Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9953] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I believe that it is a very sorry day for Parliament today. I believe that the Minister for the Environment is overseeing one of the most anti-democratic processes that one could imagine. I heard Amy Adams the member who has just resumed her seat and Minister Nick Smith say that this was OK because of what happened in Rodney. So I will go back over what actually happened in Rodney. In April 2000 the local government Minister of the day announced that she had accepted a ministerial review authority recommendation to appoint a commission to replace the elected representatives of the Rodney District Council. But that example differs significantly from the current Environment Canterbury situation in the following ways. 
In October 1999—which was before the election in 1999—the Rodney District Council requested a review of the council following the unanimous decision of that council. I would ask Amy Adams and this Minister where the unanimous decision was for this council in asking the Government to intervene. No there is no feedback from those members who have resumed their seats. Therefore they are accepting that there was no request from Environment Canterbury for the review that has occurred. 
In this case rather than the unanimous decision of the Rodney District Council to ask for a review the Minister appointed—who? Wyatt Creech. Wyatt Creech has an association not only with the Government which is pretty obvious but also with the industry that demands so much of our water resources in Canterbury. Do members not think— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Play the man. Play the man; you can’t win the debate. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not playing the man. I think that the Minister is being unfair. I am talking about a conflict of interest. 
Jenny Shipley was prepared to step aside on the basis that she could identify what was a clear conflict of interest in terms of being asked to be the lead commissioner in the new world order that this Minister has imposed on Canterbury. But Wyatt Creech was not prepared to do the same when he has been held to account by the regional council in his area for what he has done in terms of the particular company he is responsible for. I am trying to say—and I think the Minister should take some notice of this—that when there is a conflict of interest it does not have to be real; the perception is enough. In this case the perception is more than real. That former member a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand should have stood aside. He was conflicted in every way shape and form. I am not surprised that he recommended that there should be a separate water authority for Canterbury. I bet he wishes that there was a separate water authority that was taking no notice of what his company was doing up in the Waikato. 
The second thing that happened in this case was that the Minister set the terms of reference for the review. The third thing was that the Minister discounted the possibility of a protracted inquiry which meant that there was not enough time for this inquiry to engage in the process in any meaningful way. 
The actions of the Labour Government back in 1999 when we had just assumed office were in response to a unique situation and at the insistence of the local authority concerned. On 17 November—and I think we took our warrants in December 1999—the council wrote to the then Minister commenting on the need for a review and saying that it wanted the Government to intervene. That was before we had even taken office. 
The Creech review was initiated as part of a Government agenda. Nick Smith stated at the time that these reports were initiated as part of the Government’s broader agenda of taking a more active role in the performance of local government on resource management issues. The two councils performed poorly in the 2007-08 survey of resource consenting processes but no notice was taken of the fact that they had actually improved their resource consenting processes in the subsequent financial year. 
On 8 December 1999 the then Minister of Local Government appointed a review authority to undertake a review in accordance with the request and within the terms outlined by the council and as I have alluded to that was the first time a commission was appointed since the ministerial review provision in the Local Government Act 1974 was enacted in 1992. The review authority received more than 80 submissions in the case of the Rodney District Council in response to public notices because it was a publicly notified process. The Creech review talked to fewer than 20 groups and no submissions from the general public were invited. 
One of the points I will make is that the local authority mayors were consulted as a result of an Official Information Act request—we know that this is the case—and not one of them consulted their elected colleagues on their councils; not one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Name one. Jo Kane was the regional councillor who made the Official Information Act request. The response was that not one of the mayors or indeed the chief executives who were consulted consulted their elected councils to know their response. Every single one of those mayors originally wrote to the two Ministers at the request of the two Ministers. We know that the request went through Jo Goodhew to the Mayor of Timaru and then up to the two local body Ministers the Minister who is taking this bill through the Hon Nick Smith and also the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. They were requested to get this information through to them from the mayors. The mayors were asked to do this for them so that they could achieve the end that they have achieved on this occasion. 
In the 1999-2000 situation the review authority that was appointed by the Government of the day to review Rodney at the request of the Rodney District Council held a 6-day hearing in the month before they reported to the Minister. I do not recall there being a hearing in the Creech review. I was not even invited to make a submission as a local member of Parliament and in fact none of the local members of Parliament were invited to make any submissions on the matter. 
The review authority was scheduled to report to the Minister by the end of December 1999 but that date was extended to 3 March 2000 after requests from the review authority for a time extension. The Creech review on the other hand was a very slapdash job. The reason it was such a slapdash job was that it had been set its terms of reference to produce the result that it produced. 
In the wake of the review authority’s findings the mayor and five elected councillors resigned on 21 March 2000. The mayor’s resignation triggered a by-election and we all know the history of that time. No such situation has arisen in this case. 
At that time the Minister announced the appointment of a commission on 10 April 2000 18 months away from the next local body election. How long is it this time? The local body elections are only 6 months away now so what are we talking about? It is 3½ years. I want to know something. Will we stop collecting rates from ratepayers in the Environment Canterbury catchment area over the next 3½ years? Will we stop collecting rates? A fundamental principle of constitutional law talks about there being no taxation without representation. I think that is exactly what this Minister is foisting upon— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think it is hilarious that this Government would talk about district health boards. The previous National Government sacked every area health board in this country in 1991. Does the member not remember that? He was the one who was there at the time; I was there at the time. That Government sacked the lot because that lot do not believe in elected representation in district health boards.