Kedgley Sue: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10007] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Firstly I will continue to respond to the Minister for the Environment from where I was when I was interrupted last time. The Minister knows full well that there is a process under the Local Government Act by which a democratically elected council can be replaced but a number of steps have to be gone through. It has to be proved that the democratically elected council is dysfunctional etc. The Minister brought in his mate Wyatt Creech and gave him the instruction to try to denigrate the council and a clear mandate to try to undermine Environment Canterbury but unfortunately Mr Creech was not able to deliver which must have been very disappointing for the Minister. He did not enable the Minister to say that the council was dysfunctional so he did not enable him to take the steps under the Local Government Act to get rid of the councillors. Whacking this bill through circumvents what should be due process under the Local Government Act. 
It was also interesting when the Minister was rebutting various comments that one of the comments he did not seek to rebut was my prediction that the regional council in Canterbury would never be reinstated. It will never be reinstated because the Government has an agenda to get rid of all of the regional councils around New Zealand. The bill states in clause 23(1): “The members of ECan elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day.” but that clause will never be activated because those members will never come into being. It is interesting as the co-leader of the Greens Russel Norman said last night that this is so similar to what is happening in Fiji which we all thump the table about in this Chamber. Bainimarama said he was just going to abolish democracy for a little wee while but he would bring it back later. This is what this bill is saying. It is going to get rid of 14 democratically elected councillors and replace them with unelected and unaccountable commissioners—just for a wee while. Actually folks it will be for ever because the Government is not about to bring them back. 
The other point I was making is that the terms of reference here are completely unknown. I guarantee that these terms of reference will be written up. As official information papers will reveal they will be already written up; it is just that the Minister does not want us or Canterbury people to know. The terms of reference could be anything. They could say “We will build roads only in Canterbury. We will get rid of public transport. We want you to facilitate the building of dams.” They could say anything; we do not know. 
The other point is that this is another example of how central government—and this is a very sinister development—is dictating what happens at the local government level. The cornerstone of local government is that locally elected representatives decide on what happens at the local level. Under this bill not only does the Minister get to appoint his political buddies as the commissioners but also he gives them very explicit instructions. So we now have a second example of central government dictating to local government and undermining the whole principle of local government. We have this in Auckland and now we have it in Canterbury. In Auckland for the first time ever central government is dictating how many council-controlled organisations will be established in Auckland and who will be on them. In every single other council in New Zealand it is up to the local council to decide whether it wants to have council-controlled organisations and if so who will be on them. But this Government is directly intervening and dictating to local government. That is what is happening here: it is dictating to the commissioners what they will do what their agenda will be and how they will meet the Minister’s wishes. This is very sinister. This is a coup d’état.