Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10000] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 First off in speaking to Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill I make one comment in response to the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith which he addressed to me. Then I hope I will have a chance later to make further comments on Part 2. I was just about to say how regrettable it was that the Minister had left the Chamber so it is very good to have him back because we can engage in a dialogue on this I think. In response to the Minister who believed that he had detected an illogicality in what I had been saying I reassure him that— 
David Garrett 
: Surely not! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: No I think not. I thank the member for that. As far as I can determine the Green Party does not have an illogical position. Our position is this as I was saying at the time that I spoke to Part 1. Responding to the bill as it is drafted and understanding the intention of the Government—and particularly the Minister—to clear up water management as it sees best there could have been another way. There could have been a way that a particular commission could have handled water and the councillors could have continued. That was one of the recommendations was it not? I understand from the Minister’s intervention the reasons why he did not proceed down that route. I do not necessarily agree but I understand why he did not do it. It is not an illogicality on our part to seek to offer the possibility of another way to go. 
It is not the Green Party’s preferred way but it is not the case that there would necessarily be confusion between a commission and the councillors. Dear Lord we have a New Zealand Cabinet with 20 or 22 portfolios! They are delineated; to some extent they overlap. We understand there has to be give and take between Cabinet Ministers in Cabinet. It does not follow that there is chaos and confusion reigning supreme. It would not necessarily follow with Environment Canterbury either. 
But the main point is that if we are looking at the logicality of the Green Party’s position it is this: the Government should never have gone down the route of disbanding an elected regional council because that strikes at the heart of local democracy. If a Government does that it unleashes a tiger especially in a country as I said in the second reading debate where our constitution is more fragile than we like to acknowledge. The Green Party would have preferred the council to have continued as the elected body with its proper mandate for the proper term. 
How might we have cleared up the imperfections of water management? We would have given the council the extra powers that the Government is now giving to an non-appointed body that at least the chief executive and the council I believe had requested 4 years ago. [ 
Interruption 
] It is the height of illogicality if we are addressing the point of illogicality I say to Mr Garrett that the Government should proceed to disband a council then set up an unelected body and give it the powers that the council should have had in the first place. So our point is that the Government should never have gone down this route in the first place. If there were major problems of water management it could have appointed advisers—Dame Bazley or others—to assist and it could have given the council the powers to do the job.