Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8266. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 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.