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

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill amends the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It implements the Government’s decision to extend the Environment Canterbury regional council’s governance arrangements. It provides the necessary powers to complete and implement the region’s resource management framework. This bill is about continuing to provide the Canterbury region with the stable and effective governance it needs to provide a platform for future economic growth and to assist the earthquake recovery. The bill does this by extending commissioner-led governance of Environment Canterbury until the 2016 local authority elections. The bill also retains existing provisions that provide Environment Canterbury with additional resource management powers and functions.

In 2010 the elected members of Environment Canterbury were replaced by seven Government-appointed commissioners under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act. This followed a critical external review of the council’s performance in exercising its powers and responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991, and its inadequate freshwater management. This was a serious situation, and the Government acted to address it. Since 2010 the commissioners, with their specialist expertise, have proved highly effective in turning round Environment Canterbury’s performance. They have continued to make strong progress in resolving systemic issues within the council and in addressing vital water management and infrastructure issues.

The commissioners have also been very effective in developing a clear vision for the future and the sustainable management of the natural resources in the Canterbury region. They have achieved new levels of community collaboration in implementing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy through the innovative use of catchment-based zone committees. They have also made successful applications to the Government’s Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund for Lake Ellesmere and the Wainono Lagoon.

The commission has strengthened the relationship with Ngāi Tahu, which includes establishing a partnership framework that ensures enduring engagement beyond the term of the commissioners. Consent processing time frame compliance has substantially increased from 28 percent in 2008 to the current figure of 93 percent, and overall rates increases have averaged just 2.98 percent since the commissioners were appointed, compared with 5.2 percent in the previous 3 years. Clearly, the commissioners are doing an excellent job.

However, their work is not yet done. Through this bill the commissioners are being given the opportunity to complete their turn-round of the Canterbury situation. Given the decades of division and inertia that characterised regional planning in Canterbury before their appointment, there is a real risk that the work could come undone otherwise. The second-generation land and water regional plan and other plans will not be adopted by late 2013. The land and water regional plan gives effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and implements the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. These initiatives are critical for freshwater decision-making and unlocking Canterbury’s economic potential in an environmentally sustainable manner. The plan was notified last year, and hearings of submissions on it are due to start shortly. The commissioners are also leading the preparation of a natural environment recovery plan and a land use recovery plan. Important work on restoring Greater Christchurch’s public transport systems is also occurring. All of this underlines the importance of continued strong and effective leadership by the commissioners until the 2016 local elections.

I acknowledge the concerns expressed by many submitters on the bill about the decision not to hold a regional council election in 2013. I would again like to assure them that the decision was not taken lightly. There are good reasons for it, and we have been up front about them. It is the Government’s intention to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to elections by 2016. An important step in this process is the bill’s requirement for a ministerial review to start in March 2014. While the review is under way we will continue to do as much as we can to ensure that the Canterbury region realises its significant economic potential. This is what the bill is all about. It is also about providing the region with a strong, collaborative, and effective leadership team to ensure that the job that has been started is successfully finished. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call in the third and final reading of the Government’s Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. During last night’s debate on this bill, Labour put forward that we thought the new Minister of Local Government, the Hon Chris Tremain, has been landed a shocker of a bill. The bill denies basic democratic rights to the people of Canterbury. The bill will break a promise made by this Government that Cantabrians would hold free and democratic elections in 2013 after this Government replaced Environment Canterbury’s elected representatives with seven Government-appointed commissioners in 2010. The people of Canterbury did not ask this Government to interfere and remove their elected representatives in 2010. The people of Canterbury did not seek a promise from this Government that Environment Canterbury could hold its election this year. The Government made that promise freely and without coercion. The Government even legislated for that promise: after removing elected representatives in 2010 it said in the original Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, that elections would be held in 2013. Alas, that is not to be. In passing this bill, the Government breaks a solemn and legal obligation that it made voluntarily to the people of Canterbury. This bill extends for a further 3 years the loss of local government democracy in Canterbury, thus extending the term of non-elected commissioners to 6½ years. And their service is to be paid for by the Canterbury ratepayers.

The people of Canterbury have responded overwhelmingly, opposing this bill. They have said in submissions made to the Government that this bill denies their right to local democracy. It is a breach of the rule of law, they said. It is a bloody outrage and an affront on democracy, they said.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

I am merely quoting, Mr Deputy Speaker, a submitter.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not acceptable to just quote in a verbatim manner in the way the member has. I understand what he is trying to do. But just continue.

I think the quote I have put forward reflects truly the feeling of people on the ground in Canterbury. Another quote is that it is “a disgracefully antidemocratic proposal which should not be allowed to proceed.” Another quote, by the Human Rights Commissioner, submitted that this bill breaches New Zealand’s “international obligations and its commitment in the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] to protect, promote, and fulfil the rights of people in New Zealand.” The New Zealand Law Society opposes this bill. It rightly submits that this Government does not have sufficient justification for suspending local democracy. The Beckenham Neighbourhood Association opposes this bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand opposes this bill. Through submissions, through thousands of people who went out on the streets, the people of Canterbury have overwhelmingly sought to send the strongest message possible to this Government to stop this madness. After a litany of broken promises on jobs, on housing, on health, and on education, the people of Canterbury have no confidence that this Government will allow them to hold elections in 2016. How can the people of Canterbury trust another promise, when promise after promise has been broken?

