Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9981] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will speak shortly to some amendments I have proposed to Part 1 but first I will pick up on some of the comments that Dr Smith has made in the last little while. The idea is that there has been wide consultation on this issue including the councils of Canterbury. However last night a press statement from councillor Chrissie Williams of the Christchurch City Council said that the Mayor of Christchurch may have expressed his personal view but the Christchurch City Council has not discussed the Environment Canterbury review nor formed a view nor made any resolution or announcement on this issue. She acknowledges that Dr Smith went to see the council but there was no report no discussion or any decision made by the council on that matter. To suggest that there is some kind of support for this from the councils of Canterbury is as much a nonsense as saying that the councillors of Environment Canterbury themselves were consulted on this matter and agreed to the proposal to put them up against a wall and shoot them as this bill provides for. 
I will turn to the issue of precedent on this and the message that this has not been the first time that constitutionally elected democratically elected bodies have been overturned by Government announcement. There was also the reference to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board having been disenfranchised. I would like to report the comments from the MP for Napier Chris Tremain when that happened. He said on 4 March 2008: “people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. … Regardless of who is right or wrong I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people.” I hope Mr Tremain will stand up and take a call in respect of this bill doing the same thing to Environment Canterbury. 
Of course the member for Tukituki also had some concerns on the issue and commented that the people of Hawke’s Bay believed that their democratic process had been thrown out of the window; so I hope Mr Foss will stand up and take a call and express his outrage at this happening to the people of Canterbury because that would be appropriate and in line with what is required. 
I have proposed an amendment to clause 6 around changes in the bill to the rights of appeal on water conservation orders. We say in that amendment that the abrogation of appeal rights should end when Environment Canterbury is reinstalled. At the moment those issues of appeal are still in place beyond the time frame that this bill envisages. That is important because those are important democratic rights and they should not simply be left with the bill once Environment Canterbury is reinstated. 
That of course in itself is a moot point. I note the ministerial statements yesterday of Mr Hide and Dr Smith. Mr Hide said: “I am confident that by then”—by 2013—“Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.” That is all well and good even though it will be 3½ years before we start to see a return to democracy in terms of Environment Canterbury. Unfortunately that is not the line that Dr Smith is taking. He said in a press conference yesterday that no decisions had been made in terms of the new Canterbury water authority which was envisaged by the Creech report and that the Government wants to consider the conclusions of the Land and Water Forum which is due to report in July and then the work by the Environmental Protection Authority as well as further advice from the commission and officials around the whole issue of the governance of the region’s water. 
We do not have any clarity. We have one Minister saying in a press statement that he is looking forward to the return of Environment Canterbury by the time the 2013 local body elections are due to take place which means 3½ years without democratic function yet the other Minister is saying that that is not a certainty at all. That point highlights the fact that this bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is an abrogation of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is throwing away the democratically elected body that was put in place by the people of Canterbury to make decisions around the future of water. That is just not acceptable. 
I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than is provided for. We deserve to have this bill go to a select committee process for decision making not simply be put through the House under an urgency motion in order to do away with the chance for anybody to have any input into and any say on this legislation which I think will not be good legislation in terms of the long-term results for Canterbury or for New Zealand.