Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9930] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Labour is opposing this bill. It is a constitutional outrage on a whole number of levels. This bill replaces Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors with Government-appointed commissioners. 
Amy Adams 
: As you did in 2000. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I will come back to the issue of Rodney District Council. The member for Selwyn had better take note that this measure will not have universal appeal in her electorate and that it would have been useful if that member’s office had been able to advise people who called this afternoon about what her position would be. But I put that to one side. 
This bill will absolutely disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury for the next 3½ years. It is not a quick fix; it is a long-term assault on the democratic model which we on this side of the House happen to believe is quite important constitutionally. This bill follows on from the Creech report which took place in a time frame of just under a month. The reviewers consulted fewer than 20 stakeholders—20 stakeholders. It talked to the mayors but not to the councils and the councils had not been consulted by their mayors. One has to say that mayors may have a different view about what is important for territorial authorities in Canterbury from what their councils might actually have. 
Environment Canterbury is a democratically elected body. Its history has included having members of this House as members. But this bill without any chance for public submissions will disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury. This point of relevance was already raised in terms of contrast with what happened at Rodney but we will come to that in a minute. This bill will see the National and ACT coalition appointing from four to seven commissioners who will make all of the decisions for Environment Canterbury. That is going further than the recommendations of the Creech report which said in fact that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job in respect of all of its other functions and— 
Colin King 
: What about its coastal plan? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it was saying that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job. Not only that but I went to the briefing held by Wyatt Creech and the commissioners where it was said that some of the issues about water were the responsibility of this Parliament of Government and of the Environment Court and that not even on the issue of water alone could all of the responsibility for its management and any question marks about the track record of that management be sheeted home to Environment Canterbury. 
So I ask why we are not seeing a bill that actually embodies those thoughts from the review of Environment Canterbury conducted in rapid fashion by Wyatt Creech and his review team. Why are we not seeing a bill that embodies the issues around the politics of water and this Government’s determination to get quick runs on the board in the next year without environmental checks and balances being put in place? I put that issue to the Minister for the Environment this morning. I asked whether there would be accompanying legislation to this bill to ensure that new rounds for the allocation of water as envisaged under this bill—at the centre and core of this bill and with environmental checks and balances in place—are allocated in a better way. Anybody in Canterbury will accept that at this point in time there is not the best water quality in Canterbury. There is not the level of water quality that there should be and remedies for that should be in place. But the Minister agreed that there was no accompanying legislation. 
We are seeing National and ACT remove a democratically elected council so that Nick Smith and his colleagues can run the decisions in Canterbury in terms of water. That is what it is about. Cantabrians people in my province will not get the chance to have a say on who manages their water their public transport their clean air provisions and the coastal environment for the next 3½ long years—3½ long years—because this Government wants to abrogate that fundamental democratic right. I would have thought that a party on the opposite side of the Chamber a party from the right would uphold the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. But that principle has been fundamentally violated by this bill. That is a fundamental principle of the right but it has been discarded for convenience’s sake. It has been discarded by this Government because it does not fit what the Government wants to do in terms of rapid allocation of new water without any checks and balances being put in place. That is what this bill is about. It is about a rapid allocation of new water to industries across Canterbury. 
Labour supports sustainable growth. We want to see growth in Canterbury. We want to see the greening of the plains but we will not tolerate more browning of the waters. This bill puts that at risk. The function of Environment Canterbury is being taken out. Whatever Environment Canterbury’s faults it has in recent months and years matched the environmental record in terms of Resource Management Act processes of other councils. It has absolutely matched the record of other councils in terms of those processes. Environment Canterbury has also been the instigator and driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which I note is included in the bill as a schedule. There are references in the bill to taking account of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy but where is reference to that strategy in terms of any decision-making process? The Canterbury Water Management Strategy has to be consulted it has to be taken account of but where is the requirement that the strategy be embodied by this legislation? It is not there—it is not there. 
I tell members that I think the people who have been involved in bringing that once-in-a-lifetime strategy together for Canterbury will be very nervous at the appointment of these commissioners. They know that ultimately those commissioners will be answerable to Nick Smith to Cabinet to the Government and to the ACT Party and not to the ratepayers of Canterbury the people of Canterbury or the people who should be deciding how our water is allocated. The commissioners will be answerable to a Cabinet agenda that is on the record and explicit—new allocation and new water in Canterbury from next year—without commensurate appropriate environmental checks being put in place. We all know that Parliament and Government had not put in place a sufficiently rigorous system to do that but this bill does absolutely nothing to deliver it. Where are those new environmental standards? They are simply not there. 
The Minister talked in his introduction about a step change in water management. It is a step change in water management towards allocating water more rapidly but it is not the step change that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy envisaged where the environmental outcomes were put first—not second but first. A requirement to improve existing water quality should be put in place before the allocation of new water is gone into because we have no lowland streams left in Canterbury where we can still safely swim and take our kids. A birthright has been lost. The requirement to improve existing water must be the first priority for Canterbury not the rapid new allocation of water. 
I come to the issue of how Rodney Hide has won the day on this matter. It is just a repetition of what happened in Auckland. I think Nick Smith has been rolled. I think Nick Smith probably would like to put in place some new environmental frameworks to support better water quality but Rodney Hide has again won the day. That is a surprise because he managed to get those changes through in Auckland and absolutely abrogated the rights of Aucklanders to have a say in the change of their super-city legislation. He absolutely put those rights to one side. We now have a similar situation except it is worse. At least Aucklanders had a select committee process. This bill is being rammed through under urgency and there is not a single chance for a single voice from Canterbury to be heard on decisions that will affect their rights under democratic process which are being absolutely abrogated by this bill. They have no right to have any say. We will see this bill go through the House under urgency in the next 24 hours. That is a fundamental breach of democratic rights and representation. 
The Rodney District Council approached the Government for a review. There was a hearing process whereby local people were able to have an input. This bill does not have even a ritual bow towards the democratic process. It is a blitzkrieg of democracy and it is a blitzkrieg of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is forcing through a fundamental change against the supposed principles that the party opposite is here to represent in terms of no taxation without representation. The bill is being forced through in extraordinary fashion by this Government. There is no chance for anyone to be heard. 
Who will be next? Which council will be next to face this kind of assault on its democratic rights? It is outrageous legislation it is an outrageous move by this Government and it is being foisted upon us without any reference to the people of Canterbury and without any reference to the select committee process. It is a fundamental breach of democratic rights which the party opposite has in the past been prepared to uphold on behalf of the people of Canterbury. The Government has refused to take even a token bow towards the fundamental precepts of democracy that National used to proudly represent. I say shame upon National and shame upon members of the Government for introducing legislation as abominable as this.