Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9991] 
Mr Chair does a Minister not have to be in the chair during the Committee stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not going to be as difficult as that if the Minister wants to get a glass of water. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is all right; the Minister is able to resume his seat. I think it is a great tragedy— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: After all this is about water is it not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —and that is a tragedy too—when we have such an important issue as the future of Canterbury’s water management that the Minister has decided to play pure politics on the basis of this short period in his life—admittedly not as short as the period of his life when he served as deputy leader of his party—when he has the responsibility of being the Minister for the Environment. 
I was very interested in the contribution from the member of Parliament for Rangitata Jo Goodhew. She was deeply offensive before she took a call when making comments about Jo Kane an elected regional councillor. Frankly I do not think it is appropriate to make derogatory comments about elected members when they are not able to have a right of reply in this House. She talked about how hard Alec Neill had worked. Alec Neill used to be a National member of Parliament but he did not last very long in this House. He seemed to come and go as part of a revolving-door syndrome. He has just been elected as the chair of Environment Canterbury. I ask members what his own party has done to him. It has sacked him. He is a National Party member and a former member of this House and National has just sacked him. 
An article in today’s  
Timaru Herald 
 states: “Chairman Alec Neill said he was hugely disappointed with the Government’s decision.” Those are pretty strong words from Alec Neill. The article went on to state: “ ‘A council is elected for three years’ he said. ‘These changes will put through six or seven commissioners who are appointed by the Government and who have no democratic accountability.’ ” and that is the point. This is about a democratic right that we as residents in Canterbury have to elect our regional councillors who will manage the issues they are mandated to manage. 
In his contribution the Minister made a lot of play about how we are at last going to have the statutory ability to manage Canterbury’s water. In this very part we are debating Part 1 which includes the purpose clause of the bill the Minister makes a fantastic commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy by requiring in the law for commissioners to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is about as motherhood and apple pie as we can get. Where is the statutory base for the operationalising of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy? Where is it in the purpose clause of the bill? To have appointed commissioners who will have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will not progress that strategy forward one step yet the Minister says that that is what it is all about. He said Labour had years and years in Government but was not able to enact provisions. Now his big chance has come but he has stuffed it up big time. 
There is not one word in this law about a statutory requirement for the committees. There is not one word in the purpose clause clause 3 about there being a requirement to implement the strategy. Perhaps that is because the strategy is still out for public comment. If he chose to the Minister could make a reasonable excuse like that for this inability to deliver on a statutory provision for the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That would be a good one and I give the Minister the opportunity to use that as an excuse. He could say: “On completion of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy it will be implemented.” and he could outline the provisions. Nowhere in this bill are the people of Canterbury given any more security about the future of their water than we had last week.