If the people of Canterbury have any doubt whatsoever that this Government has no intention whatsoever of keeping its promises, have a look and consider the announcement made today by this Government of further changes to the Resource Management Act. The people of Canterbury can look at those reforms and find out for themselves that there is no way that this Government intends to keep its promise for 2016. It has broken the promise of 2013. It will break it again—it will break it again. In the recent announcement of the reforms, we find that this pattern will now extend outside of Canterbury and will extend to all local government if the Government gets away with the changes in the recent work on the Resource Management Act.

We cannot blame the people of Canterbury for feeling the way that they feel now, because it is an outrage, particularly when you have had the then Minister of Local Government, the Minister Nick Smith, who clearly said in March 2010, “whatever the circumstances,” that the next Environment Canterbury elections would be in 2013. He said: “whatever the circumstances,”—whatever the circumstances—“the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” In this House I have learnt that Ministers’ words are law. We call them honourable members, because it is our expectation that they keep their word. This bodes badly for all politicians, the way that this Government has just made promises and broken them by law. That does not bode well for any of the members of this House. Not only did Nick Smith say those words but also Cabinet papers presented by David Carter, the previous Minister of Local Government, and presented by Amy Adams reinforced that elections would be held in 2013, so the passing of this bill reinforces what I am saying. There has been broken promise after broken promise.

It has been broken because—and people might ask: “Well, what is the purpose?”. Well, I think the people of Canterbury have some very real concerns, some very real fears, because if they are not going to be given the opportunity to elect their own representatives, yet are forced to continually pay for the efforts of their Government-appointed commissioners, what sort of message does that send about our democracy? If I look around this room, I see symbols of wreaths and I see names of various countries that many people fought for in wars and died for. They did this freely, and gave their lives in many cases, as a sacrifice because of their belief that democracy is important, that democracy should be the foundation of our country. I have to say that this bill is a spit in those people’s faces. This shows that their sacrifice was not worth it.

Just because this Government is in power, it does not give it the right to ram things down people’s throats without taking the people with it. I have to say that consistently since this Government came into power, I have no doubt that the people in Canterbury who are listening to this debate and observing how this Government has behaved would be sorely disappointed, because I suspect that many of them thought that this Government would be a saviour. Particularly by electing some of the individuals representing them from that part of the country, they might have thought that somehow their interests would be protected. Sadly, they will now find out, by the passing of this bill and through further bills that are to come, that local democracy means nothing in terms of this Government.

If it can do this to Canterbury, what, then, is going to happen to other local authorities? I would say that come election 2014, I think it is incumbent upon every New Zealander, if they do not like the way that this Government is treating them and is trampling on the rights of individuals, the rights of our citizens, that they need to vote this group out. Vote ’em out—that is the only way that you can bring about good change. As David Shearer said last year, if Labour was in Government, we would hold these elections for Canterbury right now. We would hold those elections right now, because Labour upholds the principles of democracy. We know the value of democracy. We know the value of democracy, but this group here does not.

I rise to speak to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. We have been hearing a lot of heated debate over this bill. There is no doubt that in an ideal world, installing commissioners in the place of the elected Canterbury Regional Council would be unnecessary, but back in 2010 the council was struggling to perform its duties effectively. It was bogged down with the enormous challenges of managing water in Canterbury and it had lost the confidence of the people of Canterbury, and that was no good for the environment and it was no good for the people of Canterbury. It was interesting that back in 2010, when submitters submitted on the original bill, they were deeply concerned about the dangers of having commissioners. They were very fearful about Environment Canterbury’s role going forward and they forecast all sorts of dire consequences. As we hear those submitters once again now, in 2013, they are mostly respectful and pleased with the work that the commissioners have done. They do not like the loss of democracy, but they know that the commissioners have done a good job.

They are particularly appreciative of the progress made with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and for those of you who do not know, this is a really exciting, new, collaborative process that has changed the way that people think about managing water in Canterbury. The local zone committees have worked very long and hard and have put a lot of time and energy into finding new solutions to ensure the outcomes of both water quantity and water quality. The first step of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is almost complete, and we are now looking at stage two, which is a cohesive land and water plan that is under way with the ultimate aim of developing a statutory framework. It is true that things have taken a bit longer than expected, but that is not surprising considering the lives of everybody in Canterbury have been both disrupted and diverted by the Canterbury earthquakes, and so has Environment Canterbury’s. But progress is absolutely being made; it is just that the commissioners need a little bit longer to finalise their work.

The commissioners have also spent a lot of time repairing and strengthening relationships with stakeholders across Canterbury, and that has meant new partnerships are being developed to the benefit of the environment. There is a really interesting and exciting new partnership initiative around the cleaning up of Lake Te Waihora—Lake Ellesmere—that sees central government, Environment Canterbury, and Ngāi Tahu working hand in hand to restore that waterway. This bill also provides for a ministerial review. This has to be done by 1 March 2014. It will look at the membership of Environment Canterbury, the governance structure, the powers, and the functions. I think that is going to be a very important step forward.

So I would like to take the time to thank the commissioners for their work. I look forward to the completion of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, I look forward to the improved status and the clean-up of Lake Te Waihora, and, of course, I look forward to the results of the ministerial review. I commend this bill to the House.

