would resonate more with the people—not just the people of Canterbury, but right across New Zealand—is the name that this bill could rightly be called: the “Broken Promises Bill”. Time and time again we have seen example after example of how this Government makes promises and then does not fulfil them. As I said earlier, the shame of it all is that if an ordinary citizen were to write and sign a document saying “I promise to do this.”—as was the case with this Government; it promised in 2010 that local elections for Environment Canterbury would take place in 2013—and then break that promise, they are liable for court action. They are liable for a fine. They are liable for a jail term. Instead, what we now see is that the Government can get away with breaking the promise because it will change the legislation. That is not the only broken promise. And this is the sadness of this whole case. How can the people of Canterbury, and how can New Zealanders, have any confidence in this bill that elections—

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will please say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is an MMP democracy we have here, and our party has not yet had a say on this particular bit. I find that very disappointing. We have been waiting for a call, and now when we want a call we are not able to get a call. There are a number of parties in this House—

Order! Can I refer the member, please, to Speaker’s ruling 10/4: “Once the chairperson has accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question, it does not matter how far the chairperson gets; … the time to report progress is deferred until the closure and any consequential questions are determined.” So I am happy to determine your question now. Can I say that I looked up and I did not see the member there when I gave the previous call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was on my feet before the National Party member had stood. So, you know, I am sorry that you did not see me, but I was on my feet and seeking a call.

I think there are two points. I accept that we are probably not going to make much progress on this, because in the end it is your discretion, but I think there are two points that I would like to make. I think the Speaker’s ruling that you quoted from had to do with reporting progress rather than reporting a vote. I am not sure you got the right Speaker’s ruling, although I am sure you could find one if you looked. The other point, and I think the more important point, is that it is normal for a Chairman, before awarding a call, to cast their eyes around the Chamber to see who is seeking a call. On this occasion it is absolutely clear that Andrew Williams was seeking the call. He called—he called before the National Party person did. You had no obligation to take him, but my suggestion is that it would have been helpful if you had had a look.

Well, I have put the question. It has been put and it has been voted on, and now the question will be put. Thank you, Mr Mallard, for your contribution.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If I am not mistaken, it appears that the Minister in the chair, Nikki Kaye, is either texting or emailing. That is a clear breach of the earlier rulings on this matter. You are allowed to do it in the Chamber, but not in the chair, I understand.

I think you are allowed to knit, if I remember right from the days of Judith Tizard—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah, but not in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): But not in the chair—not in the chair. The member has been reprimanded.