Hipkins Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10016] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to pick up from where I left off a bit earlier on. I will move now to clause 21 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That clause sets out that “The commissioners must as soon as practicable establish a process for seeking advice from the mayors of the territorial authorities in the Canterbury region on local issues that affect the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of ECan.” It is interesting that the bill states that the commissioners have to consult only the mayors; they do not have to consult the councillors. This provision basically states that there are two tiers of local authority: the mayors who are important and the councillors who are also democratically elected but who are not important. The commissioners need to talk only to the mayors. What happens in a situation where the mayor may not necessarily reflect the view of the whole council? The council itself will not get to have any say. I am very concerned that only the mayors will have the opportunity to give advice to the commissioners and that councillors will not be consulted. 
I want to move back to the clauses that effectively cancel the next local government election for Environment Canterbury. They override the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. I ask the Minister of Justice in particular to comment on why he thinks that the electoral laws for local authorities should be overridden by this House without any broad bipartisan support. He has argued at a national level for nationwide local government reform. It is not something that he is seeking to do at the local level and I want to know why the Government thinks Canterbury should be treated separately from the rest of the country. 
I move to clause 22 which deals with the election of the members of Environment Canterbury. It effectively cancels the next election for members of Environment Canterbury. It states that the voters of Canterbury will not have a say on who will represent them on important issues such as the management of water. They will not have a say on that issue and they will not have a say on this bill. They do not have a say on the removal of the democratically elected council members. They would have had a say in October of this year when they could have replaced the regional council had they been dissatisfied with it. At the very least if the people of Canterbury are not to have the opportunity to vote at an election they should have had the opportunity to come to a select committee to have a say. The councillors who are to be removed from office by this legislation should have had the opportunity to come and put their view to parliamentarians before we vote on the matter. 
I understand that the Government wants to move with some haste on this matter but it is not unusual for truncated select committee processes to be used in situations like that. The process can be gone through reasonably quickly. But unfortunately this Government has a real reluctance when it comes to issues of democracy to put those matters before a select committee. It did not put most of the Auckland governance reforms before a select committee. It did not give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on the removal of their seven democratically elected councils and their replacement by the Auckland Transition Agency which is what the first super-city bill did. The Government did not send that bill to a select committee and give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on it and it is not giving the people of Canterbury the chance to have their say on the removal of Environment Canterbury. 
Of course as a Wellington member of Parliament I want to know whether we are next. The Government has been to Auckland then it went to Christchurch so will it come to Wellington next? If so what will be removed? Will it be the regional council? Will it be the local councils? Will the Government merge the councils in Wellington without giving the people a chance to have a say on that? Wellington must be next on the agenda after Auckland and Christchurch. In population terms it certainly would be. It is probably only a matter of time before Rodney Hide Nick Smith and their colleagues decide to get stuck in and have a crack at Wellington. 
I will summarise the main concerns around the way that commissioners are appointed and about their remuneration. Basically the commissioners will be appointed at the exclusive whim of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. The commissioners’ remuneration will be established at the whim of the Ministers they can be removed at the whim of the Ministers and their terms of reference are set at the whim of the Ministers. The Ministers have ultimate control over the total functioning of these commissioners. I have heard the name of one of the people who is likely to be appointed as a commissioner and she is somebody in whom I have a lot of confidence. She did a fantastic job with the Fire Service; I think that is great. But I am concerned that her position will be undermined by the ultimate authority that the Ministers will have with regard to the position.