I would like to just touch for a moment on the last point that the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, made, and that was about a ministerial review and that Environment Canterbury would be looked at. Part 2, of course, is about governance and about membership. The problem with that is we cannot believe these people any more. We cannot believe the Government any more, because Government members told us prior to the last election—there was a cast-iron guarantee from Nick Smith—that there would be an election on schedule this year. Now they say that is delayed some years out—democracy denied, yet again.

Now we sort of get all excited—we get all excited. “Isn’t it all lovely?”, says Ms Wagner. We are all excited about a ministerial review. Is it not going to be wonderful? The problem Ms Wagner has got is that nobody believes her. Nobody believes this Government, because the people of Canterbury were lied to—they were lied to. They were told that they would have an election, and they were lied to. That crew over there—Ms Wagner included—broke their promise to the people of Christchurch Central, broke their promise to the people of Canterbury, and now they talk about a governance review.

Well, I have to say to Ms Wagner that no one believes you—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—no one believes you and believes the intent of this legislation. They do not believe that there will be a positive outcome of a review. They do not even believe that there will be elections on schedule, as scheduled in this piece of genius work, which was, of course, introduced to the House after the last election.

That is where we get to the rub. This crew are very, very good at talking about mandates. There ain’t a mandate for this. They could not prove there was a mandate, right through the debate. Right through the debate Ms Wagner claimed that there was the overwhelming support of Canterbury, and at every stage we pointed out to Ms Wagner that there were five submissions in support of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and 90 submissions against it. She cited Ngāi Tahu, an eminent organisation. She cited Federated Farmers—the National Party in gumboots. She cited Local Government New Zealand—a really grassroots organisation! There were two others, who were irrigators. There were five submitters in favour of this bill, and 90 submitters who were against it.

There is absolutely no mandate. This bill was introduced after the last election. The people of Canterbury were lied to again, and this Government stands up and the best it can do is put up “Daisy Chain”, who says: “Isn’t it all exciting? Isn’t it all wonderful? Isn’t it all fantastic?”.

I say to Ms Wagner: as she polled her electorate in the last 2 weeks—I ask her this question—I wonder whether she polled her electorate and asked them about this legislation, and also asked them about Phillipstown School and what she said and the promises she made to that school, which she went back on; the promises she made to Phillipstown School in terms of representation, which she never delivered on; and the fact that she never ever said to that school that she would back it to the hilt and fight to keep it open. I wonder whether she polled on that.

The people of Canterbury, let us be very, very clear about it, have been lied to, and lied to again with this piece of legislation. Nick Smith made a cast-iron promise: come hell or high water there would be an election. That was a broken promise.

💬 Andrew Little: When was that election?

When was that election? Well, it was supposed to be later this year, Mr Little, as you would be aware—later this year.

The point I made time and time again, and that colleagues have made, throughout this debate is why is it that the Government refuses to have faith in the people of Canterbury—their leadership and their community—to draw from themselves sound men and women and sound leaders to represent them? Why does it have no faith? Why does Ms Wagner think that in Christchurch Central there is no one good enough—no one good enough—smart enough, or intelligent enough to lead our region as an elected person in Environment Canterbury? Why does Ms Wagner think that an unelected, unaccountable set of commissioners, installed by her and her ilk, who are accountable to no one in Canterbury apart from the boffins and her colleagues in Wellington—why does she think that is appropriate, and why does she think there is nobody with leadership qualities in Canterbury who could lead our region and contribute to it?

I say the reason is this: the reason that this crew do not want an elected Environment Canterbury this year is that that will provide another platform for the Canterbury community to stand up and elect leaders, and men and women, who might turn round to Ms Wagner, Gerry Brownlee, Amy Adams, Kate Wilkinson, and anybody else who sort of imposes their will down there and say: “I’m sorry, National Government. We disagree with you.” Government members do not like listening to people who disagree with them. They love listening to yes-men and yes-women. So if they do not have an election, they will have their puppets as commissioners, unaccountable to anyone in Canterbury, without a mandate, who will do their bidding, nod quite sweetly, and do what they are told, as they are patted on the head—as they are patted on the head. Do what Ms Wagner and Gerry Brownlee say—no opposition.

Here is the problem in a practical sense in the communities you have. There used to be a time—Jo Kane was a commissioner in Environment Canterbury. She is a good local person in the area in which I live—a great person. You could ring Jo up and you could say: “One of the ratepayers has got a problem, Jo. You’re elected. We need you to help to sort it out.”, and she would do her level best to do it, and she would get back to you, and she was accountable. Even if she could not deliver, she would be accountable to that community. Now what happens is that the puppets that the National Government have put in place, the commissioners who are not responsible, as Jo Kane was to her electors in her region—you cannot find them, you cannot get hold of them, and, by the way, there is no motivation on their side of the fence to engage in those practical solutions that the community needs.

But in fairness to the commissioners, their paymasters are not the people of Canterbury. Their paymasters, who dictate to them, sit on those benches over there. Their paymasters are the ones who lied to the people of Canterbury, promised them an election this year, lied to them, broke that promise, and now dress it up in all of Nicky Wagner’s fine words about how excited she is and how wonderful it is because we are going to have a governance review. When is it? It is in March 2014. Well, as I said at the start of this speech, no one believes Nicky Wagner that that review will involve the community, because there is no guarantee in this legislation that the community will be involved in that review. No one believes her. No one believes Amy Adams. No one believes Gerry Brownlee or Kate Wilkinson or that the community will get the authority back to have an election as scheduled in this extension bill. These people over here have no credibility.

The once-great National Party—in theory, in its own eyes, with its own ideology—believes in free markets, freedom of choice, freedom of expression, and, presumably, freedom of democracy. Well, I wonder what old “Kiwi Keith”, Keith Holyoake, would say about this crew over here. The only motivation behind keeping the vote away from the people of Canterbury is, one, to deny them the opportunity to elect leaders to represent them, and, two, to deny those leaders the opportunity, with a mandate, to voice opposition to some of the things that this crew are doing in Christchurch.

💬 Andrew Williams: Bainimarama.

Yes, Bainimarama—a very good point. A very good point. A touch of Zimbabwe as well, I suspect—although even in Zimbabwe they get a vote now. They never used to, but they got a vote.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Leadership speech.

But not this crew—not this crew. What was the interjection over there? Well, I say to Sam Lotu-Iiga that at least in Auckland that member and his constituency in Maungakiekie actually get a say. They have a vote, they get a say, they are allowed to—and he defended that mandate, I am sure.

💬 Andrew Williams: They get two votes.

They get two says. They get two votes. They are allowed to have a crack. But these guys do not want that. They want to crush any opposition—not even opposition; they want to crush the ability of people to stand up and say: “We respectfully disagree with this Government. We believe there is a better way for our province. We believe that we should not be bullied, steamrolled, or bulldozed by Gerry Brownlee, Ms Wagner, Ms Wilkinson, and Amy Adams. We want to be part of our community. We want to elect leaders—fine men and women—in Canterbury who are not substandard, who are intelligent, who are community leaders, and who are damned well good enough to lead our province.” But Nicky Wagner—oh, and do not forget old what’s-his-face, Aaron Gilmore; they think they know best. They have no faith in the people of Canterbury and those community leaders—and at a time, also, when we have a dysfunctional Christchurch City Council. The mayor and Gerry Brownlee, the sort of human buttresses, are at each other throats, cannot agree on most things—cannot agree on most things. We need a functioning local government down here.

I say to this crew: remember and rue this day, because this was the day the National Government and the National Party members of Canterbury lied and lied again to the people of Christchurch and the Canterbury province.

It is a profoundly sad and shameful day in this House to be here considering the third reading and final stages of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill.

We are here as members of Parliament because New Zealanders voted for us, and voted for our parties. We are here only because people were able to exercise that fundamental democratic right to vote, and yet this House is considering legislation that denies that right to vote, to elect their regional council, to over 400,000 Cantabrians.

This bill itself is a mere four pages long, but its effects are profound, because it extends the principal Act, which has the same euphemistic and inaccurate title—the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act—for another 3 years. So that means that Cantabrians are going to be denied their regional democracy and their right to vote for 6 long years.

Mrs Wagner said that Environment Canterbury was struggling, that people had lost confidence in the council. How did the Government know that people had lost confidence, when it did not ask anyone except Ngāi Tahu and the 10 Canterbury mayors? There was no public consultation. The organisation that had lost confidence in the council was Irrigation New Zealand. One of the reasons it had lost confidence in the council was that the council had increased the minimum flow in the Waimakariri River to better sustain that river’s health and functioning, and Irrigation New Zealand did not like it, because it impacted on proposals to take more water out of the river. That is who lost confidence—it was the irrigators, not the people of Canterbury.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What about the mayors?

And the 10 mayors, and they will be rueing that now, with Government proposals for unitary councils in Canterbury.

This is an indefensible bill, and that has been quite obvious in the short speeches we are hearing from Government members and the very short calls that Government MPs took during the Committee stage. It is indefensible, and that is obvious because the Minister of Local Government failed to take any calls to answer requests from several Opposition members to answer questions that we were asking.

So Government members gave up. They know that there is no justification for this bill. They know that they cannot speak truthfully about the reasons for this bill. They know that the excuses given by the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment are spurious—those reasons being the earthquake and the need for stable governance. It is strange how that does not affect the ability of the Christchurch City Council, the Waimakariri District Council, and the Selwyn District Council to get on with working with their communities and representing their citizens in major decisions about earthquake recovery, albeit constrained substantially by the sweeping powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

The real reason for this bill is to facilitate more irrigation and more dairy cows on the Canterbury Plains and elsewhere—the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme, and TrustPower’s irrigation scheme for the Rākaia River and Lake Coleridge. That is because irrigation, more cows, and more dairying are a key part of this Government’s tired and unimaginative apology for an economic plan—if it could be called that. That plan is to continue with a frontier-style mentality of increasing cow numbers and increasing milk production, without thinking about the cost of that to the environment and to other sectors of the economy such as tourism, food processing, and other industries that require clean water.

That is why this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is proceeding. It is proceeding against the advice of the Government’s own appointed commissioners that there should be a transitional council, which would have a mix of elected councillors and appointed members. So there is no substantive reason for the bill, except to promote irrigation.

We have not heard yet from National members the mistruths and inaccuracies that they have promoted in the past when we have debated the bill—that Environment Canterbury did not have a regional plan, when in fact there was a natural resources regional plan since 2004 guiding consent decisions. We have not heard yet, but I am sure we will, that the council was not processing consents in a timely manner. The former Minister Nick Smith loved to talk about that, when in fact if he had looked at the statistics in 2010-11, 80 percent of the resource consents were being processed by the council within the statutory deadlines. There was a total failure by the Government to recognise that Environment Canterbury was dealing with more applications for water permits than all the rest of New Zealand’s other regional councils. It was doing that without any help from the Government in the form of national policy statements or national standards.

This bill and what it represents are part of the profound changes that this Government is making to the relationship between central government and local government. This bill is one of the worst and most Draconian examples of that, by denying people the right to vote. National does not trust local government. It does not trust Cantabrians to elect councillors who would promote irrigation, and sign off on a very weak regional policy statement and an even weaker land and water plan, which is what the commissioners are doing. It is those weak statutory documents, under the Resource Management Act, that will allow irrigation to flourish and the environment to deteriorate.

National’s whole attitude to local government, which this bill highlights, is very different from that of previous Governments. National does not seem to recognise that local government is not a branch office of central government. It does not recognise that local councillors are elected by their local communities and derive their mandate from the exercise of that democratic right, and that local communities pay rates and therefore are entitled to elect their representatives to make decisions about how those rates are spent. This bill cuts right across that relationship.

Cantabrians are paying $84 million annually to the regional council, but have no councillors to represent them. And as others have noted, there is the ultimate indignity of Cantabrians paying the salaries of the commissioners rather than central government paying those salaries even though it appointed them.

Last year we saw National take an axe to the Local Government Act. It substantially increased the power of the Minister of Local Government to interfere with councils, to appoint Crown observers, Crown managers, Crown review teams, and commissioners so that in future, with other councils around New Zealand, we will not need special legislation like the principal Act and this bill in order for the Government to intervene and appoint commissioners. It now has the powers in the Local Government Act to do that.

Today we had the very disturbing proposals of the Minister for the Environment to attack the core of the Resource Management Act, the way in which sustainable management is defined, and to abrogate yet more powers from councils to central government. Those proposals would give the Minister the power to direct what councils should put in their plans, and to direct the outcomes that those plans should promote. So this is all about concentrating and centralising power in Wellington and, specifically, power in the Beehive. This Environment Canterbury bill is one of the worst examples of that.

In a healthy democracy you have the exercise of power and authority, subject to a range of checks and balances. When government is distributed to local government, as well as having checks like the judiciary, robust select committees, and government responsibilities are distributed, then you have got a healthy democracy, because local government is one of those important checks on central government. Yet this National Government, with this bill, with its proposals today, and with its changes to the Local Government Act, is wanting to centralise power and for Ministers to be able to dictate what local government does. That is despite local government in this country raising a good deal more of its revenue than occurs in many countries overseas. This bill is a profound attack on democracy, but it sits with a suite of measures that this Government is taking to cut across local government, to centralise power, and to undermine democracy generally.

When the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, took the brave move of sacking the councillors and appointing commissioners to Environment Canterbury, water policy in Canterbury was an absolute basket case. It did not even have an operative water plan. Consents were being made in a policy vacuum. Its overallocated catchments were being consented with no regard to the overall picture. Environment Canterbury councillors were a factionalised bunch more interested in fighting for their own interests than in the interests of the wider region. It is a bit like the Labour Party caucus, actually, if you ask me. Consenting times were the worst of any council in New Zealand. Every other local authority had lost confidence in Environment Canterbury. So the speaker from the Green Party, Eugenie Sage, should not tell me that all was wonderful during her time as an Environment Canterbury councillor. It was not.

During the time the commissioners have been in their role they have been highly successful and effective in addressing Environment Canterbury’s systemic problems and reforming its decision making and conduct. In particular I want to mention a couple of things. They have managed the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan to an operative stage and started work on a second-generation land and water plan, which was notified in August of last year. They have made significant progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy through collaborative processes. Praise the Lord for collaborative processes! And there has been development of zone implementation plans, which are now working their way into the statutory plan by way of plan change processes. That is progress. That is what matters to the constituents of Environment Canterbury.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill gives effect to the continuation of that work. It is important work. It is important for the economic future of Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Has this not been an interesting week of undermining democracy in New Zealand? Many people around New Zealand watching this broadcast, and watching it over this last week, will be somewhat flabbergasted and in awe of this Parliament that the undermining of democracy could continue in this country in the manner that it has, particularly when the submissions on this particular bill came from so many different sectors that said it was time to return democracy to Canterbury, including even the commissioners themselves. Dame Margaret Bazley, a very eminent public servant who has headed up the commissioners there, and the other commissioners recommended that there be a transition back to a shared arrangement between the commissioners and elected representatives, with the intention to then get fully back to elected representatives in due course. That recommendation from Dame Margaret Bazley has been ignored by this Government. A sensible solution by this Government would have been to allow a transition back so that perhaps the knowledge and the expertise that the commissioners have had over the last year or two could be transitioned back to the newly elected people. And there would have been comfort from all sides that it was a proper process and that due course was being allowed to run in terms of democratic principles in Christchurch.

It was also interesting that the regulatory impact statements from the Department of Internal Affairs and from the Ministry for the Environment also recommended that democracy be returned to Canterbury. Again, the recommendations from those departments were ignored. Christchurch City Council itself, in its report, also called for the return of elections for Environment Canterbury. Again, the local authority, the second-largest local authority in New Zealand, which has been going through a huge amount of pain in the last couple of years, has also been ignored in this.

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

Is it not interesting that when questioned at the Local Government and Environment Committee, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner said that New Zealand had gone to war to stop regimes denying people their democratic rights and denying the proper process of a democratic place for people to live in? In this respect he said we were somewhat hypocritical in this country to be pointing the finger at other regimes around the world—Fiji and Zimbabwe were mentioned—while at the same time denying those same principles here in our country, New Zealand. That was quite an eye-opener, so much so that the members from the National Party who sat there took some offence, got a little bit heated, and got a bit hot under the collar when the Chief Human Rights Commissioner mentioned that. In fact, we were almost wanting him to retract his words, but he would not. He stood by his words, and he said that New Zealand will have great difficulty in international forums in the future trying to point the finger at others about having the right of the vote for every person in their particular countries, when here in New Zealand those same principles are not upheld in Canterbury.

In that respect, New Zealand First has huge doubts about the integrity of this current Government. We have seen what it has done in areas like Auckland. We have seen what it has done in other parts of New Zealand. It does not listen to submitters, and we have seen that this week in this Parliament. I am absolutely appalled. For so many bills this week in this Parliament the Government has just wanted to close them down, shut them up, move them on, and not allow proper debate in the House of Representatives. This is the House of Representatives. Government members seem to forget that there are 121 members of Parliament who represent all of the people of New Zealand. They seem to forget that. And they seem to forget that the purpose of this Chamber is to fully debate and flesh out all the arguments, the pros and the cons of whatever is being put forward in legislation, to ensure that it does receive full, fair, frank, and robust debate. Yet time and time again this week, on so many bills of social importance and economic performance and of importance to the lives of people in New Zealand, the people sitting on the other side of this House, on the Treasury benches, have wanted just to stop the debate, shut the debate down, and not even put up a robust rebuttal or a defence of their position. It is appalling that Government members are not prepared to put to the people of this country any decent argument on so many issues this week, on so many bills this week. They are not prepared to defend their position, at all. That is arrogance. That is total arrogance.

The people of New Zealand are seeing the total arrogance, and it is appalling. People will remember. We are now 18 months out from an election. That clock is ticking and it is ticking very, very quickly. The wheels are falling off, and the true face of the National Party is coming through. The arrogance is coming through, and this is the latest and one of the worst examples of that. It is denying the people of Canterbury, who have gone through so much in the last couple of years, the basic, fundamental human right to vote.

Is it not incredible that we were celebrating the right for women to vote, which all started in the uprising in Canterbury, and how the women’s vote was so important that a hundred and—how many years ago was it? A hundred and—

💬 Hon Member: 1896.

It was 1896 or whatever that the women of Canterbury then fought to get the right to vote. They would be rolling in their graves, some of those women today—rolling in their graves—if they thought they went through all that to get the right to vote for women, only to find 120-odd years later that not only do the women not get the right to vote but also the men of Canterbury do not get a right to vote either. It is unbelievable. What a backward step under this National Government that is.

Well, I can assure you, New Zealand First can assure you, that under a different Government, which New Zealand First, hopefully, will be part of, there will be a return to democracy in Canterbury. We will return the right of every Cantabrian to ask for and have their elected people speak for them in Canterbury, not people brought in by the National Party on all sorts of high fees—former Prime Ministers on $1,000 a day, and the likes of, you know, the ring-ins from the National Party. That will stop, and the local people of Canterbury once again will have their men and women representing them and standing up for the best interests of Canterbury.

As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said at the beginning of this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, we acknowledge the concerns of the submitters. We very much acknowledge the unease around these sorts of things. This, though, was a decision not taken lightly. We were very much of the view that we could have left it alone, except when you look at the facts—which is unknown territory for the Opposition ranks, particularly, I would have to say, the bellowing filibusterer—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Bellicose.

—bellicose as well, thank you—the former member for Waimakariri, charmless individual that he is.

Environment Canterbury’s performance, when we look at the facts, was ranked the worst out of the 84 councils in New Zealand. The review group stated that “the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury required comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government.” Unfortunately, that is what we had to do. But do you know what? It has worked. The processing time frames for consents have gone from 28 percent in 2008 to 93 percent currently, and only a 2.9 percent increase in rates. This has worked very well. The collaborative approach of the commissioners has been commendable, and the elections will be held in 2016.

This is a piece of legislation that unfortunately is essential and I commend it to the House.

I am surprised that the Government’s National Party members from the Canterbury region have not dominated its contribution to this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Members: Where are they?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah, where are they? They’re hiding in their rooms. They’re gutless.

Well, I cannot refer to some of these matters. I know that my colleagues are trying to be extremely helpful in terms of my contribution to this debate.

The point is that this is an important issue in Canterbury, and I would have thought that every single National Canterbury member would be speaking on this particular bill. I actually think it is very important that they get up and speak in the House, but we have seen Aucklander after Aucklander and, I think, only one representative from the Canterbury region has actually spoken in the House. I think that is a pity.

I want to remind this House about the legislation that we are extending with this bill. I believe that it is important to continually remind ourselves of what was an utterly undemocratic bill that was passed through an undemocratic process that saw a Government predetermination become law through a sequence of events.

I want to just remind the House what that sequence of events relates to. One of them was the general election, obviously, in 2008 and the determination that the Government had to make significant changes in the area of our resource management legislative framework. But there was a problem in Canterbury that it needed to address as a matter of urgency, because the problem in Canterbury related to the allocation of water rights. That was a massive issue there because of the intensification of dairying on the Canterbury plains—parts of Canterbury that simply were never naturally resourced for dairying, because of the amount of water that it requires.

So the Government decided that it would do a review, but, very interestingly, that review did not come from the council itself. We faced a similar situation when we were in Government, with the Rodney District Council approaching us as we became the Government, asking us to continue the process of the review that it had written to the previous Government about. In fact, it was a unanimous decision of the council to have it replaced with commissioners so that the terrible issues that were arising in that area were able to be—[Interruption] Yes, it was a unanimous decision from the Rodney District Council. I have just noticed that Government members like to toss that across the House from time to time, so I just want to remind the House that that was a unanimous decision of the Rodney District Council for the Government to intervene.

So what did the Government do here? It appointed Wyatt Creech to undertake a review. Wyatt Creech has an association not only with the Government, a fairly obvious one, but also with the industry that demands so much of our water resources in Canterbury. So his selection to chair this review was utterly and completely inappropriate right from the outset. It was biased and—look, I have made the point before that for a conflict of interest to exist, it does not have to be a real conflict of interest. It is simply the perception. But this is real. It is a real conflict of interest when one is a dairy farmer and a former member of the Government and one is tasked with a role for which Government has set terms of reference; Environment Canterbury was not consulted.

In fact, the whole process was sparked off by the so-called letter, signed by all of the mayors in the region. I see that my colleague is nodding her head—she remembers that—because we all know what really happened. We know that Jo Goodhew in her role as the MP in Timaru approached the Mayor of Timaru in order to get all the mayors to sign up to a letter, which never went back to the individual councils for debate and was never signed off by any one of those councils for sending off to the Minister. But the mayors signed this letter, at the request of the Government, so that it would have the basis for this review—for this intervention—to occur.

I worry that we have lost sight of what really happened in those early days. We all understood very clearly from the Minister, Nick Smith, that—and I want to quote him into the record again, as I know others have done—“whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” Here we are in the inevitable position of seeing this Government break yet another firm commitment to the people of Canterbury that it would stand alongside them in their hour of need. On this particular occasion it promised the restoration of democracy. There was an acceptance that democracy was being set aside—nobody on this side of the House accepted it for 1 minute. The Government acknowledged that that is what it was doing but said it was for a very limited period of time. But, no, it was not for a limited period of time. We are now facing a further 3 years without any democratic return.

What is extraordinary in this particular case is that not only was the original decision so fundamentally flawed—I have a copy of the Creech report here, and it is a report of two halves. It is absolutely a report of two halves. One part has been written as a political analysis to support the Government’s predetermined position, and the other part of it is written by an independent analyst, who has described Environment Canterbury’s improvements in the operation and the challenges that it faced with the water chapter, which, of course, was in a position to be implemented shortly after the commissioners took over. All of that work was completely ignored by the Government because it had a predetermined position.

Then we fast track to today, and we have got a regulatory impact statement that makes it absolutely clear that there has not been a Crown-led public consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and communities on the options in the regulatory impact statement. It says: “This limits our ability to present community views on the options in this analysis.” I have to say that the two preferred options are those that are preferred by Environment Canterbury commissioners themselves—a mixed model of governance with one option being the legislation to establish a permanent mixed governing model, and the other option being to have to have a transitional mixed governing body, with the transfer back to a fully democratically elected council within a 3-year period beyond that—so the review of arrangements in 2017.

I think that if the Government had actually adopted the advice of the regulatory impact statement and of the advisers in that regard, then we would perhaps have been able to see our way clear to supporting some change in this area, even if it had been a transitional provision as opposed to a permanent transition. That, to me, is the fundamental flaw in this whole process. The Government has started with a position. As I said at the Committee stage, it is really the expression “improved water management” that sticks in people’s throats in Canterbury, because we know that this has got nothing to do with improved water management. This has got everything to do with access to the water, and, unfortunately, that is not necessarily in the interests of Canterbury.

I rise to speak in favour of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I appreciate that it is one that arouses great passion in the House. Suffice to say, I do not agree with the notion that democracy has been abandoned. It is appropriate that central government steps in when a failure has occurred at a council, and failure certainly did occur at Environment Canterbury. It was ranked worst out of 84 councils in New Zealand, and a review group stated that the institutional failure at Environment Canterbury required “comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to … enhance both regional and national well-being.” So we did have a failure. Commissioners were installed, and they have done an excellent job under the stewardship of Dame Margaret Bazley. This bill gives them time to finish the job, and on that basis I support it. Thank you.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Speaker.

A split call?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: A split call is correct.

The Hon Ruth Dyson.

Could I first of all acknowledge Paul Goldsmith, the member who has just resumed his seat, and thank him for acknowledging the fact that this issue has caused such a lot of concern in Canterbury. I think that was a fair acknowledgment. The member came as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and heard the very strongly put opposition to this bill by a large number of Cantabrians.

In fact, of the 95 submissions received on this bill, only five were in favour. They were from Federated Farmers, two irrigation companies, and Ngāi Tahu, which was significant, but significant because of their wish to have a better dialogue and engagement with our regional council, rather than their dissatisfaction. They did note that they had never had a good relationship with elected officers before, and I think that that is something that we certainly would not support. We wish that Ngāi Tahu would have a better relationship with all elected officials, but that does not justify not just sacking our elected representatives but sacking them for a further 3 years.

I suppose what I have been surprised about in listening to this debate through all stages of the bill, including quite a fair length of time in the Committee stage, is that not one member of the National Government found fit to justify why they had supported making a liar of their Minister who has recently returned to Cabinet, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I think it is really offensive to have a Minister of Cabinet put on the public record—not just as an aside, but in a considered and serious way, as Dr Nick Smith is wont to do—“whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” Nick Smith promised that when he was the Minister responsible for introducing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, which we are now amending. I think it is an outrage that members of his own party do not even acknowledge the fact that he said that in good faith.

People in Canterbury believed his promise to us. We thought it was bad enough that we were having our right to vote taken away for a little while, but this is just extraordinary. Our faith in Nick Smith has been shattered—not by him, but by members of his own party in Government.

The deceit and the unnecessary need for this legislation has carried on. The first Cabinet paper—which was signed by the Hon David Carter when he was Minister of Local Government, and by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams, who was very new to that job at the time—stated that any option except a return to a fully elected council would limit the democratic rights of residents of Canterbury compared with the rest of the country. That is true. They saw that as a problem.

The Government members do not seem to think it is an issue at all. Taking away our democratic right to vote does not seem to have occurred to them as being a problem. Their outrageous dismissal of our right to vote for our regional council, and their saying that the current commissioners are doing a good job, beggars belief. It is hard to accept in New Zealand, the country so proud of women winning the right to vote nearly 120 years ago, that we—an entire region—have had our right to vote taken away from us with this bland dismissal from the Government in such an arrogant and offensive way. It just beggars belief. It is certainly not the only way that Cantabrians—and the rest of the country, actually—are feeling stompled over by this Government.

The other issue that I just want to briefly mention, and I certainly have mentioned it in my earlier contributions, is the fact that in the regulatory impact statement, yet again, advice not just from one ministry, not just from two, but from all three ministries giving advice on this bill recommended that the water conservation orders be restored to the state that every other region has them in. Again, this bill takes away that standard process that we have had, and in Canterbury the protection of our water is more critical for us than it is for anywhere else in New Zealand. It is the biggest issue in Canterbury, and that is why we have seen the Government take away this democratic right. Some of us think that our water needs to be preserved and cared for and protected for future generations, because the way that the irrigators are using it up means that we now have rivers that are dry, we have aquifers that are polluted, and a treasure that we should be able to pass on to future generations is being lost.

It comes as no surprise that the National-led Government justifies this appalling bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill, which continues the suspension of democracy in Canterbury, by saying that Canterbury must realise its economic potential. It is extraordinary that the Government justifies its actions in this way, because the only economic vision it has for Canterbury is one of intensive dairying and massive irrigation schemes. The trouble with this vision is that Canterbury is already reaching the limit of what it can sustain in the way of intensive dairying.

Canterbury is already experiencing serious environmental impacts, and particularly downstream impacts on our water, from its existing levels of dairying. One of the reasons for this is that not only is irrigated dairying incredibly water hungry, with two large dairy farms using as much water as the whole city of Christchurch, but the impact of that number of cows is exacerbated by the fact that in Canterbury the gravel soils are not suited to dairying. The gravel soils readily leak the nitrates and other pollutants into the aquifers and into the downstream areas, polluting drinking water and causing areas to become very high in nitrates, with real concern for bottle-fed babies and so on. It is extremely serious.

One of the things that really strikes me is that those using this bill to justify the expansion of intensive dairying are showing that they value intensive dairying and irrigation ahead of democracy, ahead of the environment, and ahead of social cohesion and agreement about the way forward for Canterbury economically. It is utterly and completely unethical. I know that if we on this side of the House were to suggest that we should be removing democracy in order to protect the environment, there would be howls of outrage from irrigators and farmers, and that is the way it should be. The reality is that democracy is the foundation for a stable, cohesive society where we have to work together and work within the limits of what we can agree to move forward.

I am utterly appalled that the Government cannot trust the people of Canterbury to agree on what is the best economic vision for Canterbury that does not involve polluting our waters, draining our rivers dry, and building massive dams. That is not the vision that many people want for Canterbury, and the Government should not have to do it by removing democracy in order to pursue that vision. It is an extremely narrow, short-term vision for Canterbury. We can do better than that, and that is why the Green Party does not support this bill. It is an absolutely unethical, immoral bill. Thank you.

My colleagues on this side of the House have canvassed the issues well and summarised them succinctly, so I do not wish to add anything further in my support of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill.