Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010(continued on Wednesday 31 March 2010) 
Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010(continued on Wednesday 31 March 2010) 
[Volume:661;Page:9975] 
Tuesday 30 March 2010 
( 
continued on Wednesday 31 March 2010 
) 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 When the debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night we were dealing under urgency with the current bill whereby the Government the ACT Party and the Maori Party will vote to abolish democratically elected regional councillors. We were considering Part 1 of that bill which includes the purpose clause clause 3. The purpose of this bill is very clear and the Prime Minister stated it in his opening speech to Parliament in February. The Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year. That was the first step. 
The second step was that Wyatt Creech was appointed to conduct a review of Environment Canterbury. At the time he was a director of Open Country Cheese a dairy company with multiple convictions for dirty dairying. Someone from the dairy industry was appointed to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry—that is of Environment Canterbury. That was step two. Step two was to appoint the industry to do a review of the regulator of the industry. Unsurprisingly the Creech report came out saying that we should get rid of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors. One of the criticisms of course was that Environment Canterbury’s councillors were paying too much attention to science and that was why they needed to go. The report said that they were “science-led” rather than “science-informed”. 
The third step is this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil the final stage in the Government’s grand plan which is to get rid of the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury because they are getting in the way of irrigation in the Canterbury region. After years of inaction by the regional council it was finally starting to stand up to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies and that is why they got into trouble with the National Government. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 What is interesting about this bill is the outrage in respect of it and how some people have changed their minds about democracy. When the previous Labour Government was accused of changing things for Rodney there was a real uproar about democracy. Where did this uproar come from? It was ACT—ACT Party members were the ones who were upset and they were the ones who were making the noise. But now those members have changed their minds. They change their minds about all sorts of things. We have a Minister who picks on a mayor because he happens to water a tree at night during a drought. We have a situation where people change their minds. 
Almost 400000 people will lose their right to vote at the October elections of Environment Canterbury councillors. They will have to wait until perhaps 2013. So we see that there are double standards all over the place. One can be against one thing and for another thing in the blink of an eye. One can take one’s partner overseas to travel the world for a family wedding and at the same time one can take away the rights of people to elect their local regional council. I think the public will see this quite clearly. We have a Government that has lost its way when it said it would keep in touch with people. It has not kept in touch with people. It has got rid of an elected council which was elected by the people of Canterbury and replaced it with commissioners. I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for Dame Margaret Bazley. I think she will do a wonderful job in that role but that role should never have been needed. Canterbury has had its pollution problems. The regional council has got on top of that and sorted it out. 
Nicky Wagner 
: No they haven’t. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Oh it has not sorted it out? It has made great steps. 
Nicky Wagner 
: No they haven’t. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well that member might not be cooperating. Maybe she has a smoky home; maybe she has a place so that she cannot see the facts. It has been making progress and I think that is what the people of Canterbury want. You see 375000 people will lose a major right with this bill. Part 1 takes that right away. I say to members opposite that they cannot run roughshod over people. They have already done it to Auckland by not having a referendum at all but passing legislation under urgency like we are doing here today. It seems to be becoming a bit of a habit. Dr Nick Smith well knows that when Governments start ignoring the democratic rights of people they start that slippery slide. The tide is turning I say to Dr Smith it is slowly turning. It may be out now but all of a sudden he will see that the tide comes rushing in. And it will not take 9 years to come rushing in it will not take 6 years to come rushing in but in a mere 18 months or so he will see that people are sick of such arrogance by a Government that really does not care about people. It takes them for granted. 
Members opposite can just turn round and thumb their noses but they cannot do it to a third of the population in Auckland and 370-odd thousand people in Canterbury. Those people are wondering why they are losing their vote. We have not really heard— 
Nicky Wagner 
: They are not wondering; they know why. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We hear some of the National members squawking on the other side. But they are the ones who will lose their seats. They will be so far down the list they will be gone. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Good morning Mr Chairman. A lot of the squawking from the Opposition has been comparing this legislation with the legislation that was passed by the Labour-led Government in 2000 in relation to the abolition of the Rodney District Council and its replacement with a commissioner. There are a large number of differences between that situation and the current situation that we find ourselves in. The first difference is that Rodney District Council asked to be replaced by a commissioner. It agreed with the outcome of the review. It said that it was the best outcome and the following year elections were held. This situation is completely different. The Minister for the Environment has ridden roughshod over not only the councillors but also the people of Canterbury and the Creech review itself. Nowhere in that review did it give this Minister the mandate to do what he is doing. 
Jacqui Dean the member for somewhere down south who I recall wrote to one of my colleagues earlier in her term in Parliament inquiring about the dangers of water has now become an expert in water management. Jacqui Dean forgets what her party said at that time. I can quote from the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who is now the Speaker. When Labour introduced the bill to abolish Rodney District Council he stated: “I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.” There was a bipartisan approach to that bill because the people of Rodney wanted it. Then he stated: “I must say though I am not sure whether we needed urgency to pass the bill through all stages”. National had some principles then. It was opposed to putting that bill through under urgency. 
Then Dr Lockwood Smith accused the Green Party of becoming voter fodder for the Labour Government. Kennedy Graham is rightly outraged and he was not in Parliament at the time. That situation may not have arisen had he been in the House. But that is exactly what people are saying about the ACT Party and the Maori Party now—that they are just acting as voting fodder for National. They are letting this happen to the people of Canterbury and there is no need for it. 
There is no need for our vote to be taken away from us. We have a right to vote for whoever we want in our region for our district health board our community boards our city council and our regional council. That right is being taken away by someone who does not even live in our region and who has the audacity to introduce this bill to this House under urgency and is ramming it through all its stages so that not a single member of the public can say: “This is good. This is bad. Why do you not think about that? There are some other options.” Not one single person has been able to do that because the Minister for the Environment knows it all. The combination of the Minister who knows everything and the Minister who tells everyone he knows everything—Rodney Hide—is just too scary to contemplate for too long. Last night their behaviour was extraordinary and I predict that it will get worse as the passage of this bill progresses. 
Passing a bill under urgency is not appropriate for a bill that takes away a fundamental right of so many New Zealanders. It is not needed; there are many alternatives. Russel Norman from the Green Party quite correctly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of this bill—which is not spelt out clearly in Part 1—is just as John Key outlined in his address at the opening of Parliament. He committed his Government to taking action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. Who cares about the environment? Who cares about the people’s voice? Who cares about the ability of private profit-making companies to compulsorily acquire land? 
Nicky Wagner 
: Only half the story Ruth. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not the Minister for the Environment and it certainly not Nicky Wagner. There is no consideration of the fact that we should have a say when our environment our surroundings our land our aquifers our rivers and our estuary are all at stake. 
I ask what it is about Canterbury that the Minister thinks should disentitle us from having a fundamental say in the purpose of this bill. It is not just the fact that the entire elected representation of the regional council is being removed; it is also the fact that we will not have an opportunity to replace them at the next election. We are due to have an election in October of this year and we have to go past that election time and wait for an entire new term before the Minister may deem it fit to allow us—how generous of him—to vote for our regional council. 
But I have to be very frank. I know that the people of Canterbury have no faith in this Minister not to sneak through another dirty devious little bill that would take away our right for a longer period of time. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister is not lining himself up with the mayors of the region—who have had no discussion at all not one single discussion with their councils but have made an entirely unilateral contribution on our so-called behalf—to propose the equivalent of the Auckland super-city. This may well be the start of the disestablishment of our regional council structure altogether. 
I challenge the Minister to be up front about his behaviour for a change and to be honest and open with the people of Canterbury. We elected our regional council. Some of the people I would not have voted for; that is one of the parts of democracy we should cherish. There is a large number of members in this Parliament whom I would not vote for either. What is proposed in this bill is not the way that a democracy works. A democracy works when people have a vote and sometimes the people whom they want to be elected are elected and sometimes they are not. We have had taken away from us that fundamental right to elect people or to vote for people who do not in the end get elected. 
Not only is this a major breach of our fundamental right to vote for our regional representation but also it is unnecessary. Those writing the Creech report made that very clear. They said that widespread concerns had been expressed to them and they said quite categorically in their report that their investigation did not back up those concerns. It is about politics actually; this is a political game and the Minister has now thrown in his toys and started playing. It is a political game and it is being played at the expense of our water management and our entitlement to have our voice be heard throughout the process of consideration whether it is irrigation projects water storage projects or any other requirement to take water from our rivers. 
I urge the Minister even at this late stage when he has so much of his reputation at stake to reconsider. There are other options. He knows that members on this side of the Chamber would support the legislative requirements of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He knows that; we have said so in the House. The problem with doing it this way is that it is divisive undemocratic and unnecessary. There is no need to cause such division in our community or to cause such frustration. Because of the Minister’s majority in Parliament and because he has had the privilege of taking up a ministerial portfolio he can use those powers to batter the people of Canterbury out of their right to vote. It is a huge breach of both the privilege and the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio. 
If it was necessary as Sandra Lee thought it was in 2000 and as the National Party thought it was in 2000 then we would go for it. We would vote for it. The National Party had the courage to say that then. I have quoted the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who said that he welcomed the introduction of the legislation appointing the commissioner to replace the Rodney District Council because the district council had asked for it. The Rodney District Council knew that that move would put their district council into the position where very soon after—just a year later—the people would once again be able to vote for their elected representatives. The Rodney District Council knew there was such dysfunction within the district council that it had no other option. That is not the case in this situation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We are debating the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because there is a serious problem which everybody in this House should acknowledge around water management issues in Canterbury. The fact is that last month Trevor Mallard said that everyone knew there was a problem there and I challenge Labour members to stop their denials. They were entrusted with the Government of New Zealand for 9 years and I ask members whether in that 9-year period they did anything about improving water management. My own ministry’s chief executive Dr Paul Reynolds a respected public servant described the previous Government’s water programme of action as a programme of inaction such was the lack of any leadership or direction around water management issues. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When did he say that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said that about 3 years ago when he was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
I will challenge Ruth Dyson about a number of claims she has made. Firstly I will deal with her claim that not one single discussion had taken place with the 10 councils. That is what Ruth Dyson has just claimed. But I tell her that I attended a meeting with the mayors of every single council from Waitaki to Kaikoura. Every single one of those territorial councils supports the responsive action that this Government is taking. 
The member also said that the mayors did not have a democratic mandate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I did not say that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is interesting; her colleague did. Last night her colleague said that the mayors had no right to speak for the people of Canterbury. 
The member attacked the Maori Party for its support of this bill. I note that Ngai Tahu with whom I thought Labour would have some relationship has said that it reluctantly agrees that the appointment of commissioners is necessary in Canterbury. 
I will deal with the rhetoric we have heard from Ruth Dyson and others about whether it is appropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities. Where was Ruth Dyson when the previous Minister of Health David Cunliffe sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Where was Ruth Dyson when Helen Clark sacked the entire Auckland District Health Board? The member said that it was not appropriate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You weren’t even here in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So because I was not in Parliament it is not relevant? But it is OK for Helen Clark to sack a democratically elected district health board. In fact members opposite are playing silly politics in this regard. 
It is interesting to note that a former Labour Government in one Act of Parliament abolished 460 democratically elected bodies in one go—460 democratically elected councils in one go. So for Labour members to stand in this Parliament today and say that it is inappropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities is really an extraordinary claim for them to make. It really shows how shallow their arguments are in the Chamber this morning. 
I have a simple challenge for Labour members. All New Zealanders appreciate that we have a major problem with water management in Canterbury. This Government has responded with real leadership with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about how to fix that. My challenge to members in Labour is to ask what their response is. Their response in 9 years in Government was absolutely zip. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Have an election. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Darren Hughes says to have an election. Well he should look at this own comments. I will take Marian Hobbs for an example. Why was it that the previous Labour Government required special legislation to put in a water plan in the Waitaki? It was because Marian Hobbs told this Parliament—this was way back in 2003—that Environment Canterbury had failed to put in place the proper plans. If members opposite want to talk about democratic rights I ask them why it was appropriate in 2003 to pass a special bill through this Parliament to take away from the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury the right to do a Waitaki water plan. Why was that OK? If those members really believed in the absoluteness of democracy around regional councils why would that Government have ridden roughshod over those councillors? Do members know who wrote the regional plan? It was actually written by commissioners appointed by the then Minister for the Environment. 
So why was it OK for Labour when it was in Government to dismiss health boards and to go into urgency to pass special legislation about elections and commissioners in Rodney District? Why was it OK for Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Supported by National. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. National did support that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Except for it being in urgency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Labour voted for the urgency motion. I noted before that I think it is somewhat contradictory and it shows the mess in the Labour Party that Labour voted for the urgency motion. But when National was in Opposition and was confronted with the problems— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know that Part 1 is a wide-ranging debate and there is a lot of opportunity for Opposition calls but the Minister persists in this myth that the Labour Opposition voted for an urgency motion. That is simply not correct and it will lead to disorder if the Minister misrepresents the Opposition’s position on procedural matters. He is not helping the passage of his own legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I understand the member’s point. I think that it really falls into the realm of debate. There are some technical issues around how that vote was taken that make it a little bit difficult to exactly and precisely determine what the intention was because there was no party vote. But it is a matter of debate. OK? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have finished with that point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to make it a debating matter. It is a matter of record that at the time when the urgency motion was taken there was no vote. There was a consensus that the House moved into urgency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: But that’s not voting “for”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I see. So we have this new rewriting of the rules which is so common with Labour— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. If I understood the Minister he said that the vote was taken entirely by consensus on voices. That is incorrect. The Green Party registered “No” verbally. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I was in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I was sitting right up front and I listened very carefully. I heard that no voices were registered in opposition to the urgency motion. No party vote was sought. It has long been established in the practice of Parliament that if parties wish to register a vote against the motion they seek a party vote. That did not occur. The record shows that Parliament moved into urgency by consensus. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We now have two issues. One is the substantive point raised by Mr Graham. The second point is that the Minister in his response to the point of order has now accused the member of misleading the House and has not taken his word. Mr Graham said that on voices the Green Party voted a certain way. If the Minister persists in that accusation he is accusing the member of misleading the House. Both of those separate points lead to the point that if the Minister wants to get his legislation through in a rational logical calm and orderly way he would be best to focus on the debate of the substance in the bill rather than on the avenue that he is going down which will delay his own legislation. I hope he understands that very simple point I am trying to make to him. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise the point that Mr Hughes has said which is that by me pointing out exactly the events that occurred around the urgency motion the Labour Party approach is one of “Well we’re going to throw our toys out of the cot and not allow his legislation to be passed.” I do not think that that is an appropriate threat. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of order Mr Chairman and we are having interjections. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Sorry I am actually trying to just sort my way through this process so I was probably a little bit inattentive. But members should not interject and should not make any contribution while we are hearing points of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point of order was that the Opposition’s “junior leader of the House” Mr Darren Hughes has made the claim that my pointing out the events that occurred around the vote on the urgency motion will somehow stop the passage of the legislation through Parliament. I do not think that those sorts of threats are at all helpful to the orderly running of the Committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Minister’s contribution there is an exact example of what I am talking about. There are no threats being made; the Labour Opposition wants to debate the substance of the clauses in Part 1 of this bill. It is a pretty serious bill. It takes away the right of people to have an election for 3½ years so all parties think it is pretty serious. The point I am making to the Minister is that by his continual misrepresentation of what members have said including those as recently as in my last point of order just 45 seconds ago we have now stopped debating the legislation and we are heading down into a procedural wrangle because of the style and behaviour that he is undertaking. Labour wants to debate Part 1 of the bill. We want to engage with the Minister on that. We are glad that he is taking calls. I think we should be able to return to a debate on substance rather than have this sort of sideshow that seems to be going on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just try to clarify the issue around the vote. If members look at Standing Order 136 they will see that it quite clearly outlines what happens. The Speaker at the time asked for the Ayes and for the Noes and it will be recorded in the  
Hansard 
 that the resolution was “The Ayes have it.” Any member at any stage can call for a party vote. That never happened. So what we simply have is a record which states that a resolution was passed by the Government. The record is not recorded as to which parties voted whichever way because no party vote was called for. So it is simply just a matter that the resolution was passed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a matter of debate; that is what the record actually shows. We will return to Part 1. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Forgive me I cannot recall whether it concerned Mr Graham or Mr Hughes but that was not the point of order that was being made. What you have said is not in dispute. The point of order that was being made—and the member has an absolute right to be taken at his word—was that the member said that his party indicated “No” by voice. I am not objecting to the record. The point of order is simply that there is an absolute and cast-iron rule as you would know Mr Assistant Chairperson in this Chamber that a member’s word cannot be questioned. But there is an absolute case that Dr Smith questioned the member’s word and in effect called him a liar— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No he questioned his word Mr Assistant Chairman and by questioning his word in effect without using the term he—and I understand the English language—implied that this member was not telling the truth. I invite you to rule on that; he questioned his word. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Righto I will rule. I did not take that inference whatsoever. That is why I have cleared up the matter of how the vote was taken. I say also that the point of order raised by Dr Kennedy Graham was not actually a point of order. But I have clarified the matter as to how the vote was taken and we will now return to the debate on Part 1. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will speak shortly to some amendments I have proposed to Part 1 but first I will pick up on some of the comments that Dr Smith has made in the last little while. The idea is that there has been wide consultation on this issue including the councils of Canterbury. However last night a press statement from councillor Chrissie Williams of the Christchurch City Council said that the Mayor of Christchurch may have expressed his personal view but the Christchurch City Council has not discussed the Environment Canterbury review nor formed a view nor made any resolution or announcement on this issue. She acknowledges that Dr Smith went to see the council but there was no report no discussion or any decision made by the council on that matter. To suggest that there is some kind of support for this from the councils of Canterbury is as much a nonsense as saying that the councillors of Environment Canterbury themselves were consulted on this matter and agreed to the proposal to put them up against a wall and shoot them as this bill provides for. 
I will turn to the issue of precedent on this and the message that this has not been the first time that constitutionally elected democratically elected bodies have been overturned by Government announcement. There was also the reference to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board having been disenfranchised. I would like to report the comments from the MP for Napier Chris Tremain when that happened. He said on 4 March 2008: “people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. … Regardless of who is right or wrong I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people.” I hope Mr Tremain will stand up and take a call in respect of this bill doing the same thing to Environment Canterbury. 
Of course the member for Tukituki also had some concerns on the issue and commented that the people of Hawke’s Bay believed that their democratic process had been thrown out of the window; so I hope Mr Foss will stand up and take a call and express his outrage at this happening to the people of Canterbury because that would be appropriate and in line with what is required. 
I have proposed an amendment to clause 6 around changes in the bill to the rights of appeal on water conservation orders. We say in that amendment that the abrogation of appeal rights should end when Environment Canterbury is reinstalled. At the moment those issues of appeal are still in place beyond the time frame that this bill envisages. That is important because those are important democratic rights and they should not simply be left with the bill once Environment Canterbury is reinstated. 
That of course in itself is a moot point. I note the ministerial statements yesterday of Mr Hide and Dr Smith. Mr Hide said: “I am confident that by then”—by 2013—“Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.” That is all well and good even though it will be 3½ years before we start to see a return to democracy in terms of Environment Canterbury. Unfortunately that is not the line that Dr Smith is taking. He said in a press conference yesterday that no decisions had been made in terms of the new Canterbury water authority which was envisaged by the Creech report and that the Government wants to consider the conclusions of the Land and Water Forum which is due to report in July and then the work by the Environmental Protection Authority as well as further advice from the commission and officials around the whole issue of the governance of the region’s water. 
We do not have any clarity. We have one Minister saying in a press statement that he is looking forward to the return of Environment Canterbury by the time the 2013 local body elections are due to take place which means 3½ years without democratic function yet the other Minister is saying that that is not a certainty at all. That point highlights the fact that this bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is an abrogation of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is throwing away the democratically elected body that was put in place by the people of Canterbury to make decisions around the future of water. That is just not acceptable. 
I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than is provided for. We deserve to have this bill go to a select committee process for decision making not simply be put through the House under an urgency motion in order to do away with the chance for anybody to have any input into and any say on this legislation which I think will not be good legislation in terms of the long-term results for Canterbury or for New Zealand. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 1 because I am very concerned about comments that the Minister has made in response to some of the matters that have been raised. One of the things that is so frustrating about the process we are going through is that we were to get a briefing at 11 a.m.—the Minister was late so it was about 11.45 I think by the time he arrived—on a draft bill. Then the bill was introduced yesterday afternoon and of course today’s debate will show in  
Hansard 
 as being 30 March because of the rather quaint rules that we have around urgency even though everywhere else in the country it is 31 March. This bill will go through all of its stages on 30 March; that is how it will be recorded in  
Hansard 
. 
The problem I have with this process is that there has not been an opportunity for the broader engagement that one would expect. Even in the Rodney District Council case 80 submissions were heard. There were hearings there was public input and actually there was a good deal of consensus. We have already heard about that from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson in respect of both sides of the Chamber recognising what was in the best interests of the council and knowing that the council was only 18 months away from a local body election. In this case 6 months before an election we are told that another 3½ years have to go by where the democratic deficit is applied to the people of Canterbury. All I am saying to the Minister is that if he had actually met with the other parties in the House—and I know that he has preferred to meet with those that might have a support agreement with the Government—and if he had talked right across the board we could have worked through what was the best way to resolve this issue. 
The thing that will not get enough consideration and debate in this Committee unless we really go through it with a fine-tooth comb is the Wyatt Creech report. I was attacked by the Minister for the Environment for daring to suggest that the former Minister Wyatt Creech had a conflict of interest. He did have a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. Whether or not the conflict of interest is perceived or real it is still a conflict of interest. The Minister well knows that a conflict of interest whether or not it is perceived or real has to be notified. It has to be. A Minister even with a perceived conflict of interest has to withdraw from decision making to be on the safe side as the Minister well knows. 
What I want to say about the quality of this report is that it is not a robust report and I certainly would not want to have anyone in this country think for one minute that this is a sufficient quality of reporting for the kind of decision that this Parliament is being forced to make today. The reason that it is poor quality is that it is based so much on anecdote. There are several aspects of this report that I want to go through. The first is in relation to the complaints around the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury’s governance. 
Let me just read into the record the actual statement from the report: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that the councillors are so polarised at times that they are dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership and the council was too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to leading the Region. Our investigation did not bear this out.” Did anyone miss that? It stated: “Our investigation did not bear this out.” 
The report further states: “ECan is meeting its legal obligations under the LGA but has been unable to establish a firm planning environment which flows through to poor relationships and decisions under the RMA.” So it is the planning function. Who is responsible for the planning function—for employing the people who work in planning and consent? Let us go through that because that is the chief executive’s job not the job of the council. 
I will look at the section on the question of capability within Environment Canterbury itself in respect of staff. It is an entire section titled 3.1.3 “Staffing and use of resources. Leadership/Direction.” It states: “There is a lack of overall resource management content leadership within the Consenting Section. Senior management are not RMA experts and have backgrounds from outside the sector. Senior management are not able to provide leadership and direction on the RMA and the consenting functions—other than process components. This understanding of the RMA has been left to the third tier managers and team leaders some of whom have been in ECan for a long time and ‘do it how they have always done it’ (according to some internal staff and external people interviewed). This issue of leadership of the consenting function is significant and has had implications in terms of timeframe management as well as the quality of the consenting process.” 
Then the report goes on to talk about the nature of the consenting process as it was over 2 years ago. It completely fails to look at the rates of consenting that have been adopted since the time this report was referring to. Over and over again within this report it states “(according to some internal staff and external people interviewed)”. Those people are unnamed. Then there is a statement that in fact the comments are anecdotal and there is no evidence to back them up. Here is a really good one on “Relationships with applicants and submitters”. It states: “There is clearly a major perception gap between internal and external views of ECan. All external applicants spoken to raise concerns around perceived intransigence of staff to accept that decisions made by Hearings Commissioners/the Environment Court have set precedent. Concern was also expressed that processes are extremely slow and that if ECan ‘lose’ a case staff actively slow processes down and impose unworkable or impractical conditions (NB: this is anecdotal and we have not been provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion).” 
Then the report goes on to list common themes raised by external parties and what do we have? The report refers to “Intransigence when confronted with challenging situations ‘ECan not getting its own way and deliberately slowing processes down or reacting publicly’. Science led rather than science informed … Large numbers of staff are ‘green’ in orientation … A vacuum of economic social or cultural consideration …”. 
This report is outrageous. It would never ever withstand judicial review because the quality of the advice it gives is based almost entirely on anecdote. Let us go through a scenario. Let us say a National Party member of Parliament who is living in Timaru approaches the local Timaru mayor and says that the Government’s two Ministers would quite like to get stuck into Environment Canterbury and asks whether the mayor could arrange for the mayors to write a letter. So a letter is written to the Ministers but what is interesting about the letter that is written to the Ministers is that it completely breaches the process that has been agreed to between the mayoral forum and Environment Canterbury which is a heads-up no-surprises approach. Even that is mentioned in the report. The mayors did not bother to even consult with their own councils—not one. Environment Canterbury councillor Jo Kane did an Official Information Act request to all of the mayors and councils in the region and what did she find out? Not one of them had had it debated in their local councils. 
So we have the mayors making these decisions on their own behalf and not consulting with other elected people and what happens? The entire elected democratic function of our environmental regulator goes completely out the window. A lot of concerns have been raised about this. Jo Kane was interesting in the  
Timaru Herald 
 this morning. She said: “I feel like I have been on The Apprentice and Donald Trump has told me that I’m fired. Except this time it’s not Donald Trump it’s Rodney Hide and Nick Smith—or Jekyll and Hide as I like to call them.” 
The problem is that we saw this report coming to this Parliament by way of a letter from the Minister for the Environment just a couple of months ago. There was no engagement with the broader stakeholders. I think that 20 groups were consulted in the development of the Creech report. We certainly have not been consulted about our way forward. I do not know how long the Minister has spent with each individual council. I know that he visited the individual councils but it was not sufficient to be doing this. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First I agree entirely with Brendon Burns who said earlier that the regional council Environment Canterbury will not be reinstated. It is an open secret that this Government is trying to get rid of the regional councils in New Zealand; we know that. Getting rid of the regional council in Canterbury is just its first foray. I predict that that council will never be reinstated. This is the end of regional councils in Canterbury. We will never see a regional council in Canterbury again. 
All over the world it is common for dictatorships—it is their hallmark—that do not like what democratically elected representatives are trying to do to get rid of them. That is what happened in Fiji. Bainimarama did not like what some of his democratically elected representatives were doing so he got rid of them. That is exactly what has happened here. We have a coup d’état in Canterbury. I took the trouble to look up what the definition of a coup d’état is. It is the sudden unconstitutional getting rid of a Government usually by a small group within the existing Government. That is exactly what has happened here. It is a bloodless coup d’état. It has happened in a completely unconstitutional way through the actions of a small group within the existing Government using time-worn techniques. 
What are the time-worn techniques? First of all one goes about discrediting the democratically elected council. First the Minister for the Environment got the Creech report from Mr Creech who is one of the Minister’s mates. He is a former deputy leader of the National Party. Mr Creech dashed around Canterbury over a period of 3 weeks and interviewed 20 people. He came up with a report that seeks to discredit the regional council a democratically elected council; the report says it is so inefficient that we must get rid of it. Mr Creech tried desperately hard to say there was a statutory basis for dismissing the elected councillors but sadly for Mr Creech despite his very best efforts he was unable to find any statutory basis for dismissing them. In fact he was forced to conclude—poor man—despite his mission to utterly discredit Environment Canterbury that it was meeting its legal obligations under the Local Government Act. The report states that “the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.” So there was absolutely no statutory basis for getting rid of the council whatsoever. The Minister acknowledged when briefing us yesterday that he was not able to use the provisions of the Local Government Act to get rid of Environment Canterbury so he has had to have recourse to this legislation. 
The other point is that Cantabrians need to be aware of the bigger picture here. What we see is not just the hand of Nick Smith and the National Government but also the hand of Rodney Hide. What is ACT’s agenda? ACT’s agenda is quite explicit. Like all new-right Governments ACT members want to shrink democracy. They want to privatise and corporatise as many aspects of democracy as they can. They have done that with the governance of Auckland. They have produced a coup d’état in Auckland. They have corporatised Auckland. The situation in Canterbury is eerily similar. There is a pattern and now they have done it to Canterbury. It is the same sorts of time-worn techniques: discredit the council by saying there is a huge problem then summarily dismiss it without any statutory basis for doing so and replace it with hand-picked political appointees—and I can imagine who the rest of them might be. 
Cantabrians need to be aware that this move is part of ”Rogernomics Part 2”—and it is good to have Roger Douglas here listening to this because that is what it is all about. ACT realises that it is thwarted in this particular electoral cycle in its ambition to sell off the State-owned enterprises to privatise them at the governmental level. It is not able to do it in this term of Government. It will be done in the next term of Government if National is re-elected. So ACT has turned its attention to local government and that is where it is focusing “Rogernomics Part 2”. Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government is quietly going around New Zealand and getting rid of as much local government as possible. ACT has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland; now it is getting rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. What will be next? Where is the next excuse to get rid of yet another layer of democratically elected councillors and replace them— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh come on! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: This is exactly what the National Government has done. It is an indisputable fact. The Government has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland. Now it has got rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is an indisputable fact. And it has got rid of it by unconstitutional means. 
What really surprises me is that it has managed to fool many people in Canterbury just as it initially fooled many people in Auckland. Many of the mayors in Canterbury have gone along with it. All sorts of personal agendas are at stake. They have gone along with it in a cavalier fashion saying: “Oh who cares? We have just wiped out another layer of democracy. Who cares? It is just democracy.” Democracy is what our ancestors fought for and women fought for the vote. People all around the world are fighting for democracy but we have just cavalierly dismissed eight democratically elected councils in Auckland and now we are dismissing this council and the people of Canterbury are saying: “Oh well what does it matter? We’ll just replace them with some political appointees with some political hacks that will do the Government’s agenda. We’ll just get rid of the council—no problem.” But we will never get back that layer of democracy. 
The regional councillors were proving a bit inconvenient for the Government. They were not ramming through its agenda of getting hold of the water in Canterbury and building large irrigation dams. Because they were inconvenient they are to be wiped out and replaced by politically appointed commissioners so that the Government will be able to implement its agenda very explicitly without any obstacles. The Government goes around the world saying how terrible what has happened in Fiji is when exactly what has happened in Fiji is happening in Canterbury. It is happening with the passage of this bill. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Not true! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is exactly true. I guarantee that the people of Fiji will get to vote before the people of Canterbury ever get to vote for a regional council again. The people of Canterbury will not get to vote because the regional council will never be reinstated. The people of Canterbury need to wake up. This is the agenda. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. It is an agenda to wipe out layers of local democracy to privatise and corporatise the remainder of local government and to enable this Government to impose its will on the people of Canterbury. It is as I have said a coup d’état—an unconstitutional getting rid of a Government by a small group of people. That is the definition of a coup d’état. That is what this is. 
It was very interesting to see the letter from the people of Canterbury. It points out that there should be no taxation without representation. The letter refers to the “outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy”. In respect of replacing the councillors the writers of the letter say that if they are not going to have a voice in local government then they will not pay for it—they will not pay their rates. The letter states: “If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision makers then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision makers it chooses to put in their place.” That is what those people are intending to do. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take my first call in respect of Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so very very happily because the people of my electorate have been asking for an improvement in Environment Canterbury for a hang of a long time—since before I was elected as the MP for Aoraki. I rise to my feet a little heavy in heart because the quality of this debate appals me. The absolute scaremongering with the talk of a coup d’état and the removal of democracy is a load of hogwash. This bill allows a return to elected councillors. 
Sue Kedgley 
: It’ll never happen. 
JO GOODHEW 
: We say it will and this bill allows for it either in 2013 or before 2013. It would be helpful to stick to the facts I say to Ms Kedgley—it would be helpful to stick to the facts. Let me give members some more facts. You see the people of my electorate have been complaining about Environment Canterbury’s inability to manage water from an environmental perspective a recreational perspective a cultural perspective and an economic perspective for far too long—far too long. Yet we have had consensus with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We have had groups getting together with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy yet there was no end in sight—none whatsoever—and no progress in sight. It was the inability of Environment Canterbury to perform its statutory duties in terms of managing the water of the region that has brought this bill about. 
I will pay tribute to some people. I pay tribute to Alec Neill because he has tried his damnedest to get things turned round and I feel we need to acknowledge that. It has not been enough; he has found himself unable to achieve the progress he wanted to. There has been improvement in respect of consenting but what the Opposition forgets to tell us is that the number of consents issued is hugely less anyway. Environment Canterbury has been dealing with about half the workload. Hello—90 percent for half the workload is still bad. I pay tribute to the regional councillors from my electorate Mark Oldfield and Angus McKay. Those guys have also tried their damnedest to address the concerns of their constituents within the region. But still tens of thousands of dollars later—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars later—people have got nowhere when it comes to the management of water in the region. 
Actually this bill is about making progress. It is a temporary measure—it even says that in the title. It is a temporary measure and it is here not before time. I will quickly read some of the reaction from around the region. One of the mayors in my former electorate Mackenzie District Mayor John O’Neill said it was: “a bold move which would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers.” So much for no consultation guys; it has happened. Those mayors have been out asking their people for years and years what they want to happen in a timelier and better way and they have said that Environment Canterbury should be made to do its job. A former Waitaki constituency councillor Dr June Slee said: “The community knew ECan wasn’t doing its job and this push for change was community-driven.” It is a shame that that same community appears to have been completely ignored by Opposition members in the House—completely and utterly ignored. It believes that its only community of interest is a small cohort that is anti the development of water and that does not seem to realise that the environmental standards of the water are also currently not being looked after well enough. 
So this bill is a way forward—a light into the future. We are very very positive that this is the best way to go. From my perspective a return to democracy in 2013—or before if at all possible—is certainly within the scope of this bill and I am sick of hearing that it is not. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I would also like to quote the  
Timaru Herald 
 this morning. A certain “Commodore Nick Smith” appears in this morning’s  
Timaru Herald 
 and I think there is a wonderful quote that needs to go into the record. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite made a derogatory comment about the Minister in charge of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point of order is well made. Members are to use a respectful address. Members might have all sorts of titles but I do not see that one listed as Nick Smith’s title. The member will use a person’s correct form of address. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thought “Commodore” was very respectful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is very clear in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this House that members are not to comment on Speakers’ or Chairpersons’ rulings. Once the ruling has been made that is the end of it. If the member wishes to continue he can continue but if he makes a further reference to the ruling that has been made I will terminate his presentation. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The quote states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” That says it all. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment does not trust the people of Canterbury. He sacks the democratically elected members of the regional council because he is wary of the results of the elections. What does that tell members? He does not trust democracy and he does not trust the people of Canterbury. That says it all. 
I will talk about Part 1 and I will put forward an amendment but I will first touch on one of the aspects that I think is perhaps the most corrosive part of this Government’s affection for oligarchy and its distaste for democracy. When Wyatt Creech was appointed to do the report on Environment Canterbury it rang alarm bells immediately for the reasons that my colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined. The public of Canterbury and the public of New Zealand know well that National is hand in glove with the interests that are pushing and going hard out to free up irrigation and water storage in the interests of dairy farming. The Government knows that Ruth Richardson and Don Brash are directors of dairy companies in Canterbury and that they will be watching very very carefully to see who else is appointed as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. They know that this Government has form when it comes to abrogating democratic structures and undermining our democratic institutions and they know its preference for running our democratic institutions by putting its mates around the table so that it can run our country our cities and our resources in its own commercial interests. 
I have listened last night and this morning to member after member on the Government benches say that Labour members are getting hysterical and emotional about democracy. I make no apologies for being emotional about our country’s democratic institutions. They are the most precious asset we have in our political traditions and for this Government to ride roughshod over those democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its own way and run its own agenda is disgraceful. Colin King said last night that we were ranting and raving about the loss of democratic rights and that the only reason the Government is passing this bill today is because of dysfunction in the Canterbury Regional Council. Well where have we heard that before? Every tinpot dictator from Fiji to the Central African Republic has blamed dysfunctional institutions and squabbling politicians as they do away with democracy at the point of a gun. 
Nicky Wagner said: “I support this bill because water is a significant issue and we can do better.” Hello? The member should hold up the front page. That Canterbury MP is a disgrace for selling out the democratic rights of her electors in the community that she is supposed to be representing. 
There is something wrong with our democracy. There is something wrong with our democratic institutions when members of the governing party think it is OK to shelve our democracy and to shelve our democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its agenda through because “we can do better.” and because Environment Canterbury is “dysfunctional”. Well what will be next? What institution or part of the State will be next replaced by hand-picked commissioners? Which council will be next like the one in Auckland to be corporatised and have its assets and resources handed over to the hand-picked mates of the Government? I have put forward an amendment to Part 1 that I am calling the “second chance” amendment. It is a second chance for the Government to redeem its democratic credentials and step back from the precipice. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The temperature forecast in Canterbury is 27 degrees and things are really starting to heat up. I noted that the member for Rangitata Jo Goodhew did not choose to deny comments from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about the fact that the criticism of Environment Canterbury from the mayors of Canterbury emerged following a conversation between that member and the Mayor of Timaru. Nothing was said in response to those points raised. Jo Goodhew went on to say that the bill allows for the return of Environment Canterbury by 2013 or before. She was very pointed on that issue when in fact as was made clear before the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is saying that he is not sure that that will happen. He is still leaving open the idea of installing a regional water authority. 
Sue Kedgley is absolutely correct: this is the death knell of Environment Canterbury. There is no prospect of it ever being reinstated certainly not under this Government—not a chance. The member for Rangitata went on to say that Alec Neill had done a darn good job in trying to turn round Environment Canterbury. Alec Neill was actually the chairman of the consents committee for some years—the years in fact that the Government says that Environment Canterbury failed to deliver on the time frames necessary for meeting resource consents. I am sure Alec Neill tried to do his best in that job but he was stuck with the same problem that Environment Canterbury has had throughout and that is that it needed supporting legislation which this Government has failed to bring through and—I acknowledge—the previous Government failed to bring through in order to provide it with a better framework. I agree with that but this Minister has had nearly 18 months in office; he could have brought that forward or he could have brought forward the option that Alec Neill himself suggested which is that the commissioners work alongside the elected democratic representatives and implement the changes that are necessary. So there we go. 
I noticed also that tribute was paid by the member for Rangitata to councillors Mackay and Oldfield. I note that they were two of the four councillors whom I took to the Auditor-General last year and had a complaint upheld about in respect of conflicts of interest over water. The Minister accused me last night of attacking Environment Canterbury. Far from it; I just say that processes need to be clear and transparent and when people have conflicts of interest those conflicts need to be managed appropriately. But I tell members of the Committee that I would still rather have those four councillors and the other 10 councillors back in front of me as an elector in Canterbury in October than an appointed panel of commissioners whom Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will choose and ram down the throats of voters in Canterbury. That is what we are getting. That is absolutely what we are getting with this bill. 
Another allegation was that Labour is opposed to development. That is absolutely untrue; we want to see development. There was huge development in Canterbury over the 9 years we were in Government in respect of the use of water resources. We say that from now on we should make sure that the balance is there and that the environmental protections are there because no member opposite can pretend—and I challenge the Minister or another MP opposite to take a call on this issue—that the existing water quality in Canterbury is acceptable. Where in this bill is there anything about improving water quality? It is about new allocation of water in rapid fashion; it is not about improving water quality. 
I turn to clause 3 of the bill and note that the Minister could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions powers and duties of councillors in relation to water and have them work alongside the council certainly in respect of its other statutory responsibilities. But no the Minister—really Mr Hide—has chosen to go for the doctor and absolutely disestablish Environment Canterbury and we will not see it again. This is the end of Environment Canterbury. 
I note further also as Dr Bryan Jenkins said on  
Morning Report 
 this morning that Environment Canterbury has been asking for additional powers for the last 4 years. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I acknowledge that we could have done it; we should have done it. I acknowledge that point but where is this Government—the Government of action supposedly? Where has its response been on that? Where has its delivery been on that point? It has not happened. 
The other point I would like to make is that the commitment of the Government in this bill to the  
Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework 
 is shallow rather than substantive. It does not take regard of the vision and principles of the strategy a very good document and an agreed document from my region of Canterbury. It is not being enshrined in this bill; it is simply referred to in terms of the vision and principles. There is no requirement in this bill to put the terms of the document into practice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith I just want to say that I did not pay anybody. When members are interjecting they should interject in the third person. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There have been many quite hysterical claims of conspiracies and the like and I think it would be worthwhile simply to put on the record a few of the basic facts that give a background to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. 
You see both Labour and Green members have established that this bill is a very sophisticated conspiracy; that the Government has engineered a whole lot of groups to be anti - Environment Canterbury to enable this bill to be passed. Well the first thing I would like to ask those members is whether they really believe that National members in Opposition were able to manipulate the respected staff of the Ministry for the Environment so that when they wrote their briefing to the incoming Government they raised very serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. That is an extraordinary claim and I ask members to respond to it.  
Secondly I point to the Environment Court decisions and the decisions of independent commissioners who have raised serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. Are members opposite really claiming that somehow through this Roger Douglas - driven conspiracy we have been able to manipulate the decisions of independent commissioners and the Environment Court to make critical comments about Environment Canterbury? So great is the conspiracy that somehow we have got Trevor Mallard into it as well because Trevor Mallard is on the public record as saying very clearly that Environment Canterbury was in serious trouble. He knew that when he was Minister. He went— 
Hon Member 
: Has anything changed since then? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What he said was: “I went to the Prime Minister suggested we take action and the Prime Minister said it would be politically difficult.” The fact that Mr Mallard went to the Prime Minister says that in his conscience he knew he had a genuine problem but he did not for political reasons have the courage to address the significant issues in Canterbury. 
I also challenge members of the Opposition particularly Mr Brendon Burns who say that absolutely nothing in this bill deals with issues of water quality or some of the other very real issues in Canterbury. I refer the member to the many pages of schedule 1 of the bill that state what the commissioners are required to have regard to in their decision making. They make absolute reference to issues of water quality to drinking-water standards to the very essence of indigenous biodiversity and to a whole range of other key environmental factors that we are putting into law today to make progress on water management. 
I was amused by the contribution from Mr Phil Twyford. He says that the changes that are occurring in Auckland are all part of a right-wing conspiracy. Well that is interesting. I thought that they came from a royal commission report. I ask Mr Twyford whether he knows who commissioned the royal commission report. It was the previous Labour Government. These conspiracy theories that somehow National had control of the previous Labour Cabinet and somehow National organised a royal commission to write a report to provide for the introduction of the super-city in Auckland expose the lightweight contributions that we have had from Labour members. They are hiding behind shadows and trying to find conspiracies. 
The issue is very simple: we have a problem with water management in Canterbury. It is a longstanding problem. It has required addressing for years. I acknowledge Mr Brendon Burns for at least acknowledging that the previous Labour Government failed to address these issues. It is time for leadership on water management in Canterbury and that is what is appropriately provided for in this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I think that the speech that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment has just given confirms that this is not about caring for Canterbury’s water. It is not about caring for our natural resources looking to the future or having a democratic base for our decision making in respect of our environmental concerns. It is all about politics. 
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. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I want to systematically address at least two clauses in Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and offer some comments. 
When I look at clause 3 of Part 1 of the bill I see that the purpose of the bill is to: “provide for the replacement of the elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners who will act as the Council’s governing body until new elected members come into office following the next election;”. The Minister for the Environment could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions powers and duties of councillors in relation to water if that was the Government’s main concern. That would have allowed democratic governance to continue in relation to the council’s other statutory responsibilities particularly public passenger transport and air quality where it has led New Zealand and also regional land transport coordination and planning and pest control and biosecurity. 
I mentioned yesterday in the second reading that the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils are far wider than the excessively narrow focus that was brought to bear in the Creech report upon the alleged imperfections of the Canterbury Regional Council. It could have been done another way. It could have been done in a way that met the stated concerns that are generally shared pertaining to water management. It is not perfect; it has not been perfect. But the overriding principle of local democracy in New Zealand could have been respected at the same time. The principle of democracy cannot be blithely calibrated according to other concerns including economic growth irrigation and the expansion of dairy. Democracy is a principle that has its own intrinsic merit. It is not calibrated or qualified in any way by anything but this Government has proceeded to do so. 
I look at clause 3(b) and see that the second purpose of the bill is to “provide the Council with certain powers … relevant to the … management of fresh water”. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins confirmed on  
Morning Report  
today Environment Canterbury first requested additional powers in relation to at-risk catchments and aquifers where the allocation is at or over sustainability limits. He did that 4 years ago yet the Ministry for the Environment has been deaf to requests for improvement of the Resource Management Act such as the provision for catchment-specific moratoria. The Government’s commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy as a way forward comes across as rather shallow and not substantive in this respect. Those provisions require the commissioner to have particular regard to “the vision and the principles” of the strategy; this is motherhood and apple pie. The substance of the strategy is in the targets. They have been revised with involvement from stakeholders since the strategy was released last November and it is now out for public comment. 
Simply having regard to the vision and principles is not what Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering committee have sought in terms of mandating legislation. They have sought that the Resource Management Act be amended so that decision makers give weight to the regional and zone implementation programmes to be developed by the stakeholder committees in each of the 10 water management zones across the region. These implementation programmes will put the strategy vision principles and targets into practice—it could have been done that way. 
Finally I look at clause 4 which is the interpretation. There is a so-called definition of “Environment Canterbury” in this clause. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill outlines the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of the bill is to empower the Government to rapidly address issues of the Canterbury Regional Council and to provide the commissioners with the necessary powers. It talks about giving the power to this Government and I have no doubt that what this Government is about to do is sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister but there are two Ministers responsible for driving this particular issue the Hon Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide. The ordinary citizen would be thinking that this is illegal. The removal of 14 officials who were elected by the 500000-plus people of Canterbury—and these councillors are significant citizens of Canterbury—would be illegal other than for this bill. Am I correct? This bill legalises the removal of 14 elected representatives of the 500000-plus people of Canterbury which under normal circumstances is an illegal act. But it has been made legal by the rushing through of this bill. 
National’s decision to replace Environment Canterbury with Government-appointed commissioners for the next 3 ½ years is an outrageous affront to democracy. Any way you cut it it is an affront to democracy. My colleagues are correct when they say that this is deliberate on the part of the Government. It is also a message that the Government does not care about democratic processes. I have to say that the people of Canterbury would be asking themselves what this says about their representatives. They are not insignificant individuals. They are significant members of their community. They are Alec Neill the chairman of the council who represents the Christchurch West constituency; Angus McKay who represents the Rakaia constituency; Professor Bob Kirk who represents the Christchurch South constituency; Bronwen Murray who represents the Christchurch North constituency; David Sutherland who represents the Christchurch East constituency; and Carole Evans Eugenie Sage Jo Kane Jane Demeter Mark Oldfield Sir Kerry Burke Pat Harrow Rik Tindall and Ross Little. My point is that they are not insignificant people. They represent the community they were elected by Canterbury and now they have been removed. Canterbury has been told it will not hold elections this year. It has to wait. That is all because the Government has seized the power in wanting to make its own decisions and has forced its decisions upon the people of Canterbury. 
What do the local people think about it? I have heard councillor Chrissie Williams who said that “Minister Nick Smith made a brief appearance at the Council meeting on 11 March at which Councillors were able to ask questions but there was no report discussion or decision by the council. He has not met with us at any other time. The Christchurch City Council does not have a view on whether intervention was required and has certainly not supported the intervention handed down by the Minister today.” To rush through a bill to take powers away from elected representatives and to give those powers and more to a group of appointed commissioners is a kick to the heart of democracy in this country. Is that not what they are doing? That is what this bill is about. 
I will read something else from councillor Eugenie Sage: “Sacking councillors would deny 500000 Canterbury citizens their elected voice in water management.” 
Paul Quinn 
: Another poodle. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: That is what those members might think but these people were elected. They were elected; they were not imposed upon the people. The people of Canterbury elected them through democratic process. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Mr Chair I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is That the question be now put. 
Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it. Clerk would you please conduct a party vote. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: An hour and a half on a Part that has never been to a select committee and was introduced under urgency. An hour and a half—that’s ridiculous. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair I seek your guidance in reminding the member opposite that the vote is held in silence. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In the spirit of collegiality I give advice to the junior whip that when her member moves a closure motion she should simply put those words. We can be petty and pedantic if she likes. I did not pull the member up on it because she moved it and it was clear what her intention was but it was not within the Standing Orders. If the junior whip wants to behave in that way we can go toe for toe; otherwise we can just have the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think that is a draw. I will ask the Clerk to continue the vote in silence—well not the Clerk. Members will hear the call and so on in silence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause 1(c) “except sections 52 to 55 and 60”; and 
to omit from subclause 1(d) “except sections 64 to 69”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6AIndependent review 
(1)The Minister shall immediately appoint a review authority to review consider and report on the performance of ECan in respect of its management of fresh water in the Canterbury region. 
(2)The review authority shall be appointed by notice in the  
Gazette 
 and a copy of that notice shall be sent to ECan. 
(3)Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies with any necessary modifications to the review authority and the review. 
(4)In addition to any remedies in Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister of Local Government may on the recommendation of the review authority issue an Order in Council bringing Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act into force. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to Part 2 but before we take any bidders on it I advise the Committee that we had 2 hours of debate on the previous part and many of the speeches went well outside of what would normally be acceptable in a Committee stage speech. Many of them were second reading speeches. We have ranged far and wide. The Chair is prepared to be quite liberal about that because the point has been made that the bill has not been to a select committee. But members should focus their attention on the fact that this is the Committee stage we are dealing with the nuts and bolts and the debate is on Part 2 not Part 3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You anticipated part of my point of order which was that we spent roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes on Part 1 25 minutes of which were taken up by the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment—which is great because we want to be engaging with him on the issue. The point I make about that is that the Minister is intimately involved in this legislation. He wrote it he has seen it he has had a chance to take it through Cabinet processes and he has had the benefit of his officials’ advice on it. The problem that the Opposition has is that we have not had that luxury of having seen the bill beforehand. The bill was introduced under urgency. Mr Chairperson your reference to it not having gone to a select committee is true; there has been no chance for public submissions. But the fact that it was introduced under urgency means that we did not get a chance even to read it before we started to debate it. There are Speakers’ rulings that give members a little more leeway when they are debating a bill part by part under urgency in the Committee of the whole House and there has not been the chance for them to do research and prepare for the debate in the way that they might ordinarily have expected to do. 
I guess my two points are that one the reason that we opposed closure was that we did not feel that there had been enough time for us to debate Part 1 and the Minister has been contributing a lot and that of course extended the time of the debate. By definition if a debate goes for a length of time the Minister’s contributing will reduce the amount of time available to the Opposition to speak on a bill that was sight unseen until the debate started. The second point is about members’ being given leeway for the fact that they have not been briefed on the legislation and are not in a position to restrict every single comment they want to make to a particular clause in a part. Members are trying their best to do that but I think that point has to be taken into account in the absence of a select committee process and in the absence of the bill being laid on the Table for 3 days beforehand. Mr Chairperson had that happened had that process been followed you would be absolutely correct in asserting that members should follow to the letter the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in this respect but that is not able to happen because the bill was dropped on Opposition members. We are trying to construct our arguments as best we are able given the limited amount of time we have had. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I would like it to be understood that I for one had a few points left pertaining specifically to Part 1. I was going through it clause by clause and I had a little bit left that I wanted to put into the debate. Mr Chairperson I ask your indulgence that either we return to Part 1 or in the debate on Part 2 I am free to return to one or two clauses in Part 1 to register my points. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to that member. I noted that in his presentation to the Committee he focused specifically on the bill clause by clause and I was going to commend him for being one of the few speakers who did that and extrapolated wider points. I thought that was very good. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that yes he is correct; generally there is latitude and a wider brief is given when a bill has not been referred to a select committee. The point I would make to him in rebuttal is that we were debating Part 1 which is a very technical part. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The purpose. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The purpose yes. I have read the purpose clause and a lot of it is very technical. Part 2 is quite substantial and I expect the Chair to be more cognisant of the fact that there is a wider range of issues on that point. I also make the point that speakers referred to Part 3 very often; that was a substantial part of the debate. Had they done so in passing there would have been no problem. I just make the point that we have had a little dispute about the hours but we are going to continue the discussion and we will now focus on Part 2. No doubt there will be a focused and wide-ranging debate as people want within that context with some generosity on the Chair’s part. 
Part 2 Replacement of governing body of ECan 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill provides for the appointment of commissioners for the important functions in Canterbury. I point out specifically such provisions as clause 21 which puts quite onerous consultation requirements on the commissioners. 
The main reason I take a call is to engage with Kennedy Graham who made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of the commissioners and their functions. He rightly pointed out that under the Resource Management Act I as the Minister for the Environment have the power under section 25(1) to appoint commissioners to take over all or some of the resource management functions. I also endorse the remarks made by the member that the Government’s real concerns—and I think they are widely held—are around water management in Canterbury. We have a big challenge there. 
He asked why the Government has chosen not to use those section 25(1) powers and appoint commissioners to get on top of those issues in the area of water rather than use the provisions that are in Part 2 whereby the commissioners will take over all of the functions of Environment Canterbury. That is a good question and I will respond to it. The great difficulty is that if I use those powers effectively I will have a set of commissioners in charge of Environment Canterbury as well as the elected council. My advice and the advice from Environment Canterbury itself was that it would be very difficult to splice out of Environment Canterbury these all-important water functions. We could end up in the worst world which is almost a two-headed monster. Nobody would be sure who was in charge. 
If there is agreement on anything around the water issues in Canterbury I think it is that clear and strategic leadership is required. I am not satisfied nor were the key parties that I consulted that using those section 25(1) powers—for which the threshold to use them has clearly been met—would get us on top of the issue. In fact it would make it worse. But I equally challenge Kennedy Graham in this respect. He and his colleague Sue Kedgley have given an impassioned plea that it is an affront to democracy to have these commissioners. Yet in his speech he said it would be fine for me to use my powers to appoint commissioners to take over the water functions. There is a logical inconsistency there. He says that it is OK for the Minister to use powers provided for in law at the moment for those commissioners to take over the most contentious and difficult issues in Canterbury which concern water. He would support that and he would recognise that it was a good step forward. Yet he says that to do it this way is wrong. I think there is a serious logical inconsistency in the Greens’ position in that regard. 
As Rodney Hide said yesterday the Government has taken these provisions reluctantly. But this is the right way forward. I say to members— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s exactly what the Minister wanted. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel has interjected. It is always interesting that when one cannot play the ball one plays the man. When Labour members cannot respond to the substantive issues they choose to go into the area of personal denigration. Whether it be in terms of— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: About whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For instance Wyatt Creech. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What did I say? I said he had a conflict of interest that’s all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members went a lot further than that. I point out to the ranting members of the Labour Party that this report has been prepared by four people: Wyatt Creech Doug Martin of MartinJenkins Greg Hill and Doug Low of Morrison Low. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who was the leader of the group? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chair was Wyatt Creech. Did members on our side of the Chamber choose to be heavily party political when Mike Moore was appointed to roles when Helen Clark was appointed to roles and when a whole number of former Labour MPs have been appointed to roles? I really think it says something about the quality of the roles from members on Labour’s benches that they want to play the personality game. They play the personality game because they are not prepared to confront the substantive issues. Those substantive issues are that we need clear direction from Government around water management. The provisions in this part show this Government providing something that has been required for many many years: clear leadership around water management. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to Part 2. Before I do so I would like to note an issue that has come to my attention that relates to the bill in its entirety. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment I will refer to the title. The title of the bill is the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The advice to me is that Environment Canterbury is in fact the regional council’s trading name; it is not its legal identity. The legal identity for this organisation is the Canterbury Regional Council. I put it to the Committee and the Minister that this bill is inappropriately named. At the very least this is sloppy drafting but I suspect— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2. There is a debate very specifically on the short title of the bill. The procedure is long established that we debate Parts 1 2 and 3 and then the last debate is on the short title. I would welcome a debate around the points the member has raised but they are outside the debate on Part 2 that the Committee is currently having. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I understand the Minister’s point but my concern in the earlier point of order was that I wished to address that point under Part 1 pertaining to clause 4 and was denied the chance to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any further assistance. I say to the Minister that I think he is unnecessarily finessing the point. As I understood it Brendon Burns was referring to the title because it related to aspects of Part 2 which he is perfectly entitled to do. Yes he can talk about the title and so on later but he was addressing it in the context of Part 2. I invite Brendon Burns to continue. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am of course talking about Part 2 of a bill entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We know from that title that there are questions around what the bill will do in terms of temporary commissioners what the bill might or might not do to improve water management and now we have serious questions about whether the bill is legally appropriate. I will move from that point but we will come back to that issue in the debate on the short title a little later. 
I note clause 12 and I say I have amendments in my name to the clauses within this part relating to the appointment of commissioners. The provisions in these clauses will give powers to the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment to amend the terms of reference for those commissioners “at any time”. That removes any scrutiny by Parliament or by any other body and it removes any input from the people whose affairs are being managed by the commissioners. I put it to the Minister who indicated there will be from five to seven commissioners that if one or more of them starts to take a line that is deemed to be unacceptable to the Government the Government will have the power to remove them again without any reference. That reinforces the autocratic—the Fijian—style of decision making that this bill embodies. It gives absolute power to the Government to remove commissioners who do not toe the line. It gives back to the Government absolute power in respect of all of the decisions around Canterbury not just in terms of its water but in terms of all of the functions that Environment Canterbury currently has and holds. Those are important functions and they are not just limited to water. 
We have for instance starting in 2 days’ time an absolute ban on open fires being put in place across Christchurch. That will now become the function of commissioners. I say that Environment Canterbury has broadly done a very good job of improving the air quality of Canterbury under the way that those councillors are elected as opposed to commissioners which Part 2 proposes to install. Will the commissioners continue to do the good job that Environment Canterbury has done in terms of improving the air quality of Christchurch from the point where it was the worst in New Zealand and arguably in parts of the Western World to being a city with a very good air quality? 
There are real questions around the capacity of the commissioners to do the job envisaged for them when the Ministers have an absolute right to remove them from office or to change the terms of reference and there will not be any scrutiny of that power. Those amendments can happen at any time by executive fiat by ministerial decree without any reference or even notification to Parliament or to the people of Canterbury 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s better; very nice. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Part 2 absolutely enshrines the power being put in a very small set of hands. Mr Quinn might like to see that kind of thing happen and maybe his area of the Hutt Valley will be next to have this kind of situation imposed upon it—on its voters and its people. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Auckland was first. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: If Auckland was first and Canterbury is to be second you can bet your life that Wellington will be next in line— 
Paul Quinn 
: Aw! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Wellington will be next in line and if it happens in the same way that it has happened in Canterbury Mr Quinn will not be pleased although he might maintain a public face. 
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. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. I am rather concerned about the way the Government has referred to some of its own actions in the past—or some of our actions in the past—without mentioning the most obvious one. 
Part 2 goes through the technical details of the replacement of Environment Canterbury. I will talk about the amount of notice essentially that people are being given in respect of what is happening with their roles. We got about a month’s notice to the elected members of Environment Canterbury which reminds me of the approach that an earlier National Government took when it sacked overnight every member of every area health board during the urgency that followed the Budget that even the then Minister of Finance described as the “mother of all Budgets”. I was in Parliament at that time and I recall the debate incredibly clearly because I knew people who were on area health boards across the political spectrum from a range of different political backgrounds. Many of them had budgeted for the fact that they were undertaking that work as elected members of the area health board. They had no idea that this was going to happen and as a result a number of people had resigned permanent positions and full-time jobs in order to devote their energy and attention to their work on the area health board. Then completely out of the blue they were all sacked. 
There was the rather strange situation where the Government of the day and the Hon Simon Upton—I remember this as if it were yesterday because I feel a sense of déjà vu with what is happening here—at the same time as the 1991 Budget released a green and white paper on health that signalled the most radical reform in health this country had ever seen. Before the consultation had even begun National had decided that elected members would have no part in the future of New Zealand’s health system. 
It is a bit ironic really—we are not allowed to use other words in this Chamber—that we heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith ask the Hon Ruth Dyson and myself where we were when Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board. We said that we were not in Parliament. He said that it was not relevant because anything that happened before one arrived in this Parliament did not count. He asked us where we were. Well we were not here so I do not know what sort of answer he expected to elicit from that response. He was not in Parliament either because he was elected the same year I was and probably recalls these debates very very clearly as well. That was the longest period of time that Parliament had been in urgency. In fact we were called back the following Monday and it was the first time since the Second World War that Parliament had sat on a Monday. So we have had this situation before. 
How is this relevant to Part 2? I refer members to clause 9 “Elected members cease to hold office on close of day before replacement day”. It states that “(1) On the close of the day before the replacement day the elected members of ECan then holding office (the ‘elected members’) cease to hold office. (2) This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say. (3) An elected member is not entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office.” That is pretty much exactly the clause that went into the health amendments that came around during the course of the urgency debate after the 1991 Budget was presented to Parliament. An elected member’s not being entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office caused problems from one end of the country to the other. People had relied on having an income from the role they had been playing on their district health board. I am not sure of the circumstances of the individual members of Environment Canterbury but to get 1 month’s notice that the position they have been democratically elected to hold is being cancelled cannot be anything other than a breach of natural justice. It is important that we debate these issues because people’s interests are being affected by the way this legislation is being worked through. 
We come to the question of timing. What timing does this bill sets out? It states: “The responsible Ministers”—well “The irresponsible Ministers” might have been a good amendment for that clause—“must determine the replacement day and give notice of it—(a) in the  
Gazette 
; and (b) to the elected members of ECan.” We heard from the Minister yesterday that we are looking at 1 May for the replacement day. That is kind of an ironic day because of course it is International Workers’ Day. Although these people are not employees of Environment Canterbury in any way shape or form they might have made commitments based on the income they have been receiving. That does not seem to faze the Minister whatsoever. In fact as I understand it the Government will pay the commissioners significantly more than Environment Canterbury councillors are being paid because they will be employed on a commission as opposed to being elected to represent the democratic interests of the Canterbury region. 
I will also talk about the timing in terms of how long this measure lasts for. The 2010 election for members of Environment Canterbury is deferred by clause 22 and members of Environment Canterbury elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day. The resumption day—that was the word I was looking for—relates to the period at which this measure is overturned or the 2013 election of local bodies whichever comes first. The problem is that I suspect the reason for this time frame is that the Government has decided to defer the decision it has already made to cancel regional government in Canterbury and I personally believe to cancel regional Government across New Zealand as we saw with the super-city in Auckland. This is really a forerunner to what is about to happen right across the country. 
The Government does not want that to be an election issue next year for the general election and I believe that is why this particular process has been chosen. If we honestly took this bill out to a broad consultative process that included this bill’s going to a select committee those councillors who put themselves up for election could have their say. Whether I agree with their politics or not I admire people who are prepared to put themselves forward for some of these roles. Sometimes performing a role for Environment Canterbury can be a bit of a thankless task. It has a reputation—a lot of anecdote has driven the report as I have already referred to once in this Chamber—and that makes it hard for people to take on these particular roles. In this particular case the Government has not allowed those people to have a public say. They should be able to be held to account within their own constituencies. A select committee should be meeting down in Canterbury now and travelling throughout the region letting those who stood for election and who were successful in that regard have their say about what has really gone on in this particular case. Maybe the individual councils could be asked to debate the issues as councils rather than the mayors and chief executives being the only ones who are entitled to express an opinion in respect of what is appropriate in terms of our regional democracy. 
That is what I keep coming back to. I honestly believe that the Government has deliberately made this decision at this time. It has used the urgency motion cloaked the bill in secrecy up until this point and simply allowed for a ramming through of a process that destroys regional democracy in the Canterbury region. I believe that this is a promise of things to come and that this Government has made a decision. Unfortunately the Minister of Local Government has not yet taken a call on this bill today. I am hoping that he will get up and take a call on it because it is vitally important to democracy in New Zealand. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The previous Chairperson the Hon Rick Barker asked us to be very focused in our comments on this part and it is extremely easy to be focused on Part 2 because it is the heart of the bill. This is where the coup d’état takes place. Part 2 is called “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. This is where we strip the 14 democratically elected councillors of their powers. As a previous speaker has pointed out it would be an illegal act to do so because there is no statutory basis for doing so. This bill is making legal what would be an illegal act: namely replacing the 14 democratically elected councillors of Canterbury. 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Some of my National colleagues are saying “Rubbish” but that is the truth. The Minister acknowledged yesterday in a briefing to Opposition members that there was no statutory basis to get rid of these 14 democratically elected councillors so he had to use this bill to do it. 
The other extraordinary thing about this part is that it gives the politically appointed commissioners who will be there to implement the will of the Minister the powers that the democratically elected councillors have been begging for for years. What is also extremely interesting in this part is that the terms of reference for the commissioners are not in this bill. This is the critical thing: what will their terms of reference be? What will they be up to? It is not spelt out. It is just left to the Minister after the bill has been rammed through Parliament to decide on the terms of reference. The reason is that he does not want us or the people of Canterbury to know ahead of time what the terms of reference will be. 
As the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has said this is a bill to fast track the building of dams in Canterbury. That is what it is all about. I predict that one of the terms of reference will be to facilitate the building of dams in Canterbury. By giving terms of reference such as these the two Ministers will basically be able to implement their agenda. I make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this bill and the replacement of the democratically elected councillors with commissioners is to ram through the building of dams. The councillors were sacked basically because they were getting in the way of agribusiness and irrigation companies. They were annoyed because Environment Canterbury was getting in the way. It was stopping some of their big water projects. Just as Bainimarama found that democracy was an obstacle to the implementation of his plans in Fiji this Government has also found that the democratically elected councillors were an obstacle in the way of implementing their irrigation plans so it has abolished democracy in Canterbury. 
The other thing of course is that at any time the Minister for the Environment may amend the terms of reference for the commissioners. At any time with no reference to democracy or to this Parliament the Minister can change the terms of reference for the commissioners. If the commissioners do not do exactly the Minister’s bidding then they can be got rid of under the provisions in this part of the bill. They can be dispensed with if for any reason they do not completely implement the Minister’s agenda. 
The Minister accused us all of being hysterical in his earlier intervention. That is the Government’s favourite word. It said that Opposition members are hysterical over mining they are hysterical over this bill and they are hysterical in everything that they do. The Government must think that everyone in New Zealand is hysterical. But we are not hysterical—we are simply angry. Did the Minister really expect us to sit politely by to yawn and to say: “Oh well never mind. We are just getting rid of another layer of democracy in New Zealand.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to make only a very brief contribution on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill but I was very taken aback by the words of wisdom from Sue Kedgley who has just resumed her seat. She said that this bill is so outrageous that it makes legal what would otherwise be illegal. Well I have to advise the member that actually every single bill this Parliament passes is intended to make legal what would otherwise be illegal. I advise the member that that is the very business of this Parliament. Her words of outrage saying that things would be illegal if we did not pass this bill were quite an extraordinary contribution. 
The second point I challenge the member on is her comment that the whole of the Government’s agenda is about Environment Canterbury’s stopping big projects in Canterbury from happening. Well I ask the member which big projects she is talking about and what is stopping them. The truth is that Environment Canterbury has no plans for water. Eighteen years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have a resource management plan for water in Canterbury. I ask members on both sides of the Chamber regardless of whether they come from a development perspective or an environmental perspective how the interests of New Zealand are served by not having a plan. I ask whether it is really the position of the Green Party and members opposite that we do not need a plan for water in Canterbury. 
I make absolutely no apologies nor do my Government colleagues and the parties that support us for saying that the issue of water in Canterbury is critical. We need to put a plan in place. The regional council has had 18 years and it has not done it. It is time for the Government to take a lead and that is why we have this bill. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a different angle in Part 2 of this “Democratic Outrage Bill”. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment knows this story very well. I will relate it to clause 13 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill “Amendment of terms of reference for commissioners” which states that the power to amend the terms of reference at any time is a ministerial power. 
I refer the Minister and others in the Chamber to a different approach that was taken by Labour in 2002 with regard to the quality of water in Rotorua’s lakes. At that time the then Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs could have done the same thing. She could have brought in the “Rotorua (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill” but she did not. We had dysfunction between the regional council which was the equivalent of Environment Canterbury— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was the Minister for the Environment who crunched the money? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: —well the member must hang on a minute as I am getting to that—and the local body. All the non-governmental organisations were concerned that the water of Lake Rotorua and our other 14 lakes in the Rotorua area was being degraded. A delegation made up of the chair of the regional council the then Mayor of Rotorua Grahame Hall and a representative of the local iwi Anaru Rangiheuea came to see Minister Marian Hobbs and the Minister told those people to get their act together. She told them to get a water plan and come back to central government and if she did not see improvements then she would act. 
I agree with this Minister for the Environment that the Minister has the power at any time in Government to bring in legislation but this legislation is a democratic outrage. Thank goodness Labour did not go that way. What did we do? Minister Marian Hobbs set up terms of reference on how a steering group would proceed to clean up Rotorua’s lakes and we knew then that it was a 20-year journey. It is not a quick fix. This commission will not be able to fix up Canterbury’s water overnight. I think it is appalling that councillors will not be democratically elected at the local elections this year; Canterbury will have to wait until 2013. It is an insult to democratically elected councillors. 
In 2002 we set up a water quality group for Rotorua’s lakes. It was chaired by the mayor. It was not easy but he took leadership at that time. He worked as one of the three legs of the stool with the regional council and with iwi as the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. They all sat at the table and at that time we fixed up the ownership of Rotorua’s lakes. Issues keep on cropping up that give us concern about our lakes’ water quality and I have suggested to the mayor that he should bring in Nick Smith to fix it. But now I would tell him not to do that as Nick Smith might say that it is not being fixed up fast enough and that the Government will appoint commissioners. The Government might go trigger-happy over democracy. Instead of working through the issue in a long-term sustainable water quality improvement plan it might change all those democratically elected representatives put in commissioners and think that that will fix it. 
With regard to clause 13 the terms of reference are not even public knowledge. I think that the provision in clause 13 is an absolute outrage. The clause states that the terms of reference will be published. They should be worked out by all those who are contributing and who will fix the problem over time. We have our water quality group in Rotorua. It represents the elected representatives who have the expertise in certain matters as is stipulated in clause 14. They understand organisational change. I have heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith state that Labour did zip about water quality improvement in this country. I do not accept that. We worked for 7 years to bring in $70 million to fix up our lakes. The Minister can say at any time that that money from the Crown will stop if the water quality group does not achieve an outcome of improved water quality and I think that is a very powerful tool. 
I say to members of the Rotorua group to bring in the Minister if they are arguing about the lake levels or resource consent processes. I tell them to bring in the Minister as he has the power to do something about the allocation of funding and he will do something. However this bill is an outrage. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe tena tatou katoa. Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I will make a small contribution following on a little from the Hon Steve Chadwick the previous speaker in respect of firstly the issue of water and secondly the issue of Maori representation in decision making. There is no doubt that water is a major issue for Maori. It has been discussed at the Iwi Leadership Group and in our own forums. We have said to the Minister for the Environment that any discussions about this bill that would possibly jeopardise the bigger discussion with regard to water need to be taken off the table because the substantive issue about the ownership of water will need some time to be considered seriously and although this issue is solely about Canterbury issues about the governance and management of water are something that we definitely want to be involved with. 
We know that it is a serious issue because the previous Labour Government ended up giving back the lake beds to Rotorua as the Hon Steve Chadwick said but without any water in them. But that is an issue that Te Arawa will indeed follow up at a point in time—possibly even by asking the Crown to pay out for the storage of the water in our lake for the time since the settlement went through. But I will cross that bridge down the line when our trust board possibly puts that to the Government at some point. 
It is clear that Maori want to have a say about water but at this point in time unfortunately systems like local bodies and sometimes even Parliament do not necessarily allow for that input to come through. The system does not necessarily allow that to come through but the Maori Party takes a view that relationships to local bodies are about a Treaty relationship that we take seriously. We suggest that in that Treaty relationship any decisions are all about both parties coming to agreement through discussion and obviously the right of veto of one party over the other is an important issue. It is about the views we present as a Maori Party and we would hope that Maori partners through sitting next to the Treaty partner on local bodies or as commissioners or otherwise have an important statement to make. We have asked the Minister in respect of that about a Treaty relationship in the bigger picture down the line and specifically we have placed that issue with him about this and water. We hope that he has taken that on board. 
We look towards Treaty relationships as being a way that might advance Maori aspirations and understanding about the importance of water. With regard to our feedback from Ngai Tahu we understand that up until this point they have not necessarily had the ability to make real inroads in the decision making around water. As the Minister has already said Ngai Tahu are reluctantly moving to support the passage of this bill. But there is the issue in respect of representation and Ngai Tahu have expressed frustration at their lack of involvement. 
We have been given assurances from the Minister that Ngai Tahu will have a position in and around the commission and at the table and although having possibly just one position is not the beginning and ending of everything two points are to be made: firstly we have a position that is important; and secondly we should not believe that just having a position by itself represents the sole Maori view. In fact we have expertise throughout Maoridom that could come into that commission to provide valuable input. So just one person should not be relied on to give the Maori input. But the good thing as I say is that the Minister is recognising the importance of having tangata whenua involvement in water. It would have been really good for the Hon Rodney Hide if he had seen this issue in terms of the Auckland super-city proposal but obviously he did not. 
I will close by saying that the discussion at our caucus was about what happens after the commission has completed its term in 3 or 4 years’ time having given its position and worked through all of the issues in respect of water that have been debated throughout the last day and a little bit. What will happen afterwards? Does it mean that OK we will go back to democratically elected positions? Well maybe we will and that has been the subject of debate throughout the last day or so. But my point to the Minister and certainly from our caucus is that having set the precedent for allowing Ngai Tahu as an example to have input into the decision-making process at least through the commission that line should be maintained after the end of the commission’s time by allowing it a position in the decision-making process as of right and outlined against the Treaty responsibilities and the Treaty perspective. 
We hope that as we move through—let us complete the time yes but after that we want to see Maori participation. Because basically it ain’t going to happen by simply believing that the democratic process will deliver a Maori input just as it has not happened in the past in Canterbury. That ain’t gonna happen—not in Canterbury. So we are looking at having set positions in those councils to ensure that the Maori input which is important in terms of a perspective about water and other things is heard and given and is allowed to contribute in the best interests of the community. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak to clauses 12 13 and 14 in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. They show some very disturbing tendencies in this Government’s approach to local government and they reflect many of the elements that we have debated and identified in Auckland over recent months—in fact over the last year or so. 
Clause 12 on the appointment of commissioners shows there is a distinct lack of transparency in the legislation with the terms of reference for the commissioners to be determined by the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment with no scrutiny by Parliament. Under clause 13 the terms of reference are able to be amended “at any time” by the Ministers. So the provisions give the Ministers who were referred to by councillor Jo Kane as “Jekyll and Hide” in the now-famous  
Timaru Herald 
 story complete carte blanche to determine the terms of reference for the commissioners. That is very very reminiscent of the kind of approach that Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are taking in Auckland. They are appointing all of the first round of directors to all the council-controlled organisations so they will be controlling 75 percent of the assets of the new Auckland Council. It is a heavy-handed approach which has no regard whatsoever for democratic accountability or for the important role that Parliament plays in scrutinising these sorts of appointments. 
Clause 13 gives the Ministers the ability to amend the terms of reference “at any time” and the unrestricted power in clause 17(3) allows that “The responsible Ministers may in their complete discretion remove a commissioner by written notice at any time.” Well this is Government by fiat; this is where our democracy has got to. Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will basically run a puppet show in Canterbury to make damn sure that they get what they want and run their agenda through. The commissioners will be on a very short leash and the Ministers will be pulling the strings to make sure that they get the kinds of outcomes that they are looking for in water management in Canterbury. 
Clause 14 states that the commissioners must have collective knowledge and expertise and requires them to have knowledge and expertise in “organisational change”. There are no requirements for them to have any knowledge of science because as we know the regional council has been science-led rather than science-informed and it would be a very dangerous thing if the commissioners were led by science! I find that remarkable given this Minister’s many many statements in this House about the importance of good science. I have heard him say that on a number of issues in my short time in this Chamber. It is clear that the Ministers think that the council has not given sufficient weight to economic matters and when we read this bill we find that the kind of direction in which this Government under its hand-picked commissioners will push Environment Canterbury is also pretty clear. 
The other disturbing element is clause 14(1)(b) which requires the commissioners to have knowledge and expertise not in science but in “fresh water management”. I ask who will be dealing with the other very important responsibilities of the district council over the next 3½ years. As members will know public transport and regional transport planning are key responsibilities of the Canterbury Regional Council so who will be responsible for ensuring good governance of the regional transport strategy? Environment Canterbury has led some very impressive gains actually in public transport. Under Environment Canterbury’s management of public passenger transport there has been a steady growth in patronage a coordination of services the tendering of contracts and a record 17.5 million public passenger trips made across the region in the year to June 2009. That is impressive by anyone’s standards and under Environment Canterbury’s management Christchurch was the first city in Australasia to achieve integrated planning. 
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. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Minister for the Environment in introducing Part 2 “Replacement of governing body of ECan” said he had made the decision to appoint commissioners very reluctantly. That sort of suggests that there were some viable options for him to consider and I would like to know what those options were. 
Part 2 of the bill really goes to the crux of what we are debating and what this measure is all about. It is about replacing legally elected political representatives with people who will be appointed by the responsible Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. Clause 7 sets out the technicalities of appointing commissioners. The commissioners will be political appointments. They will be accountable to the Ministers only; they will not be accountable to the public of the Canterbury region. The public will not have a say or be able to have a say in the decisions that that political body will be making. In many ways it will be very similar to what we have with regard to the Auckland Transition Agency in the Auckland region. Aucklanders are now up in arms that we have political appointees working behind the scenes and responding to the Minister’s wishes and will and that the public is left out of those decisions. 
I would say that every citizen of Canterbury ought to be angry because of the significant change that will come about as a result of this Government imposing its will on the people of the Canterbury region. This is the kind of action that just turns people off politicians. It gives politicians a bad name because often what the public will see is that when politicians get a little bit of power it goes to their heads. And then what do they do? They impose their will on the people who elected them there. 
But more important the responsible Ministers are taking away local council representation that was elected in 2007. Furthermore this Government will not even allow the people of Canterbury to elect their representatives this year. So for the next while the Government will dictate to the people of Canterbury its will and it will dictate to the people of Canterbury what it wants to do with regard to the environment of Canterbury. 
Clause 8 provides for the replacement day so the Government is to determine when the elected members will be replaced. Clause 9 is the significant clause in my view. It removes the elected members of Environment Canterbury who are holding office. This is the significant change and I ask the Minister whether he consulted with the people of Canterbury about doing that. Was any widespread consultation undertaken similar to what was undertaken in Auckland where the royal commission took 18 months and consulted with people throughout that region? I would say there was not but I would like to hear whether that was an option for the Minister and what his reason was for not undertaking it. I have a letter here from councillor Eugenie Sage who writes: “The Creech report is based on a 3-week review in November 2009—interviews with less than 20 stakeholders.” There were interviews with fewer than 20 stakeholders out of a population of 500000-plus. 
We have to ask ourselves what the reason was for not undertaking broad-based consultation. It sends some really strong messages: firstly that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment thinks he knows better than to do that; secondly that he thinks the officials elected by the people of Canterbury have no brains of their own with which to make political decisions; and thirdly that he thinks the 500000-plus people of Canterbury many of whom would have voted for National are people of no significance whatsoever and should not have a say. The Minister Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government think they know better than those people and that is what they are saying. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I will make a few comments about clause 14 to start with and then I will move away from there. Yesterday when the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment had us up in the fifth floor meeting room to tell us about the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill he said that if we knew of anyone who would be useful we could put a name forward. That did not sound like Dr Smith’s usually very honourable pattern but some people come to mind. 
If we look at it we see that those people have to have organisational change. In respect of water management and local authority governance and management two names spring to mind straight away. First of all there is Bob Harvey who will not be Mayor of Waitakere City any more. He has more experience as mayor than anyone. The Minister should have a really good close look at Bob Harvey because he has wide knowledge and would probably most generously help the people of Canterbury. The second person is also a mayor in the Auckland region with vast experience in water matters: Andrew Williams. Only this week we heard about his expertise in water matters—irrigation of just a single tree but it is a start! I think he should be considered. 
The problem is that the Minister of Local Government must support him as well. That would show us who the real boss is whether it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith or the Hon Rodney Hide. You see the people in Auckland who will have their jobs taken from them without any say will have a certain amount of feeling for the people of Canterbury. They will understand what it is like when all of a sudden they are ridden roughshod over. 
It is interesting to look at the sort of people who will put their names forward. I now nominate a National member. My friends who sit around me think I am too close to National at times but I put forward the name of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He would be ideal. He was too busy before. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although entertaining this speech is straying somewhat. But I am happy if this is an indication that the debate is drawing to a close. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for her comments. Mr Hawkins is specifically referring to clause 14; he said that at the beginning [ 
Interruption 
]. I am on my feet. Although there was a little bit of light banter and light humour—I have no difficulty with that—the member knows that it is a very limited debate and I am sure he will talk about Environment Canterbury and clause 14 which he has mentioned. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That point of order shows that National members have not read the bill; otherwise they would know what is in clause 14. That clause is very very important. 
As I was saying I think Jim Bolger—he has the time now because he will not be running KiwiRail—could be running the water management in Canterbury. It may flow even better than his friends seem to. 
I also say that it is very important how much the commissioners will be paid. The ratepayers of Canterbury will be footing the bill but they will have no say. They will be putting up the money so that the commissioners can be paid but there will be no representation from where the money is coming from. I think most people in New Zealand think it is fair that if they pay they have a say. That is fundamental. It is what happens in New Zealand. If we look at clause 18 we see that Joe Bloggs and other people from Canterbury will not have a say over how much the commissioners get paid and who will pay them. People in Canterbury will open their wallets and see that money is being plucked out by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide without their having a say. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I intend to speak on clauses 9 to 22 starting with clause 9 and in particular the reference made to the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. Clause 9(2) states: “This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It was not so long ago that we had National members railing in this Chamber against any change to electoral laws without bipartisan support. But it appears that that applies only at the national level and at the local government level the Government can do whatever it likes. If it does not like the decisions being made by local authorities then it will just ride roughshod over the electoral laws that govern those local authorities and do whatever it likes. 
Clause 9(2) overrides the Local Electoral Act and it does not have bipartisan support. At least two parties in this Parliament have spoken very strongly against it yet nobody from National is willing to stand up and say why he or she thinks the democratic rights of people with regard to their local authorities should receive a lesser amount of importance and attention than their democratic rights to elect their nationwide Government. It creates two tiers of government in New Zealand one tier being clearly subordinate to the other. It says that once a nationwide Government is elected the nationwide Government can completely override the democratically elected local authorities. 
We have seen this twice in this House under this National Government already. We saw it with the Auckland super-city where under urgency the Government effectively sacked all of the Auckland local authorities and replaced them with the Auckland Transition Agency. All stages of the legislation were passed straight through under urgency with no chance for the public to have a say and no chance for the people whose roles were affected by that decision to have a say and that is exactly what we are seeing here. Through clause 9(2) in particular the Government is completely overriding local electoral law and installing a new regime that it will totally and utterly control. Democracy at a local government level in Canterbury with regard to what was previously Environment Canterbury is now dead. There is no democracy there. It will be ultimately controlled by the Ministers. 
Clause 13 states: “The responsible Ministers may at any time amend the terms of reference for the commissioners …”. At any time the Ministers decide that they want to do something a bit differently because they are not happy— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Gone by lunchtime. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The terms of reference could be gone by lunchtime. The Ministers could decide that they are not happy with what the commissioners are doing and completely change their terms of reference. Of course if the Ministers are not happy with what the commissioners do with their changed terms of reference under clause 17(3) they are entitled to simply remove them. The Ministers can simply sack the commissioners and that is no problem whatsoever. If the Ministers are dissatisfied with what the commissioners are doing they have ultimate control over what goes on with what was formerly Environment Canterbury. This measure gives the Government ultimate control. There will be no consultation. Ministers can do whatever they like without any reference to the local authorities. The local people will have no say. They had an opportunity to elect a council and it is being removed by this Government with the local people having no chance to have a say. 
In fact if the local people were dissatisfied with what it has been doing there is a local election coming up this year and they could have replaced that council—that is the nature of democracy. But that democratic opportunity is being removed by this bill; local people will not get to have a chance to say whether they think Environment Canterbury is effective. They will not get any opportunity to vote members of the council in or out; that right is being removed for at least 3½ years. It will be at least 3½ years before people get a chance to pass judgment on what this Government is doing by removing their democratically elected local authority members. 
The other thing that this bill does in clause 18 is to give Ministers the ultimate responsibility for establishing what these commissioners will be paid. The Remuneration Authority which sets MPs’ salaries and the salaries of the local authorities will have no role in that. It will ultimately be up to the Ministers. So the Ministers appoint the commissioners they determine their terms of reference and they determine what they are to be paid. Ministers will have ultimate control over everything that the commissioners do in Environment Canterbury. Democracy is dead. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which abolishes democracy in Canterbury. Later on this year people all around New Zealand will as part of the celebration of democracy be involved in local government elections. As someone who lives in Wellington I will vote for my mayor and my council. However were I to move to Canterbury or Christchurch I would find that I was not allowed to vote for my regional council. In fact my right to vote for the regional council would be taken away by this bill which National and ACT are pushing through today. It is quite extraordinary that Part 2 takes away the idea of one person one vote. We have heard a lot lately about one person one vote from National and ACT. Part 2 states that we will start with one person one vote and then we will go to one person no vote. One person no vote is National’s preferred option for how people in Canterbury decide what happens to them. 
What will be the outcome of this? In the rush to get the bill through the House the regulatory impact statement has not had a lot of attention. It is a rushed regulatory impact statement that the Ministry for the Environment cobbled together in between generating all those national policy statements and national environmental standards—oh that is right we do not have any—that we have tried to get over the years. The regulatory impact statement states: “the Ministry has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” So this rushed bill is being pushed through the House without any public input or any select committee process Part 2 abolishes the right of the people of Canterbury to elect their regional council and we find that the Ministry for the Environment says in its regulatory impact statement that it has not had the time to fully quantify the risks and costs of the proposal. There is a very close connection between the lack of democracy in terms of the process of this bill in the House with no select committee process and the fact that Part 2 abolishes democracy for the people of Canterbury for the next 3 years. Part 2 is about getting rid of democracy for the people of Canterbury. 
It is interesting that in order to be appointed a commissioner one needs expertise in freshwater management. Wyatt Creech actually has some expertise in freshwater management as it turns out. He knows how to pollute fresh water which is of course why he did the review of Environment Canterbury in the first place. A company he is director of has numerous convictions for polluting water so obviously he has some expertise in freshwater management. Maybe he will be one of the people the Minister appoints to be a commissioner to oversee what happens in Canterbury after the abolition of elected democracy in Canterbury. He could also ask the Crafars. They have a lot of expertise in freshwater management. They were very very effective at polluting fresh water. They did an excellent job of polluting fresh water across the central North Island so I think it is time they spread to the South Island. It seems to me that the Minister could consider them under Part 2 which provides the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government with the power to appoint commissioners to oversee the management of water in Canterbury. Over the next period they are obviously going to need someone with expertise and the Crafars have shown tremendous expertise in polluting fresh water in New Zealand. 
It is also extraordinary that we do not even know what the terms of reference are and that they could be changed at any time. We are voting to put this bill through the House yet one of the key aspects of the bill the terms of reference is not even being made public. Not only do we not have any public process through a select committee so that the public can look at Part 2 and not only does Part 2 abolish public oversight of the regional council—because Part 2 gets rid of democratic oversight—but there is no public oversight of the terms of reference under which the commissioners will operate because the terms of reference are still secret. Here we have a Government pushing through legislation under urgency to implement a regional governance structure and we do not even know what the terms of reference for it will be. Will the terms of reference for example include maximising irrigation potential in the Canterbury region which is what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech to Parliament this year? Will that be one of the terms of reference? I ask the Minister for the Environment to take a call. Will maximising irrigation be one of the terms of reference? 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 2 of this oxymoronic Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill particularly to clauses 14 17 and 18 and to amendments in my name. 
But first I want to touch on comments made by the member opposite from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell about the Maori Party supporting the bill in the hope that it will improve Maori representation on Environment Canterbury. I have to say that is a forlorn hope on two counts. The first is that the bill disestablishes Environment Canterbury. Public comments from the Minister for the Environment made very clear that it is the death knell of Environment Canterbury; it will not see the light again in 2013 or earlier and I challenge the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to correct me on that point. Second I thought the Maori Party would have learnt by now that this Government does not want to deliver Maori aspirations for improved representation. I ask those members to look to the Auckland super-city as an example of that. 
Clause 14 of the bill talks about commissioners having “collective knowledge and expertise in certain matters”. Environment Canterbury’s chair and deputy chair Alec Neill and Jo Kane proposed to the Minister that he could follow the model that sometimes happens in schools where a commissioner is appointed and works alongside the principal to improve the outcomes for that school. Effectively they were suggesting that commissioners come in to provide some of the expertise that everybody acknowledges Environment Canterbury would benefit from in terms of improving its water management and its approach to it—reinforced one would hope by some new legislation with new environmental safeguards and quality standards. But the Minister has not chosen to do that so I am moving by way of amendment that we should appointment all the existing councillors as commissioners. That will serve to deliver the expertise that the Minister seeks in respect of organisational change freshwater management and local authority governance and management in terms of the Canterbury region and its people. And he might like to supplement some of the gaps in Environment Canterbury’s current representation in terms of Maori representation which I acknowledge is a deficiency that needs to be remedied. Adopting that amendment would effectively put in place the model suggested by the chair and the deputy chair of Environment Canterbury. 
I turn now to make a comment about the idea of the council being dysfunctional which we have heard once or twice through the course of this debate. Again I would like to quote from the Creech report on that issue: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … Mostly the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” So there is no case to say that it was a dysfunctional council. It had its tensions it had its challenges and it was starting to come to terms with the issues around the management of water in particular. 
I also note that clause 14(1)(b) requires the commissioners to have expertise in freshwater management. Well fresh water is a huge challenge. It is a big part of Environment Canterbury’s job but the Minister went for the doctor in respect of Environment Canterbury even though the Creech review identified that it was doing a good job in respect of its other functions—notably public transport. In fact public transport is the biggest percentage of its current budget. The council is acknowledged within Australasia as having delivered some of the best results for public transport by way of integrated planning ticketing and real-time information. It is acknowledged across Australasia for the bus services it provides the way that they are integrated and how they work. 
In clause 17 there is a provision that the commissioners must call an election when their work is complete. By way of amendment I propose that once the commissioners have completed their work in terms of bringing together a proposed regional policy statement or plan as defined in clause 61 of the bill there must be an election. Let us not wait until 2013. If the Government is genuine in saying—even if it is a mixed message—it wants to resume some sort of democracy in Canterbury let the commissioners come in and do their job and if it is such an easy task to pick up and perform let us have the election as soon as that task is completed. That is covered in my amendment to clause 17. 
I am proposing an amendment to clause 18 to make the commissioners’ remuneration the same as the councillors’ remuneration. At the moment an Environment Canterbury councillor earns in the order of $50000 a year. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Set by the Remuneration Authority. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right; it is set by the authority that deals with salaries in this building. That is an appropriate mechanism. This is ratepayers’ money. I have ratepayers who have struggled to meet their Environment Canterbury rates especially last year when their rates increased by 10.8 percent. The reason for that increase was the council was deadlocked regarding starting to charge farmers for the management of water supplies. The rates of constituents in poor areas of my constituency such as Phillipstown Linwood Shirley and Mairehau went up by 8 percent more than would have been necessary if there had been a decision to impose a part-charge rate on the farming community which was appropriate. It is coming into place this year so that is good to see. 
I think of current councillors such as Jane Demeter whose ward is within my electorate. I was recently approached by a couple who had installed a new fireplace under the very good Environment Canterbury - led and driven clean air accord which the council has been putting in place. The fireplace was not working properly. I approached Councillor Demeter and she resolved the issue and another fireplace was installed. Would I be able to approach one of the commissioners with that sort of constituency issue? Will I be able to go to them and tell them I need a resolution on this? Or are they there only to do one job—to implement a new rapid regime in terms of water—as far as this bill is concerned? I want to know that my constituents will have representation for the taxation they will be paying. 
If my constituents will be paying the commissioners’ rates they should not pay any more for that privilege than they pay now. Those commissioners should be paid about $1000 a week and I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that we will not see the sort of profligacy that sometimes happens when people are appointed by the Government to these jobs. Will we see salary levels of about $1000 a week or more likely about $1000 or $2000 a day? I would like to know what sort of budget the Minister has in mind in terms of how this set of commissioners will operate because it is not the Minister who will be paying the bill; it is the people in my electorate and across Canterbury. It is the Environment Canterbury ratepayers who will be paying the bill. They have every right to know what is envisaged in terms of the rate of payment to the commissioners. What is the estimate for their travelling costs? We have commissioners such as Dame Margaret Bazley who I understand is a resident of Wellington. There will be considerable expense in terms of her airfares hotel accommodation and out-of-town expenses such as meals. Ratepayers across Canterbury will be picking up the tab without any recourse to the Minister the Government Parliament or a select committee process for a say on it. 
Not only that but we have learnt that the Minister has the ability to alter the terms of reference for the commissioners. If they are not operating in the way that he wants he can change the terms of reference by executive fiat without any reference back to this House. I think that is really unacceptable. 
At the moment the chair of Environment Canterbury’s salary is $142000 a year the deputy chair is paid $56710 a year and the councillors are paid the grand sum of $53294—about $1000 a week—for the duties they perform for their constituencies across the Environment Canterbury rohe and I think that is an appropriate level of remuneration. In fact it is probably a little under what they should be paid in terms of the job that I know some of them do. With the call they have upon them they act in the same way as an MP does servicing their constituencies and acting for constituents. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how the new commissioners will perform. Will they take up that bread and butter work that regional councillors do? Will they meet constituents? Will they take up constituents’ issues? Will they iron out the red tape issues that emerge when one is dealing with a council on a consistent basis? Will they help constituents navigate through the bureaucracy? Will they deal with queries about rate demands? Will they pick up the just-published annual plan for Environment Canterbury with a budget of I think $142 million? Will they pick up that task see it through and take on board any concerns that ratepayers have about the future of their bus service and the improvements that are needed? There is no reference in the clauses of this bill to those requirements in terms of the capacities of the commissioners. 
There is no requirement for anybody to have any expertise in or knowledge of public transport and that is the biggest component of the budget that Environment Canterbury deals with. It is in charge of the public transport system across Christchurch. It has done a darn good job. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to speak specifically to clause 22 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is interesting because the heading above this clause states: “2010 election for member of ECan” then the title of the clause is “2010 election for members of ECan must not be held”. That is an unusual juxtaposition is it not? We have the election but it must not be held. It is a remarkable thing. It cannot be understated what is being done in the House right now in Part 2 of this bill. The first words of an article in the  
Press 
 this morning read: “The Government’s sacking of Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors will deny hundreds of thousands of Cantabrians the right to vote for regional representation this year.” That is what is being done in the House right now. It is the taking away of the democratic right of Cantabrians. It is cancelling an election. We know about countries around the world where elections are cancelled by a central government. There are names for those kinds of countries such as banana republic. That is what the National Government is perpetuating today with the assistance of the ACT Party in this bill. 
This is a democratic outrage. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would do this. We found that out this morning in the  
Timaru Herald 
. The article states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues as ECan had suggested—was that he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” People are wary of the outcome of elections all the time. I was particularly wary of the outcome of the 2008 general election but nobody cancelled it. Nobody decided it was time to cancel the election because we were wary of its outcome— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We couldn’t get the numbers. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —I tell Mr Mallard that I do not think we would have even tried—but that is what Dr Nick Smith is doing through this bill today. This is anti-democratic. This is cancelling an election where the ratepayers of the Canterbury region would expect to have representation. Their rates are not being cancelled. I ask Mr Hide whether that is a proposal on the table—to cancel the rates for the people in the Canterbury region. No they will still be paying the rates but there will be no representation for those people. There will be no representation because this Government has decided to cancel an election. 
This is an outrage. Clause 22 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill sets this out in the baldest possible terms without any real justification coming forward from the Government at this time. This is the first time in New Zealand local government history that councillors have been sacked like this without their interest without their involvement and without them actually coming forward. The Rodney District example has been raised numerous times in this House by the Government side but that is completely different. Rodney District asked for the review and the process of having the next election was put in place as quickly as possible. There is no guarantee in Part 2 that the 2013 election will take place. 
I challenge the Minister in the chair or members opposite to stand up and tell us that there will be a 2013 election for the Canterbury Regional Council. No one has done it so far. I challenge the Minister in the chair to stand up and tell us he can guarantee that the people of the Canterbury region will have the opportunity to elect their regional councillors in 2013. When we look at clause 23 we do not see anything that guarantees that—there is nothing there. We know that people all around New Zealand should be very very concerned about what is coming next. In fact Alec Neill a former member of this House from the National side said in the  
Press 
 this morning that this is a big call because there is always a political downside and to that end a message has been sent to other regional councils. That was said by Alec Neill who is a former National MP and the chair of the regional council. He said that this Government is sending a message to councils right around the country that there is no guarantee that regional councils will continue under this Government. 
I know that here in Wellington the performance of the Greater Wellington Regional Council comes under scrutiny from time to time but people are happy with it. People vote in the elections and they work with that regional council. As Brendon Burns said those regional councillors play an important role in the environmental health of the region. MPs are able to work with regional councils as closely as a lot of us do to make sure that there are good outcomes. That is at risk from clauses 22 and  23 of this bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Since the last time I spoke on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill I have tabled an amendment which I would like to speak to. The reason I tabled the amendment came from other contributions that have been made in this Committee. We have been listening to this debate and contributing to it in a fair and reasonable way. There are concerns about the way this part of the bill has been promoted. The clause I will focus on is the one I have an amendment too which is clause 14. I know that my colleague Brendon Burns has an amendment to remove this clause. Actually he has an amendment that suggests that the commissioners be the current Environment Canterbury councillors who should be appointed to the role of commissioners. I think that would give a very good signal to the people of Canterbury that at least the people whom they elected to these positions would hold these positions through to the establishment of the water plan. I think there is a certain degree of neatness around that which is worthy of greater debate and consideration in this environment. 
However given that I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government will vote down that amendment I have another amendment that asks for us to look at adding additional criteria to the appointment of commissioners. I will read clause 14(1) as it is at the moment: “The responsible Ministers must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of and expertise in relation to the following matters: (a) organisational change; and (b) freshwater management; and (c) local authority governance and management; and (d) tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (e) the Canterbury region and its people.” 
That is all very well and good but actually the regional council does more than undertake its responsibilities in respect of water. I am promoting three additions to subclause (1) so that collectively there is a knowledge of an expertise in relation to the additional matters that I have set out in my amendment which states “environmental protection and integrated public transport planning and sustainable development”. I have inserted them in between the first three of the matters that are already set out there in order to highlight that they have an importance that is relevant to the ones that are already established. 
The Minister when he gave us his briefing yesterday at 11:45 a.m. 15 minutes before the Government made the announcement had organisational change at the top of his mind. He said that organisational change was the most important element of the new set of commissioners that would be appointed. I think if we remove sight or any language that refers to the environmental protection obligations of the regulator it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that these commissioners could be left with the view that their primary responsibility is around organisational change and freshwater management and blow the rest. 
When one looks at Wyatt Creech’s report one sees that it makes that very clear. That is why they wanted to have a separate authority to deal with water. That is why I think the Government will actually do that behind the scenes if it gets back in after the next election. I think that that is a shame because there should be a lot more openness and integrity in this whole process than this particular process has allowed. 
I shall refer to another element of the Creech report. It states that Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and “master of its own expanded destiny” continues to detract from the relationship. But what is the relationship going to be between the city and the commissioners if that is the case? The Christchurch City Council has never ever debated as a council the establishment of a unitary authority in Christchurch. That is the mayor’s view. That is his point of view and it may have been a view held by former mayors. But that is not the view of the Christchurch City Council and I think it is wrong for us to sit here debating changes to the legislation under urgency. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will pick up on the points that my colleague Lianne Dalziel was making in relation to the amendment that she has moved. That was the first time I was alerted to that amendment during the course of this debate. I think the Minister of Local Government who is in the chair needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment is not frivolous. It was made on the basis of that member being a local resident as I am of Canterbury the area that is affected by the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which we are debating under urgency. He needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment would strengthen the bill. We fundamentally oppose the bill but this amendment would make it better. I suggest to both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment that they look at the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel and take it seriously. It would make a bad bill better. 
It would certainly be for us a major step forward in what has been a fundamental breach of process and of democracy in our region. I was listening to the debate a couple of speakers back when my colleagues Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson took calls and it struck me that a lot of people in other towns will be scared. What has happened is that our elected councillors have all been sacked; they have been given just a month’s notice. The Minister for the Environment will appoint five or seven commissioners—we do not even know the number—to do their job. The Minister on his own will define what their job will be and he is going to decide how much they will get paid. And guess what? We are going to pay the bill! So the Minister can say that he thinks the commissioners are worth a huge amount of money and I predict that he will say they are worth $2000 a day. That is the going rate for this sort of job. It is a lot more than any of our existing councillors get. Then he will say to the people of Canterbury that they will have to pay for the commissioners out of their rates. That is a disgrace. Our elected representatives are being sacked without any recourse back to us. Commissioners are being appointed with no say at all from local people. The Minister by himself will decide who the commissioners are and what their job description is. He will decide how much money they will be paid a day. And we get to pay their consultancy fee. Well I do not think the people of Canterbury will think too warmly of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide but that will not be a particular revelation to anyone. They have never been very high on our list of people who share our concerns anyway. But on this issue it is a fundamental breach of good process and of democracy. 
The other point that I would really like the Minister to address is that I am really puzzled about what exactly the breadth of the work will be. My colleague Brendon Burns alluded to this briefly in his earlier contribution but I ask the Minister to tell the Chamber whether the commissioners will be expected to do the constituency work the bread and butter work the work that keeps the community connected to the regional council. Will they be expected to do that or will we lose all that strength and connection between our regional councillors whom we have now and our community? 
I recently took a complaint to Environment Canterbury to our regional council about a proposed change to a bus route. That is one of the things that members of Parliament deal with day in and day out. We have to talk to the local authority about proposals and about the concerns of our constituents and how we might get a win-win situation. I spoke to the man at Environment Canterbury who is responsible for this issue and we organised a time to meet. He rang me back the next day and said that Councillor Carole Evans would like to be part of the discussion because she is the chair of the transport committee and she was interested in the fact that I and my constituents had concerns. She wanted to be part of that discussion. Will a commissioner do that I ask Mr Hide? Will a commissioner getting $2000 a day of our ratepayers’ money get out of the office in Kilmore Street come out to St Martins drive over Glenelg Spur as Councillor Carole Evans did and say that he or she understands the problem and we will work together to fix it? I cannot see that happening. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12(2)(c); 
to omit from clause 12(3)(a) “(including the terms of reference for the commissioners)”; 
to omit clause 13; 
to omit clause 20(b); and 
to omit clause 20(d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
14 Minister must appoint all existing councillors as commissioners 
The responsible Minister must appoint all those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors as commissioners. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 14 agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (a): 
“(aa) environmental protection; and”; 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (b): 
“(bb) integrated public transport planning; and”; and 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (c): 
“(cc) sustainable development; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call election when work complete 
Once all proposed regional policy statement or plans (as defined in section 61) have been decided the Commissioners must call an election under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call special election 
The Commission must call an election for ECan under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to occur before 30 March 2011. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
18Commissioner’s remuneration same as councillor’s remuneration 
A commissioner is entitled to be paid the same remuneration by way of salary fees and allowances as those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
21ACommission to hold public meetings 
The Commissioners must hold a public meeting no less than once every 3 months to hear issues from the public and to answer for any decisions made. 
21BCommission to establish consultation group 
(1)The Commission shall establish a consultation group for each ward within the Canterbury region. 
(2)The purpose of consultation groups established under subsection (1) is to— 
(a)advise the Commissioner in relation to decisions affecting their community; and 
(b)represent the views of their community; and 
(c)enable wider community participation in the decisions of the Commission. 
(3)Membership of each consultation group will be determined by the Commission in consultation with the respective community. 
(4)Each consultation group will have no fewer than 4 members. 
(5)ECan must provide adequate resources to each consultation group to enable it to perform its democratic and representative functions. 
(6)In this section “ward” has the meaning given to it by the Local Electoral Act 2001. 
21CApplication of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
For the avoidance of doubt the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the Commissioners. 
21DFinal report 
(1)No more than 6 months after the resumption day the Commissioners must prepare a report on changes to the management of fresh water in the Canterbury region and changes to fresh water quality and use in the Canterbury region during their term in office. 
(2)The report must be laid on the table of Parliament. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
21ACommissioners to give effect to Canterbury Water Management Strategy 
The Commissioners must exercise the functions responsibilities duties and powers prescribed in section 20 in a manner consistent with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 22 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Additional functions and powers of ECan after commencement day  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that establishes firstly a process for moratoriums being imposed in parts of Canterbury and then moves into the water conservation areas. There is support for the idea of moratoriums from me at least because they are a mechanism that can address issues of water shortage in red-zoned areas around Canterbury. There are a number most particularly concentrated around the Selwyn district. The past history of this is that Environment Canterbury has over the last few years started to say no to more water allocations in such areas. It has been a frustrating period for Environment Canterbury because at times the commissioners it has appointed have heard the arguments of people with the capacity to buy the science and the law to push an argument that says that even in a red-zoned area there should be more capacity for more water to be allocated. Even at times the Environment Court has overturned Environment Canterbury decisions on such matters. 
Moratoriums would be useful in that respect but there is an enormous caveat on all of this. When people have had access to water and want to expand and in the past have been able to expand by seeking more water they will obviously not be too enthused about a moratorium being imposed in a particular area. I look for example at the Synlait dairy company based in Dunsandel. It has started in just the last couple of years to produce milk powder for export. It has plans already to quintuple production. It took an idea to the sharemarket last year for a share float and that did not go at all well. A former National member sits on the board of that organisation as members opposite would well know. Where will it go next for its money? One of the suggestions is that it might come back to the Chinese offer for investment in New Zealand’s dairy infrastructure. 
Putting that to one side the point is that moratoriums are a useful exercise but they will I am sure at times lead to more demand for water if there is a wish for expansion. That could indeed put more pressure back on new allocations. 
Going back to the original premise this bill is around enshrining the wish as stated by the Government for rapid new water allocation—water projects on the ground in place next year in Canterbury. That is a statement of fact from the Prime Minister. The problem around that is the environmental constraints to ensure that new water is allocated in a way that gives back some of the water quality that Canterbury has lost over the last while. That is the balance we want to see. Moratoriums—moratoria if you wish—are a mechanism that can assist but that has to be part of an entire balanced process. If moratoria go in place and lead to rapid decisions about new allocation or assist that process then that raises enormous questions about where the checks and balances are in this legislation or anything forthcoming that will put new environmental constraints upon those who get new water. It is simply not there in the bill. 
Part 3 also deals with the issue of water conservation orders which are mechanisms to protect some of the great waterways of our country. They are in place in Canterbury; they are on the Rakaia River the Hurunui River and from memory on the Rangitata although I could stand corrected on that one. Perhaps the local member might assist. The Hurunui River is the last of the Canterbury rivers that is effectively untapped from lake through to sea. The Environment Court was due in a month’s time to consider this issue. That is an appropriate process. There are a whole range of wishes around the Environment Court decision. Obviously people with a strong conservation ethic say we should leave the Hurunui entirely alone. There are those of the farming community who want to see the south bank dammed and used for irrigation. The point is that these decisions need to go through a process. They need the checks and balances upon them. They do not need rapid allocations made because the long-term consequences of rapid allocation will see without the environmental checks and balances put in place more deterioration of our waterways. 
There are real concerns and it is good to acknowledge that Part 3 has two references to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy both in reference to introducing moratoria and in reference to water conservation orders. There is a requirement that Environment Canterbury commissioners consider the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The problem still arises from the fact it is just “taking note of”. There is no requirement to implement it and this strategy which has been drawn up over the last 3 years and has been patiently negotiated for the future of Canterbury had a table that included representatives of Fish and Game the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Federated Farmers the irrigators the Ministry of Agriculture the Ministry of Fisheries Ngai Tahu and the councils. All of those parties patiently negotiated this strategy and it embodies conservation as its first principle. 
There is an acknowledgment from those parties and I note again that Federated Farmers and irrigators are part of that water management strategy. The first principle was the environment followed by customary uses community supplies and stock water. Those were the first-order priority considerations. The second-order priority was around irrigation electricity generation recreation and tourism and amenity. It was envisaged that these principles would be worked through by the local community with Environment Canterbury to try to ensure that those priorities were upheld. But what this bill does is say goodbye to that collective approach and goodbye to Environment Canterbury which was the driving force behind this strategy. It introduces commissioners installed by the Government for a 3½-year period to implement an agenda which is really the Government’s agenda. It is explicitly around rapid water allocation. 
I come back to the questions around the clauses relating to moratoria. Speaking personally I support moratoria as a mechanism but one cannot believe that moratoria will deliver on their own. There are problems around the build-up that occurs and we saw that in Marlborough with two moratoria imposed on the issuing of further licences for marine farms. All it created was a huge backlog and a floodwater when the moratoria were lifted. We have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the issues are addressed and they need to be addressed across the divide of both the environmental and the economic issues. We cannot have one superimposed over the top. 
In Canterbury we have lost the capacity to swim safely in lowland streams. That is something every member would at least in theory uphold as a principle or God-given right that we have as New Zealanders to take our children and our grandchildren to the streams and the rivers and know they can safely swim. But even in the rivers of Canterbury now—the bigger waterways—it is not safe at times to swim in those rivers. 
Colin King 
: Even if it’s over our head? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: In places like the Ashley River in the electorate of the member for Kaikoura and he should be noting this very carefully it is not safe to take one’s dog to the Ashley because it is quite likely the dog will get cyanobacteria and die as a result of blue-green algae. I note that blue-green is the theme that National picks up in terms of environmental issues. It has a blue-green caucus. Blue-green algae is toxic. The worst toxin known through the algae family is blue-green. I also note that when we mix blue and green we get brown. That is an outcome that is in prospect with this bill because it does not have the environmental checks in place. It is not delivering for Canterbury it is simply enshrining the Government’s agenda. That is not appropriate and not acceptable. If the Government is going to push this bill through under urgency here in the Parliament at a quarter to one in the afternoon it must give alongside this new environmental strengthening protections that make sure that water is improved not put in place an agenda for rapid allocation which will simply see further degradation. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson Roy in giving me the call you have made a very challenging decision and you handled it impeccably if I may say so. I had a bit of a Harry Potter moment when we were moving from Part 2 to Part 3. I am not sure whether Mr Chair is familiar with the train station that Harry Potter and his fellow students catch the train from—and I do not want to tell you the whole of the Harry Potter story because that would ruin it for you if you have not already read it—but there should be a “Part 2.5” between Part 2 and Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because there is a big chunk missing. I tell members that a lot of people in Canterbury will be very frustrated by the missing information particularly given the fact that the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide has steadfastly refused to take a call. I thought that as part of his regime of getting up and bouncing around that he is so highly regarded for he would at least stand up take a call and provide us with the information that we have been seeking through our questions. But he has not done so. I think he should look at what is missing between Part 2 and Part 3. 
Part 2 chucks out all the councillors. Part 3 provides some existing powers for Environment Canterbury which is not even a legal entity after the start of this new regime. Well I want to know what will happen to the stuff that is already started. What will happen to the stuff that our elected regional councillors have already started? Who will pick up that work? How will we download the brain cells of our existing regional councillors on to the as yet unknown non-appointed commissioners so that they can have some competency in carrying on the work that has been started? If we are going to pay them $2000 a day of my ratepayers’ money they had better be giving us good quality. 
Let me give members an example. In terms of the additional functions and powers that are being given to these $2000-a-day ministerial-appointed commissioners I cannot see anywhere in Part 3 or anywhere else in the bill a description of what will happen to the draft annual plan that Environment Canterbury issued less than a week ago. What will happen to that draft annual plan? It was issued on 27 March and the public in the whole of the Environment Canterbury area got a copy of it. We were told that there would be public consultation. Well that is a bit of an innovation for the Minister. He will not have tripped over that particular set of words very often in his lifetime. In case he is not aware of it I tell the Minister that public consultation is where proposals are taken to the people so that they have an opportunity to read think and talk about them within their communities. Then they have a say and the Minister gets to hear it—or in this case the councillors get to hear it—and then decisions are made. But what happens if there are no regional councillors any more as is the case here because we have just passed Part 2 which is “How to sack your regional council 101”? We have until 30 April to make submissions on the draft annual plan for Environment Canterbury but it no longer has councillors who can hear the submissions. 
The paragraph in the Local Government Act that covers this matter states that the purpose of the annual plan is to “contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.” As Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide will be very familiar with those words because he is the Minister in charge of that legislation. I want him to tell me how an unelected ministerial-appointed commissioner can have any accountability to the local community. We do not even know who the commissioners are. We did not vote for them; we voted for the ones the Minister has just sacked. So how can section 95(5)(d) of the Local Government Act be complied with? We do not have any local accountability from our elected councillors; we do not even have elected councillors. What will our community think of commissioners setting the Budget for the coming years when they have had no public input? The commissioners do not even live in our region. The provision of the Local Government Act to which I have just referred is being ignored not because the Minister cannot be bothered with it but because he has actually voted to have his own legislation ignored. Part 2 of this bill specifically states that the Local Government Act— 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Just to answer the question of the Hon Ruth Dyson and to settle her concerns and those of her constituents I say that the long-term council community plan that has been released stays in place and the consultation continues. It is exactly as set out. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I wish to address Part 3 and in particular clause 34 which comes under the heading “Imposition of moratorium” and is called “Power to impose moratorium on specified applications.’” It begins “(1) ECan may” and on that point I allude back to a point made earlier by Brendon Burns. I attempted to get the same point across before our debate on Part 1 was cut off. The reference to “ECan” is very sloppy drafting. Throughout the bill the text is littered with references to “ECan”. Indeed it is defined in the interpretation clause but it is a poor use of legal drafting. It is almost as bad as clause 9 which is about elected members ceasing to hold office stating that this provision applies “no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It so clearly has been drafted in haste that considerable time is required for revision to be undertaken. 
But when I look at clause 34 and the imposition of a moratorium I ask myself why an unelected body would be granted such powers when the elected Environment Canterbury council was not granted those powers. The answer we are given both in the Creech report and now by the Government is that Environment Canterbury was insufficiently efficient in applying the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and in granting consents. On the basis of that I was disposed to undertake some research to compare Environment Canterbury with the other 11 regional councils and the three unitary authorities to see how the others had done. A great deal of concern and apprehension have been expressed in the Chamber this morning about which other regional councils may go under the guillotine on the basis of the same rather loose subjective and partisan criteria that have been brought to bear upon Environment Canterbury. 
When we look at the other 11 councils and the other three unitary authorities we emerge with three general observations. The first is that some councils have a regional water management plan and other councils combine it with a land and water management plan or a more holistic resources management plan. The second observation is that in every case there seems to be a lengthy process for the introduction of the plans that involves introduction by the council followed by a request for submissions a hearing and an appeals process before the plan becomes operational either completely or in part. The third observation is that water and resource management plans are “living documents” and appear in many cases to be constantly subject to updating and variations. 
We need to take those three observations very much into account when we reflect on the dissolution of Environment Canterbury because it was said to have come in 84th out 84 councils as I said in the second reading debate. That is misleading because it came in essentially 12th out of the 12 regional councils. Let us look at those 12 councils and the three unitary authorities to see where each stands. By my count of the 15—12 plus three—six have not notified complete water plans. They either have not proposed anything as in the case of three of those bodies; have simply made a statement of water intent as in the case of one; or have simply notified a plan in parts as in the case of two bodies Marlborough and Tasman. So the Canterbury West Coast Tasman Marlborough Gisborne and Auckland councils either have not proposed a plan have simply made a statement or have simply made a plan in parts. That is 40 percent of the total 15 regional councils and unitary authorities. 
So to answer the question of Mr Chris Hipkins and others who spoke earlier today as to which council is next the short answer is that any one of those other five councils should watch out because the guillotine might be coming its way. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I begin my comments on Part 3 with my usual statement which I am getting sick of making. The Government’s decision not to include the regulatory impact statement in bills that are tabled in this House makes for very poor-quality debates because we have to go and find the regulatory impact statement which is not in the bill itself in order to address some of the concerns that the regulatory impact statement might contain. I am glad that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for Regulatory Reform because I think that was a bad decision and I really want his Government to think about overturning it. 
The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is a very good example of why we need the regulatory impact statement in front of us because the regulatory impact statement states: “There are significant risks associated with the Review Group’s recommendation to temporarily suspend planned triennial elections for regional councillors (scheduled for October 2010) and to transfer the functions and responsibilities of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) elected councillors to government-appointed commissioners”— 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2010—Challenges Compared with Budget 2009 
1. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What challenges does the Government face in preparing Budget 2010 compared with Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Budget 2009 was presented when New Zealand had been in recession for 18 months under the previous Government’s economic mismanagement and then it was suffering from a global recession. At the time the Government faced wasteful government expenditure that was out of control a depressed and demoralised bureaucracy and a large number of inefficient and ineffective programmes. So Budget 2009 dealt with many of those issues; Budget 2010 will focus on positioning New Zealanders for sustainable growth and recovery. 
Amy Adams 
: What reports has he seen on the economic problems this Government inherited? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand Institute has issued a report card on the country’s economic performance over the last 20 years. It notes that New Zealand’s productivity growth from 2005 to 2008 was 23rd out of 30 OECD countries. Greece passed New Zealand in 2007 and workers in Italy produced $15 more per hour than workers in New Zealand. The report card acknowledges that a range of Government measures in place now will contribute to lifting per capita output. 
Stuart Nash 
: Speaking of the New Zealand Institute which of the following is true: the Minister’s statement that the Government has focused on one top priority which is the large number of young New Zealanders who are either losing their jobs or cannot get a job; or the finding in the New Zealand Institute report card that this country has the second-highest unemployment rate—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. Thanks to interjections I could not hear that question at all. I ask members to be a little more reasonable with their interjections and I ask Stuart Nash please to start his question again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that both sides of the House were responsible for that but while you were on your feet Sandra Goudie loudly interjected at you while you were speaking. I think that in the interests of equity it would be good for there to be at least some reprimand for her. I think you heard her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we need to be too pedantic. I heard someone interject while I was on my feet but I could not pick up who it was. The member will have noticed that I looked around. I will not invite members to tell tales on each other under points of order. But I say to members on the Government backbench that they should be a little more careful. If they interject when the Speaker is on his feet they may find they take an early shower. 
Stuart Nash 
: Which of the following is true: his statement that the Government has focused on one top priority which is the large number of young New Zealanders who are either losing their jobs or cannot get a job; or the finding in the New Zealand Institute report card that this country has the second-highest unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds in the OECD? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is quite likely that both statements are true. In fact I know that the first one is certainly true. The Government is focused on creating jobs for young people. The member will know that a lot of those young people lost their jobs in the retail domestic construction and government sectors when the previous Government was pumping up this economy way beyond its capacity. They were not real jobs and it is unfortunate those young people lost them—very unfortunate. We are motivated to provide sustainable jobs in real industries. 
Amy Adams 
: What will Budget 2010 do to address this country’s economic underperformance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made a good start in turning round the poor productivity and growth record. We have been assisted by a recovery in the global economy. Budget 2010 will set out the next steps in the Government’s plan including billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure overhauling our regulatory framework redesigning the New Zealand tax system lifting productivity in the public sector improving capital markets and continuing to aim for higher educational standards. 
Social Development and Employment Associate Minister—Statements 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by all her recent statements? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand by 99.9 percent of them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who is correct—the Associate Minister who said yesterday: “At the last minute we were given a copy of the reforms. That makes it difficult to have input into them.” or the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett who said yesterday that the first meeting on the social welfare reforms occurred on 26 November 2009 4 months ago? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I was talking about the policy design. Those policies were designed before the election and of course the Government has every right to implement its policy without consulting us. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that the Minister was given a couple of choices on when she heard about a particular matter—not a policy but a Government matter because she would not have been responsible if it was policy. We cannot ask her questions about consultation before the election and you would have ruled it out if we had. Therefore I think you understand that she— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I invite the Hon Tariana Turia to make a somewhat greater effort to answer the question asked please. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am responsible for the comments that I made and I made those comments on the basis that National had designed those policies before becoming the Government and that we were not party to that. I at no point talked about consultation. I never used those words in my interview. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has the Prime Minister told her why he said that there was complete and full consultation by the Minister with all relevant Ministers including those in the Maori Party and that the consultation started as late as December last year or does she believe that the Prime Minister has been misinformed about the quantity and quality of consultation undertaken by the Minister for Social Development and Employment on a policy that has such a major impact on Maori people? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It is important for the House to realise that I was not present in Parliament from mid-November right through until January because I was in hospital. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister for Social Development and Employment correct in her chronology of events in which she indicates that the Associate Minister did not attend meetings cancelled meetings and had to be sent a second set of policy papers implying lost papers? Paula Bennett said that she actually gave the Minister all the related papers on 24 February which is 1 month ago. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I am not going to respond to the issues of there being no papers or of lost papers. I have already made it clear that in fact I returned to Parliament around 3 or 4 February. Since then I have seen the papers that were spoken of. I responded to them. I saw that more as my being informed of what the Government was doing than a consultation document which had taken place before the election. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does she agree with the sentiments of Maori Party MP Hone Harawira that “Maori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency and nor do we seek poverty.”; and how does she reconcile this with her statement that she supports the notion of benefit reform? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I agree with many statements that Maori leaders have made over the years: Tuini Ngawai and the waiata she wrote about benefit dependency and Sir Apirana Ngata. He saw such a net as a danger as he believed that it would undermine the work ethic of our people and he was correct. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of the Minister’s answer that she did not realise that the papers she was receiving were consultation papers was she given a copy of the regulatory impact statement on the welfare system changes prepared by the Ministry of Social Development in which Te Puni Kokiri and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs raised concerns over the impact of the changes on low-income Maori and Pacific people; if she did receive that statement which came out some time ago why did she not take the fight about these changes to the Government several months ago? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I responded in writing to the issues that were raised and I was responded to in writing also. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Progress 
3. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: What progress has the Government made in its response to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Today the Government released a public consultation document outlining the Government’s preferred approach and seeking feedback from the public on each aspect of that broad framework and the various options within it. The current Act has proved to be anything but an enduring solution. Significant numbers of New Zealanders have complained and continue to complain that that Act is unfair and discriminatory. It is important that we find an enduring solution so I am very much looking forward to hearing what New Zealanders have to say. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How is the Government responding to the review panel’s report of 30 June 2009? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The panel advised repeal and enactment of replacement legislation. The Government has carefully considered the report and in the months since the panel reported it has been engaged in an extended conversation with iwi representatives and other interested parties. The Government has picked up and is consulting on a number of the panel’s recommendations including repeal of the Act protecting public access removal of formal Crown ownership providing for recognition of customary title and restoring the fundamental right of access to the courts. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Did the Prime Minister say that people would see little change because the Government’s preferred option is really just to repeal and re-enact the current law? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The current Act does not include that fundamental right of access to the courts so that people can seek justice. That is what caused so much ill feeling in 2004 and it is what we are trying to address. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the Government avoid making the same mistake identified by the ministerial review panel in 2009 which characterised the former Government’s decision to legislate as unacceptably interventionist and overriding the option of allowing the judicial process to take its course thus removing the right to due legal process? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The most important thing I think we can do as we contemplate repeal and a new enactment is to ensure that any reform recognises the fundamental right of access to justice that all New Zealanders have. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What consultation will the Government be undertaking during April this year? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Over the next month I will be attending quite a number of hui—I think it is 11 hui—and numerous other public meetings throughout New Zealand. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about some “do-ee” not hui? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The aim of these meetings is to consult with interested parties on the Government’s proposals for reform. Following that consultation I will be reporting to Cabinet and final Cabinet decisions can be expected in late May and June. I will tell Mr Horomia when I will be in Gisborne because I look forward to his positive participation. 
David Garrett 
: How is the Government solving the problem by recommending that no one owns the foreshore and seabed and establishing an entirely new legal concept of takiwa iwi whanui the legal meaning of which can be determined in the future only through case law? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are essentially four options. There is absolute Crown ownership which is what the previous Government tried which was unacceptable— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask the Attorney-General what the options were; I asked how one of the options recommended by the Government could solve the problem. I did not ask for a list of the options. 
Hon Simon Power 
: The Attorney-General had barely got the first option out. I am sure that knowing him he was preparing a well-crafted answer directly in respect of the question asked and giving it the context that he usually does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness to the member who feels that his question was not being answered I invite him to repeat his question so that everyone can be absolutely sure exactly what he asked and we will listen to the answer with interest. 
David Garrett 
: How is the Government solving the problem by recommending that no one owns the foreshore and seabed and establishing an entirely new legal concept takiwa iwi whanui the legal meaning of which can be determined in the future only through case law? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There are a number of options and the member does not want to hear the detail of them but the Government considers that the public domain concept is a very sensible way of proceeding to deal with this issue in that it provides a staging post where customary title can be investigated. 
David Garrett 
: Will he legislate to guarantee public access to the foreshore and seabed; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The answer is yes and public access was never legislated for before the 2004 Act. One of the aspects of that Act was that it made it clear beyond peradventure that there is public access and those provisions confirming public access will be carried over. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Ruth Dyson to ask question No. 4. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask all members including a colleague of the Hon Ruth Dyson who is right beside her to please show some courtesy to the Hon Ruth Dyson. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had called for the Minister to give a legal translation for members down here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
4. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements about health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the statement that Labour culled over 30000 people from hospital waiting lists. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does he say to Dr Sandy Simpson another front-line experienced mental health specialist who is heading overseas who said on  
Nine to Noon 
 yesterday: “Front-line mental health services are suffering. The reality this year is that the squeeze is horrible and the cost of providing services is not being met.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say two things. The first is that the Government has increased the budget for mental health services by $85 million. The second thing I would say is that under the previous Government back-office bureaucracy grew from 8000 managers and administrators in district health boards to over 10500 managers and administrators. Our cap is working and we are employing more nurses and other personnel than previously. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Which is correct: the statements made by Marion Blake chief executive of the non-governmental organisation Platform who said it was facing a funding cut in Wellington alone of $2 million in mental health services or the Minister’s reported comments that planned changes in front-line services should not threaten non-governmental organisation services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware that the Capital and Coast District Health Board in preparing its annual plan is looking at how it can address the fact that the previous Government left it delivering over $60 million in unfunded services. Despite the fact that this Government has increased the overall funding for the Capital and Coast District Health Board by more than $32 million this year and will give it more next year changes will have to be made. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen in relation to delivering better health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The House will appreciate that in order for our 21 district health boards to have security and certainty in their services they need to be on a solid financial footing. Members will also recall that the new Government inherited a district health board sector that was on track to a financial crisis with unfunded services assessed at $155 million worth and forecast to grow to over $200 million worth. I am pleased to say that as a result of the Government putting a record $536 million into the district health boards and those boards looking carefully at their plans the health service is turning round from that track to financial crisis and it is expected to have a significant improvement in the amount of unfunded services this next financial year. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he said at the Sprott House event last week “this Government is committed to supporting our elderly to stay in their homes as long as they can.” was it better and more convenient for him to forget about the hundreds of elderly people in Otago and Southland who have had their home help cut? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think what is apposite to that comment is to refer to a recent report in  
Grey Power Lobby Report 
 about when Grey Power met the member opposite. They reported on the Opposition spokesperson on health in relation to health care saying: “She is totally against assessing by telephone and has stated that the only way to assess a person is to visit them in their homes to see firsthand how they are coping.” That is what she said about Otago and Southland. What is interesting is that it was in fact Mrs Dyson’s Government that formalised telephone assessments as a pilot in 2006 and further it was Mrs Dyson’s Government that voted for the public money to roll out that project nationally in the 2008 Budget. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is it not a bit rich for him to continue to describe his cuts as changes when Dr Simpson who has had over 20 years of mental health advocacy said “the current cuts are frankly worrying. They cannot continue to deliver the services at the size that they are at the moment. There will be further cuts.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. 
Aviation Security—Charges Per Passenger 
5. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes is the Government making to per-passenger aviation security charges? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Beginning tomorrow the aviation security charge paid by airlines will be reduced by $5 from $15 to $10 per departing international passenger. The charge for domestic travellers will also drop from $4.66 to $4.35 including GST. This Government is always on the lookout to reduce costs wherever possible and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so with aviation security charges. I hope and expect that the airlines will pass most of this reduction on to their passengers. 
David Bennett 
: How was the Government able to reduce these levies? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Aviation Security Service has accumulated a very significant surplus since the last increase in levies in 2007. The surplus is about $35 million from international security charges and $6.5 million from domestic charges. Although some level of surplus is necessary to buffer against fluctuations in passenger volumes and unforeseen requirements the current level of surplus is an unfair imposition on airlines and the travelling public. 
Education Associate Minister—Statements 
6. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I stand by 99.98 percent of them. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Which of his statements does he stand by: the one that national standards are dangerous for Maori; the one that national standards are OK; the one where he told his staff kura kaupapa Maori did not believe in national standards and neither did he and that he was fundamentally opposed to them; or the one where he said he was again comfortable with them but was still worried about league tables? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Those are the 0.02 percent! I stand by all those statements which were made at different times. Initially when I had no documentation I was scared of the league tables; as I got information and consultation I moved to support them. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What has he learnt since he stated he was opposed to national standards that has caused him to now find them acceptable? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: My main fear was the intrusion on the tino rangatiratanga of each kura kaupapa Maori because kura kaupapa Maori not only have to teach education; they have to teach two languages as well. So it is very local. As we developed a consultation process and iwi the schools and the families were allowed input I was satisfied to let it go. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Can he confirm that he is concerned only about Maori students in kura kaupapa Maori and not the 141000 other Maori students in mainstream schools and that he is quite comfortable leaving them and their parents to deal with the implementation of national standards which he himself called dangerous? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I can confirm that I care not only for every Maori student but for every Pakeha student every Indian student and every Chinese student—every student in school. But I have a particular responsibility in these matters for kura kaupapa Maori children. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What was the detail of the assurance he was given by the Prime Minister in relation to the publication of league tables? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I cannot remember the details of it. I still oppose league tables being published by for example the media after their own private investigations but I understand that the Government has no intention of publishing league tables. 
Welfare Reforms—Long-term Welfare Dependency 
7. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on long-term welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen research showing that the longer a person spends on a benefit the harder it is to get off welfare. I have seen a report that shows that a third of those currently on the domestic purposes benefit became parents in their teenage years and of those teenagers on that benefit if they are under 18 they are 35 percent more likely to be on it in 10 years’ time. This is a particular group that we are focused on in wanting to help them and to help them to get off long-term welfare dependency. 
Hekia Parata 
: How many beneficiaries might be considered at risk of long-term dependency on welfare? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Of those who currently receive a benefit over one-third have been on welfare for more than 3 years. That is around 117880 people or about 34 percent of those who are on welfare. Of those on supposedly short-term temporary benefits—the unemployment and sickness benefits—29580 receive the sickness benefit for more than a year and over 12000 receive the unemployment benefit for more than a year. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: What reports has the Minister read that have caused her to change her mind about a woman’s right to choice as stated in her maiden speech: “I advocate for choice—for women to work part time or full time in paid work or not at all or to stay at home and raise their children.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I certainly do and I see that need for parents to actually be moving ahead for themselves for the benefit of their children and that is what is really most important. I certainly do advocate choice for those who can have it but there is an obligation as well for them to be getting ahead themselves and then actually making that for their children. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked what reports she has read with regard to changing her mind about whether women should stay home and raise their children or go out and work. I did not hear whether she actually referred to any reports. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty I have is in understanding exactly what the member is asking. Normally members do not read reports about why they changed their minds; it is something they know themselves. It is difficult for me to say to the Minister that I expect her to give a more clear answer to the House when it is difficult to see exactly what the member was after. 
Hekia Parata 
: How does the Minister expect Future Focus to improve outcomes for beneficiaries? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Despite labour shortages the culture of welfare dependency grew on Labour’s watch. From 2000 to 2008—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assume the member is seeking my intervention about that barrage of interjection. That is unacceptable. The members may not like the Minister’s answer but the Minister is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit. If members do not like it they can ask supplementary questions but they cannot just shout like that. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: So lies are OK? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did I just hear someone say lies are OK? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: It was a rhetorical question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well we will not have that kind of interjection. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: To give details from 2000 to 2008 sickness benefit numbers doubled up by 17000 people. To give members the actual numbers on that 33560 people were on the sickness benefit in the year 2000 and 50896 people were on the sickness benefit in 2008. That is just one example. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: If the Minister is serious about supporting women into paid employment why did she ignore the phase 1 and phase 2 evaluation of the training incentive allowance reports which highlight the role of the training incentive allowance in reducing the time spent on benefits and increasing the amount of time spent in paid employment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Future Focus exempts people who have children over the age of 6 and are in tertiary study in recognition that tertiary study can work for some people on the domestic purposes benefit. We have also introduced other pathways for them to gain those skills and to get the training that they need. That is something that quite frankly makes sense and something I am proud to deliver. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a very interesting piece of information that the Minister just gave the House. It may be what the Minister wanted to provide by way of answer but I am not sure whether it was exactly an answer to the question asked. I did not support Carmel Sepuloni when she previously appealed that her question had not been answered. I invite her to ask her supplementary question again without the first bit about how the Minister can be taken seriously. That will be excluded from the repeat of the supplementary question. It will be a straightforward objective question if she wants an answer. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why did she ignore the phase 1 and phase 2 evaluation of the training incentive allowance reports which highlight the role of the training incentive allowance in reducing the time spent on benefits and increasing the amount of time spent in paid employment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I did not but as I said when we looked at tertiary study for those people on the domestic purposes benefit we recognised that they should be exempt if they are in study while their children are over 6 years old. The Government made that decision and it is one that I am proud to represent. There are many opportunities for those people on the domestic purposes benefit to get the training and education that they need to move off long-term welfare dependency. 
Education National Standards—Minister’s Statement 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her reported statement in regard to national standards that “criticism has been based on misinterpretations”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
:  
Yes and I am pleased that so many teachers and principals are engaging with the national standards rather than misinterpretations of them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she accept that if a newspaper now asks two schools for their results it can publish a local league table? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It can do that now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How then can she explain the Prime Minister’s comments to Pita Sharples that league tables could not be published under national standards for at least 2 years? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I was not at the meeting that took place between the Prime Minister and Minister Sharples but the Government—and Minister Sharples repeated this earlier in the House—will not be publishing league tables. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister received of teachers and principals engaging with national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received a report from the Ministry of Education that states that so far 81 percent of schools have registered for or participated in the first round of workshops on the implementation of national standards. That is 4695 principals and teachers representing 1759 schools. That is an excellent response and it shows that teachers as professionals are getting on with the job of implementing national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who is responsible for the misinterpretation of the fact that those workshops have been described as being fully funded when schools have to pay over $200 a day for a reliever to replace the staff member and pay the travel costs as well? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is interesting that the Labour Party does not even want there to be training on national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a simple question: who was responsible for that misinterpretation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point of order. The Minister should not commence a perfectly reasonable question with a gratuitous comment. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Professional development worth $26 million is being made available to teachers at their request for training on the national standards. It is perfectly normal practice for schools to fund relievers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was again a very simple easy question to answer. It asked who was responsible for the statement that the workshops were fully funded. The Minister knows that she made that statement. She should admit it to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last bit of that point of order was out of order. The member knows that. He has been in this House long enough to know that he cannot make that kind of accusation or comment under a point of order. I am not sure why he expects me to be terribly sympathetic to his point of order when he does that. In my view the Minister did answer the question. She pointed out what “fully funded” means in normal circumstances for teacher professional development. Other people may have a different view of what it means but that seems to me to be what the Minister was saying. The member has further supplementary questions available should he wish to ask one. 
Civil Defence and Emergency Management Ministry—Communication with Public 
9. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: To the Minister of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both front benches that I have called Chris Auchinvole. Please show him some courtesy. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. How has the Ministry of Civil Defence enhanced its communications with the public? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The recent tsunami event of 28 February showed that the ministry’s revised 24/7 duty arrangements and process for working with the media worked well. In addition the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management website received 44000 visitors on 28 February. This compares with an average of 350 visitors a day for the rest of February. The ministry’s Twitter feed went from 166 followers to 1347 and the ministry’s RSS feed also had 2800 individuals subscribing. The significant increases over normal traffic show the usefulness of social media for civil defence purposes. However I remind members of the House that it is what the individual knows to do in time of emergency and how prepared people are that determines whether people will get through. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What other technical advances has the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management put in place? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I am happy to announce that just 2 weeks ago I attended the demonstration of the Emergency Management Information System known as EMIS for use in the National Crisis Management Centre. This system will greatly enhance New Zealand’s civil defence capabilities by allowing the Crisis Management Centre and the regions to coordinate information in real time to help us better manage emergencies and thereby make New Zealand safer and more resilient. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Minerals Stocktake Discussion Document 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he think that his discussion document on the stocktake of schedule 4 provides sufficient information to New Zealanders to be fully informed about the issue given the statement made on his behalf after the release of the document that “the information about the value of New Zealand’s mineral resources is not well known”; if so why? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes; the stocktake is a carefully considered document and it contains a great deal of useful information. In his question the member quotes out of context a previous reply in this House concerning the further scientific investigation of the mineral potential of some areas as signalled in the discussion paper. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How can New Zealanders be confident about the analysis of the Minister’s proposals when he himself has said that the value of minerals is not well known and the figures in the discussion document have been widely criticised as being made up misleading wildly optimistic and nothing more than desktop studies? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The point is that one can always obtain better and better information depending on one’s access to methodology. The paper was perfectly adequate to enable New Zealanders to have a good discussion about the issue. Of course as techniques improve further information and ways of obtaining that information will become available. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is he not concerned that Parliament’s independent environmental adviser Dr Jan Wright has said that the consultation period available is “insufficient” given public confusion; if not will he be issuing further and better information to ensure that New Zealanders are properly informed? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why were no new studies undertaken on the value of minerals in New Zealand for the review of schedule 4; and instead of presenting New Zealanders with made-up misleading and wildly optimistic figures would it not have been wiser to conduct a proper evaluation of the relevant conservation cultural tourism and mineral values before trying to force his ideas on the New Zealand public? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister is not trying to force his ideas on anyone; he is presenting a consultation paper so there can be sensible consultation. It is just that. I think the Labour Opposition is treating this Government by its own standards. When we have consultation we mean just that. 
Canterbury—Irrigation and Water Storage 
11. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to “remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The biggest regulatory issue in Canterbury has been the absence of a regional water plan. Nineteen years after the Resource Management Act was passed there is still no organised system for managing water in that region. I am sure everyone wants to see an effective plan in place and passing this bill is a step towards achieving just that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme one of the water storage and irrigation projects in Canterbury he would like to see advanced as a result of this bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would depend on whether it could achieve its mixed objectives of preserving the environmental responsibilities that we have along with our economic growth objectives. We will know that only when it has been referred back to the commissioners to review the whole project. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did any Cabinet Ministers declare conflicts of interest in Cabinet discussions about the Environment Canterbury bill; if so what were those conflicts of interest? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge I do not recall any conflicts of interest being raised but I can go and check that for the member. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture David Carter owns a farm with an irrigation consent in the Hurunui district and stands to benefit financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that he owns a farm in that area. I am not aware whether he would benefit from the scheme. The whole matter needs to be considered by the commissioners. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Environment Canterbury bill will make it easier for the Hurunui irrigation scheme to go ahead does he believe that David Carter should have declared a conflict of interest in the Cabinet discussions given that he stands to gain financially if the scheme proceeds? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would have thought that referring a matter to the new commissioners for consideration does not raise a conflict of interest. We can check that with the Cabinet Office but referring something that might happen does not actually raise a conflict of interest until it does happen. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given Mr Carter’s ownership of the farm was it appropriate for him to approach— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Dr Russel Norman but I ask the Government backbenchers again to show some courtesy to the member asking the question. I cannot hear his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given this conflict of interest was it appropriate at a function on 3 September 2009 for David Carter to approach the people who applied for the water conservation order requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months while they were in the middle of a judicial process? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A question can have only facts in it. We often fall short of that but this “given” has not been established as a fact by Dr Russel Norman. Also in stating that allegation he is actually casting a slur on a Minister who is not here to take offence so in his absence I certainly take offence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a very interesting point that the honourable member raises: that supplementary questions should not contain allegations and certainly not contain allegations of perhaps impropriety. They are not meant to contain statements of assumed fact anyhow; they are meant to ask questions. I think the best way to handle this is to invite Dr Russel Norman to rephrase his question in a way that is more consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Was it appropriate for Minister David Carter at a function on 3 September 2009 to approach the people who applied for a water conservation order requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months while they were in the middle of a judicial process for the water conservation order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that that realistically altered the question that the member asked. I would have thought he could word a question instead of making a statement that suggests that the Minister may have done something the member considers to be inappropriate. Maybe he could phrase it as a question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: The question is whether it is appropriate. The Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers so I am asking— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just point out my concern. My concern is that the member is alleging that the Minister did what the member is saying he did and the House has no validation of that. We do not know whether the Minister in fact did what the member is alleging. The problem with the question is that the member is implying that if the Minister did in fact do that then it may not have been appropriate. It may be possible to phrase it in a way that asks a question rather than makes a statement that the Minister did something when the Minister may or may not have done that. The House has no way of validating that supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It may help the member to phrase the question something like: “Would it be appropriate if a Minister did”. In that way he could get there. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It may assist the House if I table a file note from one of those present when the Minister allegedly approached the applicants for the water conservation order and asked them to hold their application for 12 to 18 months. I seek leave to table that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think at that point when authentication has been offered and declined by Government members it becomes almost impossible to ask questions and have them ruled out for lack of authentication. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member is saying. I invite the member to ask his question because maybe I am being excessively sensitive about the issue. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Was it appropriate for David Carter to allegedly approach the people who applied for the water conservation order at a function on 3 September 2009 requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months while they were in the middle of a judicial process to apply for a water conservation order? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not going to offer a view on wild and unproven allegations from the member but I point out that water conservation orders are a matter for the Minister for the Environment and that is not Mr Carter. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of David Carter’s failure to declare his conflict of interest and the fact that he inappropriately intervened— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The member must not preface his question with another statement because in answering a question the Prime Minister has already explained that in his view there is no conflict of interest involved in this matter. The member should not start his question “In light of failure to declare a conflict of interest”. I invite the member to rephrase his question. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we are trying to work our way through some complex wording but you will recall that yesterday a member from this side of the House had three opportunities to get a question right and at the point of a third opportunity when you were still not happy with the wording you moved on. I ask you to consider a similar set of circumstances that have now occurred in this question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear—[ 
Interruption 
] I am considering a point of order. The Government backbenchers are testing my patience probably for the first time today and I suggest they do not do it any further. The difference on this occasion is that it is not all over one question; it is over a further supplementary question. Therefore it is a different situation from yesterday. I call Dr Russel Norman—please without the preface. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister of the view that the Minister of Agriculture is meeting his high standards of ministerial behaviour when he inappropriately intervened in a water conservation order process and approached the applicants? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is three. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: By my count it is two on this supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] I am considering a point of order. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear from the member. He must not allege that the Minister behaved inappropriately. The Standing Orders are very clear on that. The member can ask his question without making that allegation and this is the last occasion on which I invite him to ask his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If the Prime Minister discovers when looking at the documents that I have been unable to table in the House that it is the case that Minister Carter asked the applicants not to proceed with the water conservation order does he believe that it meets the high standards he requires of his Ministers? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Once again I am not going to answer hypothetical questions on unproven situations. All I can tell the member is that one thing I know about David Carter is he manages his superannuation fund better than the Green Party does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what members had for lunch but I ask for a little respect as I have called Brendon Burns on this occasion for a supplementary question. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does he agree with comments from Nick Smith reported today in the  
Timaru Herald 
 that part of his consideration in sacking Environment Canterbury was he does not trust Canterbury voters to make what he considers the right decision in October’s local body elections? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again we have the exact same problem that we had with Dr Russel Norman. I do not believe that the facts of that supplementary question are true. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think we had an assurance from the member that he was quoting from a newspaper. Mr Speaker you have already said we are not allowed to table things in order to authenticate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the member. I just remind members what the substantive question is: “Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to ‘remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury’?”. I am not sure what that has to do with the supplementary question. It is a long bow to then specifically go to the issue of claiming the sacking of the board. I invite the member to relate his question more directly to that substantive question. 
Brendon Burns 
: I will completely rephrase the question. Is the Prime Minister aware in stating he expects to see water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy built next year that the strategy’s first order of priority is the environment and that it wants a phase of restoring water quality before new projects are built? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can say that the aim of the moves yesterday was to make sure we get an operative regional water plan in Canterbury. That is something that has not been the case for 20 years. Clearly it will be a matter for those commissioners to balance both the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy in the local region. All I can say is that the moves from the Government yesterday have the overwhelming support of all of Canterbury’s district mayors and I think that represents as the  
Otago Daily Times 
 stated that they have had enough of a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about whether the Prime Minister was aware of what was in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He has not addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is being pretty tough. I think the Prime Minister gave a reasonable answer to that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. Mr Speaker this might be something you would want to take under consideration. We have hit today—I think twice—a point where a ruling on which you have been very strict and one which I have supported has come up against the ability of Opposition members to ask supplementary questions. Twice members have given assurances in their supplementary questions that they are quoting from reports. Mr Hide I think went as far as to say that he did not believe the member for Christchurch Central. In the past it has always been a rule of the House that a member’s word is taken. Mr Speaker I ask you to think about that in the future when you are interpreting whether something is properly authenticated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the member’s point of order seriously because it is an important issue. With supplementary questions they are always accepted; there is no means of authenticating them. That is why members have to be a little careful though in asking supplementary questions—to make sure they do not make unreasonable allegations. But I will hear the Prime Minister on the issue. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it would be useful if members who claimed to have quotes were to bring down to the House the newspaper article they were quoting from and read it out directly. We have found that on recent occasions the Leader of the Opposition has done exactly that—that is not reading from a document and actually the statements have not been correct. So reading them out would be quite useful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not going to get into a debate. I have allowed both sides— 
Hon Annette King 
: Paula Bennett’s answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet I say to the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party. I will not get into a debate on this matter now. The reason why the issue arose today was there was an implication which a member took offence at that another member might have acted improperly. That is where we have to be very careful. There are ways of asking questions and I think we finally got to the point where the member was able to ask the questions he wanted to ask in a way that did meet the Standing Orders. But it is not often we come up in quite such a sharp way against the requirement of the Standing Orders not to make allegations in questions that can cause offence etc. I think the points have been well made but we will not be able to take the issue any further right now. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your consideration of a slightly separate point from Mr Mallard’s. It is simply that again there appears to possibly be a conflict with the convention you have adopted and that is where a member is allegedly quoting from an article and a point of order is raised like the one Mr Hide raised today in which he said he did not believe that. Mr Speaker apart from Mr Mallard’s point you have also ruled that in your view we cannot table an article that is recent. That can in this circumstance prevent a member from proving that what he is quoting is correct. I invite you as you consider Mr Mallard’s point to consider that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but we will not be taking that matter any further today. 
Brendon Burns 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear that I do not intend to take this matter any further. If the point of order debates or relitigates this issue I will not be happy. 
Brendon Burns 
: I am not seeking to do that. I am seeking to table a couple of documents because I am able to provide the authentication that was sought from me on both of the questions I asked— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is seeking leave to table documents please do so. 
Brendon Burns 
: Thank you. The first document I seek leave to table is an extract from today’s  
Timaru Herald 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I will allow the member to seek leave to table the document because of the dispute that has occurred. Normally I would not because the  
Timaru Herald  
is a readily available newspaper but on this occasion— 
Brendon Burns 
: Because I was not sure whether the issue was to do with the first or the second question that I had asked the second document that I seek leave to table is written question No. 291 from Dr Russel Norman to the Prime Minister in relation to water storage schemes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Normally I would not be putting leave to table the answer to a written question either but because of the dispute that has arisen—and only on this occasion—I will put leave for both those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a copy of resource consent CRC99.1 in the name of David Cunningham Carter to take water from the Hurunui River for his Cat Hill farm in the Hurunui District. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How can the Prime Minister say that Canterbury does not have a water management strategy when it is actually contained in the legislation that the House is currently debating under urgency—legislation that also sacks our elected regional councillors appoints commissioners who will be paid $2000 a day and takes away Cantabrians’ right to elect their regional councillors leaving us with no voice no vote and a big rates bill? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I am right and the last time I looked Trevor Mallard agreed with me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table a letter to the previous Government dated 30 June in which the chairman of Environment Canterbury specifically notes his meeting with Ruth Dyson and other members of the Labour Cabinet to seek their intervention to try to have water management in Canterbury sorted out—a request that was ignored. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008—90-day Trial Period Exclusions 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Which employer and employee groups has the Government specifically excluded from the 90-day trial period as introduced by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As set out in section 67A of the Employment Relations Act employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. I also note that trial periods are entered into only by agreement from both parties. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she consider excluding vulnerable groups from the 90-day trial period such as the solo parents and sickness beneficiaries that her Government intends forcing into work for as little as $1 an hour? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As the member knows there is a discussion paper in relation to personal grievances which includes the trial period of course. The submissions on that paper will close in 1 hour and 55 minutes so she still has time to make a submission. We will listen to those submissions and consider the feedback before making any decisions. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she then consider excluding any person who has ended up on the unemployment benefit as a result of the 90-day trial period from further 90-day trial periods if and when they are lucky enough to find work? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Under section 67A of the Employment Relations Act employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. Trial periods are by agreement. 
Darien Fenton 
: Considering the massive increase in the number of people on benefits since the 90-day fire-at-will legislation was passed does she now accept that her claim that it will “provide real opportunities for people at the margins of the labour market” was wrong and that it does the opposite by making it easier for employers to discriminate against those workers by using them then discarding them within 90 days with no risk of a grievance claim? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It has been 13 months since the 90-day trial period for small businesses was introduced and in that time we have had very positive feedback from both employers and employees on the use of trial periods. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 3 Additional functions and powers of ECan after commencement day ( 
continued 
) 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have been very keen to get back to the regulatory impact statement which was not included with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. Under the leadership of Rodney Hide as the Minister for Regulatory Reform this Government has decided to take all the regulatory impact statements out of bills and to hide them away on the individual websites of the relevant ministry and of Treasury. This regulatory impact statement would have to qualify as one of the most damning indictments of any Government’s process or of any bill that I have ever seen in this Parliament in the 20 years since I was elected to represent people in Christchurch. I think I have some justification for feeling pretty aggrieved about how the people in our area have been treated by this Government. 
I direct the Committee’s attention to the regulatory impact analysis which is unpaged. Let me read out a quote under the heading “General discussion of options”. It states: “Options that rely on introducing legislation in a very short timeframe increase the risk of poor or misdirected intervention resulting in unintended consequences and the need for subsequent intervention to remedy these consequences. Ad hoc intervention also potentially undermines the integrity and credibility of existing legislative provisions. However in this instance because any national level decisions on water management (particularly WCOs)”—which are included in this part of the bill—“have the potential to undermine the government’s New Start for Freshwater policy programme and the work of the Land and Water Forum it is considered preferable for any intervention to have a narrow Canterbury-specific focus in the first instance.” 
So this is the beginning. It is the beginning of a new approach that this Government will have. This is the end of water conservation orders. That is why I have an amendment on the Table of this House to ask that the sections relating to water conservation orders be removed from the bill. I hope that I get the support of other members of this Committee. I do not think that Government members or the parties that are supporting the Government particularly the Maori Party fully appreciate the extent of what is happening to water conservation orders under this legislation. I honestly do not believe that that has been fully explained but it all becomes very clear when the regulatory impact analysis is analysed. 
The regulatory impact analysis goes on to say “The results of any intervention” in Canterbury—and that is what Part 3 of this bill implements—“could provide useful information for decision-makers on the outcomes of the New Start for Freshwater policy programme and potentially an opportunity to trial alternative policy settings in a confined context.” So Canterbury is now to be the scene of an experiment in terms of the Government’s wider policy objectives with the New Start for Fresh Water policy programme. I am deeply alarmed to find that stated in the regulatory impact analysis. No commentary on this agenda is contained within the explanatory note of the bill. We have to go to the regulatory impact analysis which is no longer contained with bills to find that this is the Government’s objective. 
Another point in the regulatory impact analysis says—and I think it is relevant that the Minister has not commented on this; I think perhaps the Minister in the chair Chris Finlayson could take up this particular issue because it is within his broader portfolio—that “Any intervention that alters the nature of the relationship between Ngai Tahu and the body responsible for governance and decision-making on natural resources particularly water will need to be designed in light of the Crown’s Treaty responsibilities. In particular commissioners will individually and/or collectively need to have a strong understanding of the Ngai Tahu perspective rights and interests.” Not once have we heard the Minister talk about how that will be addressed in the context of implementing Part 3 of the bill. 
Part 3 creates a whole new paradigm for water conservation orders. If we go through the regulatory impact statement we find that the Government is a little concerned about the nature of the requirements for assessing water conservation orders. That is why my amendment becomes all the more important. The regulatory impact analysis states that one of the options was to put together the whole question of water conservation orders. The concern was expressed that “This would displace the statutory purpose of WCOs as an instrument for protecting outstanding amenity or intrinsic values of water bodies and would allow decisions on the allocation of water from these water bodies to be made in the context of sustainable management of resources.” I think the Minister should talk to us about this issue because there seems to be a very deliberate decision by the Government to shift from the conservation values that are behind our water conservation orders in one part of the Resource Management Act to another part of that Act which talks about the sustainable management of resources. I think that if the Minister is doing that as part of a long-term objective to shift over time in that way throughout New Zealand this is not the way to do it. To have an experiment in Canterbury to see whether we can trial a different way of doing things there is actually quite untenable. 
The regulatory impact analysis contains 3½ pages on option one. A regulatory impact statement requires the Government to set out what the objectives are to set out the range of options and then to analyse each of those options: do a bit of risk analysis opportunity costing and various other tests when looking at the risks and benefits of a particular approach. In this regulatory impact statement there are three pages on option one which is the legislation to replace Environment Canterbury councillors with commissioners. There is half a page each on the other four options. We have option two “Legislation appointing commissioners to take over resource management functions only”; option three “Legislation replacing council with commission tasked with transitioning to Canterbury Regional Water Authority” which I believe is still on the agenda; and option four “Implement Canterbury Water Management Strategy”. 
It is interesting that when one looks under option four one sees that it states that “The visions and principles of the CWMS seek balance between environmental economic social and cultural outcomes but this balance is to be achieved under the over-arching presumption of more reliable water and more intensive land use - an outcome that has not been subject to assessment against the purpose of sustainable management set down in the RMA.” So even the regulatory impact analysis in ruling out one of the options that is actually being implemented by this bill is inconsistent with the provisions that the Minister really ought to be operating under in respect of the Resource Management Act. 
The regulatory impact analysis also goes on to say that “The potential inconsistency between the overarching presumption behind the vision and principles of the CWMS and the purpose of the RMA has implications for the planning framework in Canterbury post-intervention.” That would have to be the understatement of the year; of course it has implications post intervention. But I would really like the Minister to talk about that because not once have any of those issues been raised in the debate so far. We are passing legislation under urgency where we have not had an opportunity to have a rigorous debate about those things which really matter in Canterbury and around the country. 
Option five is “Use existing RMA intervention powers”; and option six is “Targeted assistance to Environment Canterbury” which was based on the proposal that Environment Canterbury put back to the Minister. To be honest that did not get even a fair hearing in my view because the Government had already decided that it would go with option one. So option six which was proposed by Environment Canterbury was ruled out beforehand. 
I will now talk about how other Government departments responded to the consultation after the review of Environment Canterbury. I am really quite shocked to find all of this detail in a document that was not even tabled with the bill. As a result of the consultation with a number of Government departments a whole lot of concerns were raised. First of all on “proposals to replace the elected Councillors for all of ECan’s functions suspend local body elections or remove the right of appeal on the NRRP or Water conservation orders except on points of law” the concern was that “These proposals appear [sic] present a prima facie access to justice issue and some departments were concerned that this may not be consistent with the Government’s statement on regulation: ‘better regulation less regulation’ which requires ‘a particularly strong case [to be] made for any regulatory proposals that are likely to override fundamental common law principles”. 
Which of the Government departments that were consulted said that? Was it the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Treasury the State Services Commission the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Transport Te Puni Kokiri or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Which one of them or which group of them said there were serious concerns about the likelihood that this would “override fundamental common law principles”? Which one said that? That is what it says here: “These proposals appear [sic] present a prima facie access to justice issue and some departments were concerned …”. Well I am more than concerned after reading that. 
The regulatory impact statement goes on to say there was concern about “the potential for the proposal to mean that parties with a stake in Canterbury’s natural resources will have less ability to protect their rights and interests via appeals on resource management decisions than elsewhere in the country.” So Canterbury misses out again by being alone in the application of this change to the rules. 
The regulatory impact statement also refers to concern about “the proposal to transfer the entire range of ECan’s roles and responsibilities to commissioners despite the finding that ECan was performing adequately outside of its water-related functions”. That entire part is focused on water-related functions yet the research the report and the review—everything that has been done—says that Environment Canterbury was performing adequately outside of those functions. So we are to deal with the whole of Environment Canterbury we are to just wipe the whole lot of those functions and we are not to mind the fact that there is the issue of whether “the gains of such a move outweigh the costs of removing democratically elected representatives.” I am quoting from the Minister’s own department’s report on the regulatory impact analysis. This is not something that I am just making up. The Minister’s own department has reported this to him as having been expressed as a concern by a range of other Government agencies. Goodness knows why the Ministry for the Environment does not think these issues are important either. 
Proposals to change the water conservation order processes have the potential to be highly controversial particularly given that the Government has not signalled such a move in its New Start for Fresh Water policy programme. Because of those concerns three minor changes were made to the proposal but that is it and there is nothing of substance in terms of the seriousness of the issues that have been raised. 
I am deeply concerned that this kind of information this quality information is withheld from members of Parliament who are standing up to debate this bill in the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was tabled. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was not tabled with the bill. The Minister can interject as much as he likes but the Government made a decision to no longer include regulatory impact statements with bills. They are now available separately on websites and members have to go back to the House and get a copy of those statements in order to ensure that they have the information in front of them. I think that is a poor process in terms of our ability as a Parliament to monitor anything of substance in a way that enables us to speak for our constituents. They expect us to be able to debate authoritatively on subjects on the basis of all of the information being made available to us when it is required. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The comments from the Opposition on this bill come down basically to two features: misinformation and personal denigration. I will address both of those in this short contribution. 
The first concerns the regulatory impact statement which the member has claimed was not tabled in the House. I tell members that it was tabled in the House right in front of me at exactly the same time as the bill was tabled. It was also provided to the Bills Office at exactly the same time. 
I will also address the issues that have been raised by Russel Norman. I note that Jeanette Fitzsimons who was a passionate leader of environmental issues in all the years that I spent in the House religiously focused on playing the ball and not the man. But I have seen from Russel Norman—and I think this will be terminal for the Green Party—that he is choosing to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech and the others who did the review and today he started on David Carter. There is a very important point that I will put on the record: on Monday when Cabinet made its decisions on Environment Canterbury and on this bill David Carter was not even present. For members in this Chamber to attack a Minister when that Minister is offshore doing the work of New Zealand I think is below the standards that the Green Party itself would set for its members. 
I will address quite specifically the three major parts in this portion of the bill. In my view they are critical to the step change in water management that the Government wants to deliver. Let me go through those three parts. 
The first is that the Government is providing the commissioners with the power to put in place a targeted moratorium on water takes. Some members who are also farmers are concerned about that provision and they would prefer that it was not there. But it is time we were honest with water in Canterbury and say that in some areas there is not more water to allocate. For us to spend large sums of money on lawyers and on process when there simply is not more water is not wise which is why that measure is in this bill. Interestingly I have the correspondence that I tabled earlier in the Chamber when Environment Canterbury made submissions to members such as Ruth Dyson Lianne Dalziel and many others. Environment Canterbury asked for that power during the course of the previous Government but the council was ignored. I think that the provision for that power to be available is overdue if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury. 
The second part of this bill is concerned with getting a plan. I am advised that on the current programme it will be at least 2 or 3 years before we finally get a plan on water. Members on the Government benches are saying that that is too long that we need progress and we need a plan. That is why there are quite specific provisions in this part to fast track the provisions of establishing a water plan in Canterbury. 
The third issue is one of integrated management. It does not make sense for either the Environment Court or a special tribunal appointed by myself to make decisions on water conservation orders in Canterbury separate from the commissioners. If we are really serious about getting a group of people to get hold of this issue of water in Canterbury and to make integrated decisions it is absolutely right that those decisions are made by the commissioners. 
The last point I will make is that decisions on water conservation orders in the current law are—and in the amended law will be—made by the Minister for the Environment. That remains the case. To the accusations that somehow decisions on water conservation are being politicised I say “Well hang on.” The decisions are made by the Minister for the Environment by whoever is privileged to hold that office at the time. But the provisions in this part are the vital extra powers that are required for the commissioners to be able to get on top of water management issues in Canterbury and that is why the Government has included them in the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am quite pleased with the Minister for the Environment’s contribution. I hope that he will say a little more because he might then understand that as well as being frustrated and very angry at having our votes stolen from us we are even more angry about the idea of having our water stolen from us. Taking away our vote is frustrating enough but taking our water will make us really upset. If the Minister continues to engage as he just did in what I think is a considered way then we may eventually get to the point where he will understand our concerns. Instead of just riding roughshod over them instead of just wiping them aside and making smart alec contributions to the debate he might start thinking about some of our amendments and the contributions we are making because a lot of them are being made in good faith. 
In this contribution on Part 3 I will focus mainly on the water conservation order issue. A lot of people understandably do not understand what a water conservation order is. They do not have a particular interest in the environment or they do not live in Canterbury where water is a very hot topic for us. We are very keen on water and on improving its quality. A water conservation order has been described as being like a national park for rivers. That might not be such a great comparison to bring at the moment given what the National Government wants to do with our national parks listed on schedule 4. I am not accusing the Minister of wanting to mine in our water conservation order areas but we never know. Down the track he might decide that these are not very important either. 
Hon Member 
: They want to mine water! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Mining under the riverbed would be a more logical place than mining the water. 
My understanding of the changes—and it has been quite difficult to fully absorb the content of the legislation given how late we received it and given that we have been debating it continuously with the exception of question time without any select committee consideration or the benefit of any public input through a select committee process—is that we now have a water conservation orders regime whereby the appeal process to special tribunals and the Environment Court has been entirely axed. The Minister for the Environment has nodded. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Replaced. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is pretty sad. We do not have recourse to special tribunals or the Environment Court now in terms of water conservation orders. 
My second understanding—and I will be pleased if the Minister wants to confirm this by nodding by sign language or by taking a further call—is that the criteria for a water conservation order established under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is different from the current criteria for water conservation orders. I am not quite sure why that would be. Why would we have two different regimes running parallel? It would be sensible if the Government decided that one set of criteria was not robust enough or that the threshold was not high enough was too high or whatever and that it wanted to change it. That should be a ministerial prerogative. But in my view a Government would not sensibly have one regime for some rivers around the country and another regime for others. If the criteria are now different under the Environment Canterbury area—the Canterbury Regional Council catchment area—then I would really like to know why that is the case. 
I mentioned in a contribution to an earlier debate but it is more relevant to Part 3 the fact that despite the Minister going on and on about the lack of a water management strategy the strategy is in schedule 1 of this bill. That is the first confusion I have. The Minister has also been very clear that he wants to make sure that the water management strategy is implemented that it moves on and that it has some legislative grunt yet this bill which is going through under urgency is all about Canterbury water management but the implementation of the water management strategy is not in it. It is about as shallow as a puddle after a brief bit of rain out on Lambton Quay. One could not get shallower than the attention paid to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in this document. 
I tell the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith that he has lost a huge opportunity. I agree with him that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy should have legislative grunt and should be put in the part but where is it? It is outlined in schedule 1; it tells us all about it. It tells us that we believe in motherhood and apple pie and access. It tells us that we want our water to be of a high quality and drinkable. We want it to be wet and we want to be able to use water for recreational activities. Wow that is gobsmacking news! I ask where in this bill it tells us how we will set up the committees and how we will ensure that all those different groups that have worked together on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy stay working together and improve what is happening to our water in Canterbury. It is nowhere. There is a big hole in this legislation in that regard and it should be fixed. 
The commissioners will be required—this is very tough—to have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Well that will sort it out will it not I ask the Minister. By goodness let us get Dame Margaret Bazley to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. It is a bit like national standards. That will fix everything will it not; after that it will all be all right. Once Dame Margaret has had a quick browse through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and has had due regard for it then we should be all right. There should not be any problems with water management in Canterbury! It is really frustrating that with legislation like this being abused though it is through being rammed through under urgency with no select committee process we still have an opportunity to put in the law what needs to be in the law and the Minister has missed the chance. 
In relation to the regard that is being required to be paid to the water management strategy the final point I make in this contribution is that I do not understand the different levels of regard that are required in this legislation. The commissioners are required to have “particular regard” to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy but with regard to statutory planning documents such as regional policy statements national policy statements and the regional plan—plans documents and policy statements that have been through a really rigorous public process—they have only to “have regard”. Why are there two tests? Why is there one test for “have regard” and another one to have “particular regard”? 
I am happy that the Minister is getting some advice. I can understand that when a bill is thrown together in such a shoddy way with very little consideration of any cross-Parliament support on such an important issue and then totally bypasses the select committee process and when the House goes through under urgency on the bill from I think 5.30 last evening until 10 resumes again at 9 this morning and then goes through until 1 p.m. with a brief adjournment from the debate for question time from 2 until 3.15 and here we are at 25 minutes to 4 still debating it the Minister would not even know that there are two thresholds for consideration. The first is for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which commissioners have to have “particular regard” to and the second is for the statutory planning documents which they just have to “have regard” to. 
This is a really shonky way of trying to improve a serious situation in Canterbury. People across the political divide agree that we have a problem with the amount of water that people need for their lives for their business and for their development and the amount of water that we have to give. There is a further debate about what if we even had more water that water should be used for—whether it is best to use it in the way possible. Nothing in this bill helps us to address those fundamental issues. 
It is a really good opportunity in respect of which the Minister must have slept in. The bill came knocking at his door one morning and said: “Here I am. Here is the legislative vehicle available for you to drive a way in to help sort out the water management issues in Canterbury.” The Minister just rolled over and went back to sleep and completely missed that vehicle. The only bus that he got on was the “Let us sack the Environment Canterbury councillors” bus. That is all he did. Although sacking a whole council might make the Minister feel better and might make him feel like he has a bit of power it is a disgraceful thing to do. It is disgraceful when the so-called independent report of a group chaired by Wyatt Creech—who we cannot say is about as independent from National as one can get—came back with the view that despite all the anecdotes despite all the stories and despite all the political scaremongering that had been generated by self-interested people in Canterbury and South Canterbury there was no basis for doing this. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We are dealing with this bill under urgency with no select committee process as we strip away the way for Cantabrians to have the vote. Subpart 3 deals with water conservation orders. Water conservation orders are a tremendously important part of the environmental regulation of New Zealand. To be fair most people probably are completely unaware of water conservation orders which is why the Government is quietly moving on them in this bill. Water conservation orders are national parks for our rivers; they set standards. For example the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River sets a minimum flow rate of 10 cubic metres per second of water that has to flow through it and if the rate falls below that then water takes have to drop out. So water conservation orders are a way for us to protect our rivers and they have a whole bunch of conditions attached to them. 
This bill fundamentally changes water conservation orders for Canterbury—both the process for dealing with water conservation orders particularly the Hurunui one and what could happen to the existing water conservation orders. So the first issue is the Hurunui River order. It is not correct to say that currently there is a water conservation order on the Hurunui River. In fact the process is under way. It was due to go to the Environment Court in May or June and that has been an issue of contention. This bill cuts that process off at the knees. After the applicants have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get this process through going through a special tribunal to the Environment Court and then to the Minister this bill intervenes in the middle of that process and sends it to the Government’s hand-picked commissioners to make the decision about whether the Hurunui water conservation order will be decided. Then it goes to the Minister for the Environment. So this bill cuts through the existing process. 
From my point of view and the point of view of those who care about rivers this is a totally unacceptable cutting off of the normal process for water conservation orders. That would be worrying enough in a bill that ostensibly is supposed to be about Environment Canterbury but at the back of this bill there is the process for cutting off the application for the Hurunui water conservation order—that is the attempt to put a national park on the Hurunui River. 
The Hurunui River for those who do not know is the last remaining wild river that runs from the mountains to the sea via a natural lake on the east coast of the South Island and is subject to an irrigation scheme. They want to put a 70-metre dam on the south branch and a weir on the north branch. This bill intervenes in the process of trying to protect the Hurunui through a water conservation order and the danger is that we will open it up to the irrigation project that has been so talked about. 
If it was just about the Hurunui it would be worrying enough but the other problem is that this bill now makes it possible for any irrigator in the country to apply to the Minister for the Environment to open up any of the existing water conservation orders without going through the normal process. Normally if we want to amend or revoke a water conservation order we have to go through a very elaborate process because they are like national parks. This bill suddenly opens up the existing Canterbury water conservation orders so that they can be contested by the irrigators. Graeme Sutton from Irrigation New Zealand is jubilant about this bill because he knows what it means for the existing water conservation orders. For example people may remember that the cubicle farm application on Killermont Station relied on taking water out of the Ahuriri River in order to irrigate the station. There is no way that project could have gone ahead under the current law but this bill allows those who were putting forward the cubicle farm application to go to the Minister for the Environment without any of the normal due process to get a variation on the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River so that they can get access to water to irrigate Killermont Station even though it would take the river below the minimum flow that is currently outlined in that water conservation order. This bill is setting up a situation whereby we can revoke and amend existing water conservation orders on the Ahuriri River the Rakaia River the Rangitata River and Te Waihora. All of them can be amended through basically a stroke of the pen of the Minister for the Environment. 
We thought we had national parks for our rivers. The environment movement has fought battle after battle and spent literally millions of dollars to get water conservation orders in place across New Zealand including in Canterbury and now because of the votes of National ACT and the Maori Party we will see water conservation orders upended at the whim of the Minister for the Environment at the stroke of a pen. Water conservation orders protecting some of our most important rivers in Canterbury can now be overturned. 
On the one hand we have the special situation tucked away in the schedules that relate to this part which deal with the Hurunui to give special consideration to the Hurunui so that the irrigation scheme can go ahead and Mr Carter can get access to water for his farm. Aside from the Hurunui situation we have a more general problem whereby all of the water conservation orders in Canterbury are now under the gun. The environment movement fought long and hard and worked with tangata whenua over many years in order to get in place water conservation orders to protect our wonderful rivers. 
I was on the Hurunui on Sunday. I met with Mark Solomon from Ngai Tahu. We spoke at great length about what a precious river that was and how important it was that there be a water conservation order to protect that river from irrigators yet here we have the Maori Party voting today for a bill that threatens the Hurunui River. It seems to me totally unacceptable that anybody who cares about the wild rivers of this country could vote for a bill that threatens the water conservation order on the Hurunui and opens up every existing water conservation order in the Canterbury region so that it can now be overturned at the stroke of a pen by the Minister. 
What kind of a national park do we have then? We have a national park that is a bit like—oh the schedule 4 national parks which can be mined. We have that kind of national park the national park that we thought was for good but in fact the water in these water conservation orders can now be mined for irrigation schemes because of the changes that the Government is forcing through all through the day and all through the night without a select committee process and under urgency. 
I will respond to some of the Minister’s comments and his attacks on me and the Green Party. The Minister has made various comments at which personally I take offence. He said that we are doing an ad hominem attack on Mr Creech. That is the allegation essentially. I dispute that. I say that the issue with Mr Creech is not Mr Creech himself. The issue is that he was the director of a dairy company that was doing a review of the regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury. That was the issue with the appointment of Mr Creech. It was not that Mr Creech was a bad person. It was that Mr Creech was at that time a director of a dairy company that had multiple convictions for pollution of water and who was at that stage doing a review of the regulator of the dairy industry. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a problem with setting up a structure whereby we appoint someone who should never have had that role. It is that review that has provided the basis for this bill. 
The extraordinary thing about the water conservation order provisions in Subpart 3 is that there is no way we can take the changes to water conservation orders out of the fact that Environment Canterbury may have been too slow on its resource consents or it may not have processed enough resource consents to suit some irrigators. We cannot blame water conservation orders for that. It is not the fault of water conservation orders which have been fought for in good faith by the environment movement and tangata whenua over many years. We cannot blame water conservation orders for that yet in Subpart 3 and hidden away in schedule 2 there is a whole series of changes to the way that water conservation orders currently work. These are the orders that protect our nationally significant rivers. 
It is also important to look at the way the test will be changed. There is quite a lack of clarity in the test of what will now be a water conservation order in the Canterbury region. This bill introduces a whole series of conflicting things that must be taken into account in any consideration of a water conservation order in the Canterbury region. It is unclear where all of this will end up. It is almost certainly the case that it no longer prioritises water bodies of national significance which was always meant to be the whole purpose of a water conservation order. It was to protect water bodies of national significance in perpetuity. The whole idea was that it was like a national park for rivers and that is what is being overturned in this bill. The test for getting something even into being considered for a water conservation order has now been muddied and made very unclear because there are now multiple and competing demands on any decision maker when it has to be decided whether a body of water qualifies for a water conservation order—what used to be called a water body of national significance. These changes are fundamental to the way we manage water in New Zealand and to water conservation orders and we will be opposing them. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take up where the member who has just resumed his seat left off and ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to take a call specifically on the Hurunui water conservation order. We have to think seriously about what this bill is doing in terms of a process that is well and truly under way. For the benefit of the Committee I point out that hearings are set down for the Hurunui water conservation orders to start on 31 May. They are set down to begin. A process is in train whereby people have begun and are now part of a process yet this bill walks in during the middle of that process and states that the process is all over and completely discarded as a result of this legislation. Government members need to stand up in the Chamber and acknowledge that that is what they are doing. A hearing is set down to begin on 31 May for 6 weeks to resolve once and for all issues to do with the Hurunui water conservation order and this bill will totally remove the ability of the Environment Court to hear that. It will weaken the legal test as Russel Norman has just said. The water conservation order will be re-notified. 
At the end of this it will be the commissioners who will have a massive job on their hands anyway as a result of what is being done in this legislation who will have to hear it and issue a decision. That decision will be able to be appealed only on a point of law so in fact in this bill we are completely changing the way in which this very important water conservation order is being dealt with. No one from the Government has been prepared yet to say that they are taking away the legal rights of a number of people and a number of groups who have been involved in a process for some considerable time on this water conservation order. Nobody from the Government seems prepared to stand up and say that that is what they are doing. They are taking away legal rights and the announcement has already been made today— 
Simon Bridges 
: That’s what you did on the foreshore and seabed. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right I say to Mr Bridges we have heard announcements today on the Foreshore and Seabed Act on which people have campaigned in the past on the issue of people’s rights to due legal process. What is happening about due legal process here? What is happening about the water conservation orders that are already being discussed for which a process is already in place? I would ask respectfully for the Minister in the chair to take a call to clear this up and ensure that we have an understanding here. But for the Hurunui water conservation order—that process—where hearings are already set down to begin on 31 May has that opportunity gone? Is that the situation we have? If it is we will be putting people who have been in this process in a very difficult position. 
I will also pick up the point that Russel Norman made about the question of what the test now is. The ability to impose the national park equivalent on rivers has gone. That seems to have gone for Canterbury but not for the rest of New Zealand. So now for Canterbury we have a different set of rules from the rest of New Zealand in terms of conservation orders. I do not think this bill will lead to any streamlining of the process around the water conservation orders. In fact I think it will make it more difficult because the role now falls to the commissioners who have an extremely busy process in front of them in terms of taking on the responsibilities of Environment Canterbury and now they have this particular water conservation order put in front of them. 
The process was meant to be completed by mid-July. The hearings would have been over and the court would have reported by mid-July. Now we have a bill in which the Environment Court has been totally taken out of the process and the commissioners will take over. First they will give the conservation applicants 30 days to amend their applications then the amended application will be followed by an additional public submission period even though there has already been a complete public submission period anyway. The commissioners will hold a hearing during which they will be required to take no account whatsoever of the special tribunal that the Minister for the Environment has already set up for the Hurunui water conservation order. Then the decision of the commissioners after they have heard this evidence can be appealed only on a point of law. 
So we are reducing the rights of a number of people who have already been heavily involved in this process who have already made submissions and who thought they were part of a process. This legislation is pulling that away. There are overall concerns about water conservation orders and what this will mean for them across the Canterbury region; but I would like a response specifically around the Hurunui case from the Minister for the Environment because there is a great deal of concern out there from a number of people involved in that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I will respond to some of the points that have been made by Opposition members so that people can be clear about the intent of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and so that we can be helped to have a constructive and robust debate. 
The first point is that Ruth Dyson made the argument that the Prime Minister today was incorrect in saying that we do not have a plan for water in Canterbury. She said: “Yes we do. We have the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.” That to me spoke volumes about why we have the mess about water management in Canterbury. If that is the understanding of the law about water of a senior Minister from the previous Government it is no wonder we have a problem. The reality is that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Smart alec. That’s not what I said and you know it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is actually Ruth Dyson who is being smart here. She probably does know that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy has absolutely no legal status as a plan. Under the Resource Management Act— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why isn’t it in the bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: When the Prime Minister says there is no plan for water management in Canterbury that is because the natural resources plan is still being heard 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act. That is why the provisions in Part 3 of this bill enable us to both fast track that plan and for the very first time give some legal status to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
A second question has been asked about water conservation orders. Again I am not sure that Opposition members understand the process as it is right now; I ask members to let me explain it. At the moment a person who wants a new water conservation order or a variation lodges an application with the Minister. The Minister appoints a special tribunal. There is all this rhetoric about my having my National Party mates on the tribunal—I can do that right now; I have absolute discretion about whom I appoint to the tribunal. The reason why I want water conservation orders to go to the commissioners is very simple and straightforward: if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury we need an integrated approach. Having one bunch of people over here making a decision about a water conservation order and a different bunch of people over there making a decision about the plan is to me a nonsense. There is one catchment and if there is anything I have learnt in my professional experience as an engineer with water it is that catchments have to be managed in an integrated way. So to have one group of people making decisions in the lower part of the river and saying “Here is what we are going to do.” and to have a different group of people making decisions in the upper part of the catchment makes absolutely no sense. I challenge members: I say that if they want an integrated approach to water management—and it is essential that that is managed competently—then it makes great sense for water conservation orders to be considered by the commission that is making the other decisions in respect of water in Canterbury. 
The next point I will make is that of course whether the decision goes to the commission or to the tribunal the decision on water conservation orders rests quite properly with a politician the Minister for the Environment. So in relation to all the stuff about a political agenda I remind members that the decisions on whether or not those orders proceed come back to me in both the current process and the amended process. 
The final point I will make is in respect of the Hurunui River application and I accept that what we are doing in this process does cut across its current legal aspect. But the real choice for the Government was whether if we had a particular view about water conservation orders in Canterbury and how they were to be integrated in the bigger picture it was better to allow all the money to be spent on lawyers before the Environment Court arguing a particular case when we already— 
Hon Member 
: It’s already happened. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No; it has gone to a tribunal. It has not gone to court yet. It has gone to the tribunal; it has not gone to court—righto? So does it make sense for the Government if it has a particular view about the orders to pre-empt the process because I as Minister finally get to make the decision or is it more honest and upfront to say both to the applicant and to those who have a say that the Government wants an integrated approach to water management in Canterbury? Is it not more honest to say through this bill that that Hurunui application will go to the commissioners in Canterbury—who will be making the decisions about the regional policy statement as well—so they can make a decision in an integrated way? Let us open up the process as we do in this bill to all those parties including the applicants and anybody who has made submissions to the tribunal in order for them to have a new opportunity to be able to present that view. I suggest to members on the Opposition benches that that is a more straightforward and open way to do it rather than to have me as Minister for the Environment sit back and allow all that money to be spent on lawyers and process and then come to a different decision at the end. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I will pick up on what the Minister has just said and will refer back to clause 34 of Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which I commented on earlier. I will pick up where I left off on that. I have a couple of comments I would like to make. Before I do I will clear away one thing so that we do not have to revisit it because I think it is rather unedifying for this House. There are various forms of ad hominem attacks and I took some exception to the Minister in the chair casting a slight—an aspersion—on the Green Party’s co-leader Russel Norman who asked a question in the House in good faith today. That question pertained to a conflict of interest and I would like the Minister and his colleagues to accept the fact that any Opposition member in this House does have the right to ask a question pertaining to conflict of interest which is a constitutional precept embedded in this democracy. 
To conclude on that point I find it somewhat gratuitous of the Minister to offer his view of what the Green Party’s previous co-leader might have to think about the standards of this party. Our co-leaders both previous and present aspire to the highest standards. I know them very well all three whom I do know: the two current co-leaders and Jeanette Fitzsimons. I do not think this party needs to take advice from this Minister about the standards that the Green Party is aspiring to attain. If he continues to do it then he would invite me and others but particularly me to rank this Minister in terms of integrity and dignity in the context of some of his predecessors some of whom I know very well indeed. 
On a more positive note I would like the Minister to address one thing that has not come out in the debate to date. That is the following: I presume that the Creech report and the Minister’s judgment about the Environment Canterbury regional council are not based in any way on a judgment pertaining to the individual capabilities competence or integrity of those councillors. It is to do with something else. I think it would clear the air a little bit if we could invite the Minister to make a statement to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen it made before. I know at least half of the councillors and I have a high regard for each of them as individuals. They have done good work and if they are to be disbanded for whatever reason—and we can debate the reasons here—then I think it is incumbent on the Minister and the rest of us to acknowledge the individual competence and good work they have each done. 
The Minister was wont just a moment ago to refer to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and he complained that the Labour members had misunderstood the point. As he put it the natural resources management strategy has been in place for the better part of 18 years and there is no water management plan coming out; therefore that is the principal reason the criterion for disbanding the council. I remind the Minister that the National Government back in 1991 introduced the Resource Management Act. Exactly 18 years later another National Government its successor amended the Act. Clearly the Act was not perfect at the very beginning. Does that require that we disband this Government? It is the same period of time. 
I spoke earlier about the deadlines that Environment Canterbury was meant to meet and failed to meet in producing the water management plan. That appears to be the principal reason that Environment Canterbury is being disbanded. I identified the fact that out of 15 regional and unitary councils six of them did not have complete water management plans established. Three have not done any one has made a statement and two others have simply introduced water management plans in part only. So where does that leave us in terms of time frame? One of the issues we have to look at is the various sizes of the irrigation responsibilities regional council by regional council. 
I can offer statistics for the Minister and he is free to correct them if he thinks they are different. These are the statistics we have gathered and they are the following. Of the irrigation undertaken in New Zealand 62 percent comes from Canterbury 17 percent comes from Otago and the rest account for 5 percent or less. So there is this huge differentiation. If we put Canterbury and Otago together it is 79 percent of irrigation which is huge. So it is important to regard those two regions more or less as separate and unique compared with the others. But as I say some of the others have not achieved the stated goal the criterion by which the Minister is disbanding Environment Canterbury. Let us look at them and have regard to what fate may lie in store for them. 
We find that Marlborough has 3 percent of irrigation. It has a plan in part only. We have Tasman which has 2 percent of irrigation. It has not yet introduced Part 5 of its plan. When run together those two councils represent 5 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation. I ask the Minister what we are to do with those. Let us put a deadline on those two regional councils to complete their work let us say by 30 June this year the failure of which would require that they be disbanded and we can introduce an unelected commission. We find Gisborne which has 0.4 percent of irrigation. Let us give it a deadline of 30 June. It has made a statement only. Let it translate that statement into a water management plan by 30 June failing which it will be disbanded. Auckland is responsible for 0.2 percent of the country’s irrigation. It is tiny. But we know what is happening to Auckland so let us give the super-city an extension. Let us give it to 1 April 2011 to introduce a water management plan failing which we will have to disband the super-city and return to the status quo ante. 
My favourite is the West Coast. The West Coast is responsible for 0.37 percent of the nation’s irrigation. Members may think that is trifling but I suggest that it is an onerous responsibility on the West Coast to draw up a water management plan. I think we should give it only 5 months—until 31 August 2010. Failure to have a complete integrated water management plan in place by 31 August requires that it be disbanded. It should not be beyond our competence collectively watching this Government in action to ensure that in addition to Canterbury the other five regional councils will go under the guillotine no later than 1 April 2011. Thank you. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I think there is a very important question to be asked: who is next? I know that a number of my colleagues have asked that question. The provisions in Part 3 are around the moratoria and water conservation orders and I want to touch on water conservation orders in my speech. 
Before I do that I want to refer to a written question that Dr Russel Norman asked of the Prime Minister on 9 February this year in which he asked: “In what regions of the South Island does he expect to see new water storage schemes built next year?”. The answer from the Prime Minister was: “Canterbury and potentially Otago.” I think that gives me the right to stand here today and ask who is next. Are the people of Otago about to have a local authority shake-up as well; and if so will they be consulted? 
Last year on 13 May I spoke in this House on an amendment to Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and I said to this House that I take democracy seriously. I said that what this Government was doing was not democratic and that many of the people of New Zealand who were watching and listening were thinking the same thing. They are thinking that as we speak today. In May last year I gave the Auckland super-city bill the title “Local Government (We’ll do whatever we like because we can and we’ll be doing it to the rest of the country) Bill”. 
Colin King 
: That’s a long title. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: It is a long title but I think it is a correct title and it seems that I was right about the Auckland bill and I am about this bill. I ask the Minister to reassure the people of Otago that they will not be next. I stand here as the member for Dunedin South representing 59442 constituents of whom I am very proud. I welcome the fact that in my electorate there is a strong and active local authority the Dunedin City Council with 14 elected councillors. The Otago Regional Council has 11 councillors and it is a strong council. Dunedin South is a long way from Auckland but we are not so far from Christchurch. 
I believe that my constituents are united on this issue in what they want and expect from their elected representatives. They want to be listened to consulted and to have a voice. The people of Canterbury do not have a voice in this process. The question is whether the abolition of more councils is on the agenda. Will there be a merger of councils with no consultation with the people of New Zealand to create super-councils that remove people’s rights to local representation? Is the Otago Regional Council for the chop? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: I am pleased to hear that that is on the record. 
I want to repeat what I said 10 months ago in this Chamber when I painted a picture in the minds of members and in the minds of all the good New Zealanders who were listening and watching Parliament with a sense of increasing horror. Those people are contacting me in my electorate office and in my office in Parliament about the trampling of the rights of all New Zealanders. That picture is of a bulldozer—a big bulldozer—because this Government is bulldozing the rights of Aucklanders and ultimately the rights of all New Zealanders. If the Minister has given the answer “No” to Otago will the Minister given the answer “No” to Wellington and to other regions around New Zealand? 
From time to time central government may be required to step in and remove recalcitrant councillors and I think that members on this side of the Chamber would agree with that but no one would expect that the people of Canterbury would not have the opportunity to re-elect their representatives at the earliest available opportunity. One would think that the local body elections that are scheduled in 6 months’ time would be a fair and reasonable time for the people of Canterbury to elect representatives. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for that very sensible call on your part. This is the first time as a consequence of being dragged away on other business that I have had a chance to reflect on this very ugly example of the denial of the democratic rights of our people in the Canterbury region. At the pith of resource management in New Zealand has been a marriage between participatory democracy and resource management and this bill especially Part 3 fits a broader story. The story is to strip step by step decisions made by democratically elected representatives delegated down to officers and move it more into a corporate style of resource management. 
I need look no further than clause 36 “Power to end moratorium” and no doubt a moratorium will be in place as the burgeoning number of farmer-based applications come to the fore. This is actually a day where the current Government is rewarding its power base—that is those members of that particular economic cluster otherwise known as the farming community who have continued to treat water as a free unlimited resource. Obviously once this moratorium comes off—and it will come off; I see that the Minister has the power to direct the commissioners to end the moratorium—the Minister will be under enormous pressure enormous incentive to open up that valuable source of wealth to the investors in that area. But that is judging the moratorium decision only in a very narrow way. It fits a broader picture—that is to move more decisions away from local and regional government and put them in the Environmental Protection Authority; to move more decisions away from the area of Tamaki-makau-rau and give them to shadowy non-accountable corporate directors. 
Underlying this change is not really a concern about the environment; underlying this change is a loss of confidence by the current Government in that system of governance—that is in relying on those members of the public who step up and undertake democratic obligations only to have the ground cut from beneath them. It might be said that they have been an abject failure and they have to go. In actual fact the failure here is the existence of unelected and non-accountable commissioners who will actually end up doing the bidding of central government. So the failure is that there is no more confidence on the part of these Ministers in that tenet of local government—democracy where people in a certain region are entitled to elect their members and make resource management decisions that reflect the preferences of the region. 
That idea is deeply embedded in our system of governance in New Zealand so it would be fantastic to hear from the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith as to why when and how that power will be used when he or she overrides the commissioners. The narrative as outlined by Gerry Brownlee by the Prime Minister and by Mr David Carter—I have nothing to add other than what the Greens have said about Mr Carter—informs us that water is to be unblocked and used exclusively for an economic purpose that is the provision of goods and services from the application of water. No sensible participant in this debate wants to see the economy shrivel but the fear is that the unmitigated arrival of new applications over time will see a further degradation of quality. 
We cannot rely on those advocates from the farming community who influence and drive the decision makers in this Government. They have demonstrated through the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord that the modest progress that has been made is actually undermined by a deeper attitude. That attitude has been seen today in Manawatu and in other parts of the country. It seems to me that the overarching sense of their entitlement in this area—to treat water as a free good but have no obligations to the rest of society—will be exposed. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new cross heading and clause: 
Canterbury Water Management Strategy zone committees 
45AZone committees to be elected 
(1)This section provides that the zone committees in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy must be elected by a poll of electors. 
(2)Elections for the zone committee positions must be held on the third Saturday in October 2010 as if the zone committees are community boards within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit Subpart 3. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit Subpart 3 has been ruled out of order because it is the same in substance as the earlier amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 46(4); and 
to omit clause 47(2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 50 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (3)(b) the following paragraphs: 
“(c)the ecological recreational scientific cultural or spiritual value of waters; or 
“(d)the value of waters as a fishery or as habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms; or 
“(e)characteristics which any water body has or contributes to and which are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Maori.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 52 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit clauses 64 to 68. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: New Part 4 proposed by the Hon Ruth Dyson is ruled out of order because the subject matter it contains relates to Part 2 and should have been proposed at the time the Committee was considering Part 2. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I shall talk about the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an oxymoron at the very least because it is not “temporary”; commissioners are being put in place for the next 3½ years. That is a very very long stretch of time. It is longer than the term of a Parliament. It is longer than the term of a local body in office. It is not temporary at all; the bill is totally misnamed in referring to temporary commissioners. 
The second thing relates to the improved water management. I ask how it will deliver that promise when it bases itself on and includes in schedule 1 the excellent visions and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That strategy was patiently negotiated in a roundtable consensus by good people in Canterbury giving every commitment to a sustainable management outcome. That in fact is the primary principle enshrined in that schedule. It talks about water being a public resource not one there for private gain without recourse to environmental outcomes. It enshrines as its first priority the environment. Only in second order does it come to uses such as irrigation and electricity. I note from that that schedule 2 refers to a cautious approach. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind the member that we are not debating the schedules; we have voted on those. We are on the title. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The title includes reference to the water management strategy. The document is embodied within the title. 
The point I want to particularly make is that this bill is entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioner and Improved Water Management) Bill. There is no legal body entitled Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury is actually the trading name of the Canterbury Regional Council. It is the name that the public knows it by but it is not the name of the organisation. In fact the name of the regional council is the Canterbury Regional Council. That is its legal status that is its legal name and I suggest that at the very least this bill has been shoddily drafted. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy to tell me how we can have a bill named after a trading name when in fact it is not the legal name of the entity involved. Environment Canterbury is not the entity involved; it is simply the name the public knows the Canterbury Regional Council by. It is not its legal name so how can we as this bill does do away with the functions of elected councillors of Environment Canterbury as it is named in the title of this bill when in fact the name of the entity is the Canterbury Regional Council? The Minister needs to address this issue urgently because— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am raising the question. I am no lawyer but I think this is a very relevant question for the Minister to urgently address. 
Paul Quinn 
: He’s allowed to rename it. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: He can rename it if he wants to. It will be another indication of the shoddy and rushed nature of this bill if the Minister is forced to do that at the 11th hour and 59th minute under urgency because he is not competent enough to see through a bill using the proper name and title. If that is the case it is a further black mark for this Minister. It is absolutely a further black mark because it is reprehensible legislation whatever its title is; it does away with the right of people in Canterbury to elect their regional councillors for the Canterbury Regional Council. 
The bill is now named as the Environment Canterbury bill. It is inappropriately named because that is the trading name of the organisation; it is not the legal name of the organisation. It is another example of the Government’s shoddy rapid-fire approach signalling its desire simply to get in place rapid new water management. It does not care what it does it does not care what democratic principle it steps over; it will do anything it can to deliver fast new water so that it can have quick runs on the board in the run-up to the next election. The architect of that strategy is entering the Chamber. There will be quick runs except when it comes to superannuation card changes then there is quick reverse—but that is another issue. This bill is inappropriately titled. Environment Canterbury is not the organisation that should be in the title of this bill; it is the Canterbury Regional Council. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Here we have it. The big king-hit from the Labour Opposition is that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill should actually be called the “Canterbury Regional Council (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill”. That is what the previous speaker Brendon Burns is arguing. I refer the member to the definition in clause 4 which has a very bold statement that will come as an enormous surprise to members of the Chamber. It states: “Environment Canterbury or ECan means the Canterbury Regional Council constituted by the Local Government (Canterbury Regional) Reorganisations Order 1989”. Is it not extraordinary that the one big objection that Labour has to this bill is its name? 
I simply say that we are a common-sense Government. What do people in Canterbury refer to this agency as? They refer to it as Environment Canterbury. 
Brendon Burns 
: They refer to you as a lot of things. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Burns that we have other legislation in respect of accident compensation. Do members know what Labour members called that? They called it the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act even though during Labour’s time in Government injury prevention and rehabilitation got worse. But we have a very common sense approach and we give bills names that our constituents know. Environment Canterbury is what this agency is known as and it is perfectly proper and absolutely sensible that this bill refers to the name that the vast majority of the people of Canterbury would recognise as what we are dealing with in this bill. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I appreciate the Minister for the Environment’s attempt to give an explanation of the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I know that this is not a massive issue but it should not be underrated because it has to do with normal drafting principles. Given that we have been strong on logic and illogicality today I do think there is a problem because the definition in the interpretation clause that the Minister has read out does not come into effect until the moment that the legislation is adopted. So we have a catch 22 in logic; we have a problem. We cannot disband Environment Canterbury until we have renamed it. We have to change the name first to Canterbury Regional Council—[ 
Interruption 
] Let us just clear this up then we can move on to more important things. In fact there have been more than a few king-hits on other issues today but let us just clear this one up. We actually need to pass two separate pieces of legislation. We have to have one piece in which the interpretation clause states that henceforth Canterbury Regional Council is to be called Environment Canterbury for the purposes of future legislation before we can adopt the legislation with that name in its title. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I apologise for my late call; I had not realised that the previous speaker Dr Kennedy Graham was going resume his seat so quickly. I want to make a preliminary comment on the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because when I referred earlier in the Committee stage to the regulatory impact statement—which is relevant to all aspects of this bill including the title clause and commencement provisions—I said that statement had not been tabled in the House. I apologise to members for saying that because of course it was tabled in the House as a result of a new procedure that has been in place only this year. I have discovered that although the Government made the very stupid decision to take regulatory impact statements out of bills it has decided that when a bill is being debated under urgency the regulatory impact statement will be tabled in the House. But the Government did not tell anyone about that; nobody was informed that this was a new process. So I apologise for saying the regulatory impact statement had not been tabled but I do not apologise for my reference to the utter stupidity of the Government’s saying it is interested in regulatory reform when a regulatory impact statement is now no longer published with the bill itself. 
It is absolutely vital that people acknowledge— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate is on the title. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The regulatory impact statement is entirely relevant to both the title and the commencement date which is— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Clause 1—the title. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: We are only up to clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Clause 1 only. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Clause 1 is the title. What I have a problem with—and this is mentioned in the regulatory impact statement—is that the title “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010” has a problem in it. It says “Temporary Commissioners”. That may be a misnomer or it may not be— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. I said we are on clause 1; we are actually on clauses 1 and 2. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That is what I had thought. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was referring to the commencement date as well as to the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will take that into account. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sorry. I was referring to the regulatory impact statement having an impact on both the title and the commencement of the bill which is what I said earlier on. I withdraw my apologies for getting that wrong but the point I want to make is that the title refers to “Temporary Commissioners” so there is the whole question of what this legislation is intended to lead to. The use of the words “Temporary Commissioners” makes it sound as though the only purpose of the legislation is to fill a temporary period of time between the sacking of Environment Canterbury as we know it today and the appointment of these commissioners on a temporary basis in order to improve water management. That is the way I read the title of the legislation. 
But when we read the regulatory impact analysis—and the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith still has not addressed this issue—we discover that in fact a bit of an experiment is going on in Canterbury. The analysis states: “However … because any national level decisions … have the potential to undermine the government’s New Start for Freshwater policy programme and the work of the Land and Water Forum it is considered preferable for any intervention to have a narrow Canterbury-specific focus”—which it does in the title of this bill; it refers to Environment Canterbury—“in the first instance.” The language “in the first instance” suggests that this measure is not temporary in the sense that we would normally take into account. This is temporary in the sense that it is the forerunner of something else that is to come and that is not a return to Environment Canterbury. I bet anything one likes that when we get all of the background documentation behind this set of decisions we will find out that there is more to this than meets the eye. 
Here is the big whammy as far as the regulator impact statement goes: this report states that “The results of any intervention”—that is here in Canterbury—“could provide useful information for decision-makers on the outcomes of the New Start for Freshwater policy programme and potentially an opportunity to trial alternative policy settings in a confined context.” We are being trialled here; we are trialling alternative policy settings. We have called this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill but we do not know what that will mean in the long term because it is quite clear that we are trialling alternative policy settings in the confined context of Canterbury. I ask what that will mean for the rest of the country. What will it mean for other regions? What will it mean in terms of all the other issues that were raised in the report of Wyatt Creech but that we have not had the opportunity to fully debate in this Chamber as we have gone through this part by part debate? 
I think these are extremely serious issues that the Minister ought to address even in the context at this late stage of the debate on the title and the commencement date of this legislation. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to add to the great speeches from this side of the Chamber and to isolate yet another egregious example of the errors that riddle the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I draw members’ attention to the misnamed proposed bill in front of us. It unwisely uses the word “Improved”. I wonder whether it is a spelling mistake or whether we ought to be dealing with improvidence. The notion that the bill will ameliorate minimise or reduce the negative externalities surrounding the wholesale slaughter of that valuable water resource by the friends of the National Government shows that the word “Improved” cannot stand— 
Paul Quinn 
: Shane I can’t understand you. One syllable words mate. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I know that self-improvement is needed by that member over there but for fear of inviting an unnecessary level of criticism by the Chair I will overlook his many failings in other places. 
I will come back to why the Minister is so insistent on selling a series of broken dreams to the people who will suffer the burden and pay the costs for this misnamed legislation. When we think of an improvement we are dwelling upon the way in which society can derive maximum benefit in terms of the water resource through this legislation with its ill-fitting name. It cannot stand that the bill ought to be seen as an example of improvement because there will be no improvement in the standards of local democracy. There will be no improvement in relation to the efficiency or the transparency of how a valuable resource will be used in that area so the word “Improved” cannot be applied to that part of the agenda. It will not remind the people from that part of the country how valuable the multi-faceted nature of the rivers— 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh what does that mean? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I cannot be held responsible for the absence of an education for the rowdiest member on the Government side of the Chamber; that lies with Anne Tolley. If she could apply her standards to Paul Quinn a few of us might start to take her a bit more seriously. 
However I come back to the name of this legislation. I warn the Minister and in the gentlest of terms I remind the backers of the current Government—who have driven Ministers to take this very dangerous step so that the backers can maximise the exploitation of water for their narrow self-centred purposes—that improvement relates to better stewardship of water. Management is too narrow a term; we are talking about stewardship. I will come to management shortly because there are outstanding issues on which the Committee is required to give due consideration. Unless the values associated with aesthetic ecological and cultural interests are considered and not just the narrow commercial bank-driven pressures that so many of our folk in the farming sector are facing in that part of the country the word “Improved” cannot be allowed to stand. Through this legislation it represents absolutely no positive impact in terms of those other types of interests and values which cannot be monetised. In that sense this legislation is grossly ill-named. 
Let me come to commencement. The Minister needs to acknowledge that the commencement of this legislation foul though the legislation is—we will hold the architects responsible next year; we will ensure that the voters who have been completely stripped of any opportunity to participate unless they are well-heeled supporters of the current Government will have participation opportunities—will not come to pass until the Minister uses his regulatory power. When the Minister starts to use that level of regulatory power there will be only the flimsiest of opportunities for full democratic oversight to be visited upon the Minister’s decisions. So it is not correct for us to allow this commencement section to stand as it is because there is no way of assuaging the deep anxieties there in Canterbury in Te Wai Pounamu as to when this ill-conceived and mean-spirited strike at the heart of our citizens’ rights in that part of the country will commence. There is no way whereby people can be informed through either the mass media or this House about when they will feel the fangs of the friends of the National Government sucking as much water as possible for their narrow dangerous and exclusive purposes. 
This commencement section needs to isolate the time when the Minister imagines himself or herself enacting the necessary regulations to bring these odious provisions into law. I ask when the provisions will be operationalised because the point at which they are operationalised is the time when there will be a call to step up to the plate and protect the resources of this area. We will not know when that regulatory power will be exercised. The families communities and all varieties of stakeholders in that part of the country will not be given as they are in this Chamber an opportunity through their proxies to debate the issue of commencement. It will happen in a very surreptitious and sneaky way in some concealed room near the offices of the current Minister so the commencement provision for these new rules to be imposed on the community is a very sad example of what should have been a transparent and candid display in this Committee. It might be said that that is a very trivial matter and it might be said that that is a minute part of the legislation but people need the certainty to know when they will see their water handed over to the very narrow ill-defined shadowy group of supporters of the current Government that has forced it to overthrow democracy. As a standard of parliamentary democracy it is important that this piece of information is inserted into the legislation; although the addition of the Royal assent in the legislative route is very important the most important thing is actually the time when the Minister through the Order in Council will enact the regulations. 
Although it does not bring any great honour to us as parliamentarians it falls upon us to point out yet another error in this legislation. That lies in the fact that once we focus on the legislation as being hopelessly misnamed we also focus on the fact that the point at which it will become operational is now hidden from the public. This is all about hiding things. This is all about concealing an allocation debate and concealing private property rights away from the democratic glare. Anyone using water ought to be required to face the full glare of a transparent resource management process. Given that improvement will not take place when water is at stake the management will be furtive. The process will be undertaken by clandestine forces that fear democracy. These new commissioners—we do not entirely know who they are other than knowing about Dame Margaret Bazley—will be asked to undertake something in this legislation that will not lead to broad environmental improvement. 
Adding the notion of environment and improvement together I say that we will not get the right result through this piece of legislation. This bill is designed to manage an improvement for a very narrow range of specific stakeholders. It concerns a very narrow range of interest not the common interest. For those reasons I tell members that both of these provisions should not stand. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wanted to take the opportunity for a further call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill due to Rodney Hide now being the Minister in the chair. As he is the other Minister responsible for this area of the legislation I felt it was important that I ask him to take the opportunity to respond to whether he now thinks it is a good idea to have the regulatory impact statement separate from the bill itself. This regulatory impact statement is totally relevant to both the title and the commencement date—both of these issues are touched on in the regulatory impact statement—and this is a very very clear example of why we need to have the regulatory impact statement included with the bill itself. 
On this particular occasion as I discovered subsequently regulatory impact statements are required to be tabled by the Bills Office essentially because we are in urgency and some MPs will not have time to go back to their offices and download them from the Treasury website before a bill is debated in the House. This is entirely unsatisfactory and would not have arisen as an issue if the Minister had not demanded to have the regulatory impact statements removed from the bills themselves. I have never heard the Minister explain why he took this decision to Cabinet. It is such a detrimental approach. I do not know whether the Minister has read the regulatory impact statement for this bill but the following statements “proposals to replace the elected Councillors for all of ECan’s functions” which is what the title of the bill is about and “suspend local body elections or remove the right of appeal on the NRRP or Water conservation orders except on points of law” really concerned me and I thought would have concerned him too. The departments themselves said: “These proposals appear to present a prima facie access to justice issue and some departments were concerned that this may not be consistent with the Government’s statement on regulation: ‘better regulation less regulation’ which requires a particularly strong case [to be] made for any regulatory proposals that are likely to override fundamental common law principles.” This bill overrides fundamental common law principles. The Minister is silent on that point and the title Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill does not indicate that many people had concerns that there was an overriding of fundamental common law principles. I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. The Minister whose name the bill is in is back in the Chamber and I thought it was a requirement that he sit in the chair when he is in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister can decide who sits in the chair at the time but I understand the Minister has come back to retrieve some papers. If he intends to stay then he needs to be sitting in the chair. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I wanted the Minister in the chair to respond to this question of the impact of the kind of decision making that has led to this bill being called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and of course its commencement date. The commencement date bothers me a lot. The bill states: “The Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But we heard from the Minister yesterday that this bill is expected to be done and dusted by 1 May. 
Do members know what the implementation date was in the regulatory impact statement? It was 1 April—April Fool’s Day. That was the original date on which the Government had planned to have this bill come into effect not 1 May. So we are an entire month out from the original plan. In fact this bill was supposed to have been passed on 15 March. What is the date today? It is 30 March. No it is actually 31 March everywhere else in New Zealand except here in Parliament because of the irony or— 
Colin King 
: Process. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The process of urgency somehow makes the parliamentary clock stop and it has stopped on 30 March. But according to the regulatory impact statement 15 March was the date on which the Government was supposed to progress this legislation through Parliament. This is what bothers me. The regulatory impact statement should be an integral part of the debate on this legislation; it is absolutely fundamental. None of the stuff that we have discovered by reading the regulatory impact statement was mentioned in either of the Ministers’ speeches or any of the Government members’ speeches on this bill. We have not had a proper debate on the elements of the bill that actually matter. 
The other point perhaps the Hon Rodney Hide might like to hear from the regulatory impact statement is this: “Options that rely on introducing legislation in a very short timeframe increase the risk of poor or misdirected intervention resulting in unintended consequences and the need for subsequent intervention to remedy these consequences.” That is exactly what is wrong with this process. It is not a robust process and there will be a price to pay. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am very happy to reply to the points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill particularly about the regulatory impact statement process. I am sorry I had thought I had explained that to the member but I will explain it for the Committee. I have huge respect for Lianne Dalziel and the regulatory impact work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce. Indeed the bill that I have later on under the urgency motion is virtually entirely her work which I am carrying on. 
Let me explain to members the separation of the regulatory impact statement process from the bill. This was not done lightly or for capricious reasons. It was because we have a harder hitting regulatory impact statement process as a result which is able to be commented on and actually gets what the departments think. The difficulty that I discovered when I became the Minister for Regulatory Reform was that because regulatory impact statements are attached to the bill they were seen by the department as belonging to the Minister. The view was that the regulatory impact statement was the Minister’s and the department would write a regulatory impact statement reflecting what the Minister wanted. I was very keen that we have a regulatory impact statement process that is a step removed away from the Minister so that Ministers have to get up and explain their reasoning for their bill and the regulatory impact statement is a technical analysis of the impacts of the bill. 
I wanted the departments to sign off on the regulatory impact statements. They were quite resistant to doing that and I discovered that it was because they felt a divided loyalty. On the one hand they were working for the Minister to promote what the Minister wanted then on the other hand I wanted them to write an independent report about what they thought of the bill. The matter was resolved with the chief executives and the policy advisers by separating the two out so that the regulatory impact statement would belong to the department and the bill itself would belong to the Minister. Then the departments could write an independent impact statement which the Ministers would have to get up to defend. I fully accept the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s point that the difficulty then is the availability to members of Parliament. I think we need to figure out a way around that. But I ask members to bear with me and consider the importance of having a harder hitting impact statement that Ministers have to get up to defend and an impact statement that clearly Ministers cannot direct on. So that was the logic of it; I hope it makes sense. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating the name of this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The Hon Shane Jones said that we are talking about water and about how valuable water is. He went on to say that the people of Canterbury will not be aware of just how valuable this resource is. I will suggest some alternative names for this bill that might reinforce to the people of Canterbury and indeed reinforce to the people of New Zealand just how valuable water is. We know that water is absolutely valuable for our agricultural industries. It is absolutely valuable for creating wealth for New Zealand. If we are to improve living conditions in New Zealand we need to take every opportunity to allow our industry to grow and develop. 
So let us look at alternative names for this bill. Rather than the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill let us call it the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Valuable Valuable Water Management) Bill.” Why not call it the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”? The reason I ask that is that water is a very integral part of electricity generation. We have water passing through the Waitaki River scheme through a number of dams generating renewable energy. 
From 1 July this year the emissions trading scheme comes into force. That will create windfall profits for Meridian Energy and a number of other generators. It will create windfall profits and the value of the water that flows through the Waitaki River scheme will be so much more. It will be very valuable. We saw evidence of that today when Meridian Energy announced that it was paying a $98.5 million dividend to the Government. That is right just this very day Meridian Energy announced a $98.5 million dividend substantially from the water that flows through the Waitaki River scheme. From 1 July both sides of this House are very happy for all New Zealanders to have to pay an extra 5 percent for their electricity. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am struggling to connect the relevance of the issues of the Waitaki and Meridian Energy’s power price rise or profit announcement to the short title of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am going to uphold the point of order. The member should return to the subject material: clauses 1 and 2. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I would be very happy to do that but I thought I was speaking on the subject of this bill because this bill is called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We heard earlier from Mr Shane Jones that it did not highlight to the people just how valuable this resource was. I was suggesting an alternative name for this bill: the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”. I say that simply because from 1 July companies such as Genesis will add a 5 percent increase to their power prices because they produce power from coal and gas. They will have to pay an emissions trading scheme tax. As a consequence of that Meridian Energy will also get the benefit of that extra 5 percent increase without paying the tax and it will have windfall profits. We saw evidence of that in the dividend announcement today. Those dividends will no doubt grow even greater as years go on. 
So I suggest that this bill should be renamed the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Quite often in debates in the Chamber when we are talking about a bill’s title a number of innovative members get to their feet and give well-considered or poorly-considered alternative names. I commend the previous speaker John Boscawen—although frankly I think he spoke entire nonsense. He said some alternative names very eloquently but I did not agree with a single word of his speech. 
John Boscawen 
: I learnt a lot from Labour. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is excellent and to be honest Labour learns a lot from Mr Boscawen. 
The title of a bill is meant to represent the purpose of the bill so that members of the public can read it and say: “Now I know what that is about.” I think they would have quite a lot of confusion if they read the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The first problem with it is the one that was identified briefly in the contribution of my colleague Brendon Burns the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central which is where the head office of Environment Canterbury is based. He alerted the Chamber to the fact that Environment Canterbury which is the name that is in the bill is actually the trading name of the organisation rather than the legal title. 
I will diverse momentarily from the strict debate on the title having been given that leadership from Mr Boscawen. The bill explains later on in Part 1 clause 4 “Interpretation” that “Environment Canterbury or ECan means the Canterbury Regional Council …”. However if we look strictly at the title we see that it looks quite sloppy. I think that of all Ministers Mr Hide is probably not very tolerant of sloppiness. I am sure not all Ministers are as lacking in tolerance of sloppiness as he may be. I think that had he been responsible for this legislation rather than the Hon Dr Nick Smith he would have preferred to say that we are talking about a legal entity. We are talking about taking away the elected representatives of the legal entity that is responsible for the statutory management of air natural resources water quality water management passenger transport and biodiversity in Canterbury. That is a huge range of statutory functions that the Canterbury Regional Council has so why do we not use its proper name in the title? 
It seems to be such a basic point that if we talk about gutting an organisation taking away the democratic right to vote of every single citizen of Canterbury and taking away our democratic right to vote for our regional councillors the least the Minister could have done was to give that organisation the respect of referring to it in the title of this legislation by its proper legal name. It is not Environment Canterbury; it is the Canterbury Regional Council. We all call it “ECan”. The Minister could just have sloppily referred to it as “ECan.” That is the first message that I would like to give to the Chamber. I think it is disrespectful I think it shows a sign of sloppiness in the preparation of the legislation and I think it shows a lack of attention to detail and rigour on the part of the Minister none of which are attributes that I think this Committee would want to commend. 
The second point that I want to make refers to the words that are in brackets. I want to refer to just the first two words to start with and those are “Temporary Commissioners”. It has been very clear during this debate that there is nothing temporary about the commissioners taking up the responsibility of an alternative to our elected representatives. My colleague Lianne Dalziel referred to the regulatory impact statement which gave a strong indication that this is just the first step. It is the first step towards the total abolition of Environment Canterbury and the total abolition of our regional council. The council will be replaced by either the maintenance of commissioners performing those statutory roles which would be a total disaster for us or—and for the Minister who is in the chair Rodney Hide this is his dream come true—the abolition of the regional council and the amalgamation of its functions into the city councils and district councils in the area. I think that it is quite misrepresentative of the actual facts behind this debate to use the term “Temporary Commissioners”. 
The legislation states that the commissioners will go until the job is finished. It is really hard to work out from the rest of the legislation what one would define as “the job”. They are temporary because there is a provision in the law that states that we should have elections by 2013 but there is nothing at all to stop the Minister coming into this House after those elections in the same way he did yesterday and saying: “I have had enough. I will get rid of all the elected councillors. I will appoint seven commissioners one of whom I will give the House the courtesy of naming.” We know the name of only one of the seven temporary commissioners of the controlling body of our new organisation. We know the name of only one of them yet this bill is about to pass into law. Then Nick Smith said that in 3½ years time he will be generous enough to let Cantabrians have a vote again. “Thanks for nothing.” I say to Minister Smith. We want our vote this year. We want the right to vote for our regional authority this year. Implying that the commissioners are temporary positions gives us no confidence because we do not have any faith or trust in the Minister that this is not the start of the demise of the regional council. We have no that the assurances that are alluded to in this legislation—that we will get a vote in 3 years’ time—will come true. Even if they do there is no justification at all for this law being put into place. 
My final point is in relation to the last part of the words in brackets in the title which is “Improved Water Management”. Dr Smith and I had an interchange earlier in this debate about whether we had a water management strategy. To make it technically correct we could go as far as to say that we have two because there is a plan that was notified in 2005 and the fact that it has not yet been endorsed under all the Resource Management Act procedures does not make any difference to the way that water is managed in Canterbury. If the Minister had bothered to get any advice from his officials on that particular point rather than trying to find an excuse for his ideological push on this issue then he would have known that. But we also have the particular strategy that is alluded to in the title and that is the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
I would be interested in hearing from the Minister at some stage of the debate about how this bill was designed because it has quite an unusual layout and structure. In a very unusual move schedule 1 of the two schedules in the bill is the vision and principle of the  
Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework 
 in its entirety. Page 31 through to page 35 is concerned with just the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The legislation outlines the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Minister said that it is so terrible that we do not have a water management strategy he has to sack all the democratically elected regional councillors and appoint seven commissioners. The Minister then went on to say they would be paid $2000 a day. I am really interested to know what Minister Hide thinks of the value of commissioners who are replacing elected regional councillors who will be paid $2000 a day and who will only perform the statutory functions of the Canterbury Regional Council. There will be no connection with the city and no connection with the community. The commissioners will do the minimum amount of work that is possible and they will receive $2000 a day compared with the $50000 a year that the elected councillors currently receive. 
The worst part of all this is not only that the Minister said he was sacking our councillors but also that he was appointing commissioners to do the job and putting in place a whole lot of avoidance of natural scrutiny and public input. He is doing it all under urgency with no select committee process no scrutiny at select committee and no right for the public to have their say. At the end the Minister said that on top of all this the ratepayers of Canterbury will pay the bill. We get to pay the $2000 a day consultancy fee for Dame Margaret Bazley et al when we did not even ask for them. We asked for our elected representatives to be maintained in those positions. We said there were many options for an extension of the work. We could have a commissioner coming in and working alongside them if that was the Minister’s desire. This is expensive undemocratic and wrong. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
2Commencement 
(1)Part 1 of this Act comes into force on 1 March 2011. 
(2)Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act come into force on a date appointed by the Minister of Local Government by Order in Council in accordance with section 6A(4). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a third time 
. I would like to begin by acknowledging the officials parliamentary counsel and particularly Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government who has worked with me on this difficult issue. I also want to acknowledge the councillors and staff of Environment Canterbury and acknowledge that this has been a difficult period for them. It is my view that sometimes in politics we need to make difficult decisions and on this occasion it is my view that these are the right decisions. 
This bill is about delivering a step change in the management of water in Canterbury. In the last 18 years since the Resource Management Act provided the framework for managing our resources we have reached a point in Canterbury where there still is no plan for in my view New Zealand’s most important strategic resource and that is fresh water. Environment Canterbury has been unable to deliver a robust and effective framework for the management of natural resources and in my view that is holding back the region of Canterbury and New Zealand both economically and environmentally. I also note that Environment Canterbury’s relationship with the 10 territorial councils is at such a low— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The mayors not the council. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell Lianne Dalziel that all 10 councils that I have personally visited have indicated support for the replacement of the regional council or Environment Canterbury with commissioners. There was also very broad consensus amongst the key stakeholders in Canterbury that action is needed. 
I acknowledge and I think my colleague Rodney Hide would acknowledge that when last October we sought a formal review of Environment Canterbury it was not our expectation that this would be the outcome. I expected that a lesser intervention might have been necessary but having received such a comprehensive report with very clear recommendations it would not— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not comprehensive; it’s outrageous. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that Wyatt Creech Doug Martin Greg Hill and Doug Low are very respected individuals who were used by the previous Labour Government as well as by this Government in the review. What that review concluded was that there was an unprecedented gap between the issues that Environment Canterbury faced particularly in respect of water management and its capacity to act in that regard. I also note its very clear conclusion that failure to act would lead only to continued malaise around water management in Canterbury. The Government’s intervention is warranted; our response is measured it is reasonable and it is appropriate for the circumstances. 
To turn round Environment Canterbury does require a response from the Government. As I have said this is not a step we wanted to take but this decision represents the best chance to move water management in Canterbury forward. This intervention is not only in the interests of Canterbury’s environment economy but quite frankly it is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. The appointment of commissioners is an interim measure. Commissioners will be in place for only as long as they are needed to do the job. The legislation makes plain that the period at the very longest will extend to the 2013 local body election. This provides sufficient time to place Environment Canterbury on a firmer footing. 
The bill provides an obligation on the commissioners to seek the advice of and consult the mayors of Canterbury. That is an appropriate link back to those persons who will be democratically elected across the region of Canterbury in the local body elections this October. The terms of reference will also bind the commissioners so that they are required to consult Ngai Tahu and other key stakeholders on the issue of water resource management in Canterbury. I also note that all of the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act about the inclusion of and consultation with the people of Canterbury have been carried over in these decisions. 
A challenge was set down by the Labour environment spokesperson Shane Jones to be clear about what the provisions are in this bill that will improve the management of water in Canterbury and I want to go through the three of those quite explicitly. Firstly this bill provides for a targeted moratorium to be able to be placed in Canterbury where frankly there is no more water. I challenge members opposite to say whether they support that view or are opposed. 
Brendon Burns 
: We support it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is clear that they support that measure. That is welcomed. It was asked of the previous Government by Environment Canterbury many years ago. I think we should at least accept that that is an improvement but Brendon Burns’ acknowledgment that that is a step forward is contradicted by his colleague Shane Jones who says there is nothing in this bill to improve water management in Canterbury. 
The second key provision in this bill is that we need to have a plan as quickly as possible for water management in Canterbury. That is why this bill enables the commissioners to fast track the completion of the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement for Canterbury. Again I say that that is a step forward; again I challenge both the Greens and Labour as to whether they support the measures in this bill to ensure that we have a plan in Canterbury for the management of water. 
The third key provisions in this bill that also improve water management are those in respect of integrating decisions on water conservation orders with those of the regional plan and having those decisions made by commissioners. Again I challenge members opposite to say how it makes sense for decisions around water conservation orders to be made by a separate group of people from those who are developing the regional plans. We are of a view that if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury it needs to be done in an integrated way and that is what this bill provides for. 
I have been disappointed in the debate on this bill that the major contribution from members opposite has been one of misinformation and personal denigration. For instance the latest is the claim made by Ruth Dyson that Margaret Bazley will be paid $2000 a day. I challenge the member: where has she got that information from? Why would she want to denigrate a person like Dame Margaret Bazley— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How is that a personal denigration? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Ruth Dyson to say where she got that information from. She just enjoys making things up. Let me give that member an assurance that the amount that Dame Margaret Bazley will be paid for her work will be exactly the same amount as was agreed by the previous Government to pay Dame Margaret Bazley for her work on the royal commission in respect of the work in Auckland. I would not find any member who reasonably objects to that approach. I note that Brendon Burns has had a track record on this issue of making all sorts of claims in the newspapers about things going to Cabinet on particular days and about particular members of the commission. He has been grandstanding all the time and not making any sort of constructive contribution. I can name six times when he has made claims about his sources who tell him things that have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. I am surprised that Mr Burns wants to continue in the name of grandstanding to compromise his own integrity with those false claims. 
It is hugely important for New Zealand that we improve water management and nowhere is that more important than in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House because I think that all members of this House know in their heart of hearts that the Government had no choice but to act. I think the comments from the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard were particularly revealing when he said that everyone knew the problems in Environment Canterbury. He had taken a proposal to Helen Clark and she had said that for political reasons they did not act. This Government will rise above politics. This Government is determined to deliver improved water management for New Zealand. That is what this bill delivers and I commend it to this Parliament. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 What a conclusion to a shameful day for this Parliament. That Minister who has talked about people’s integrity being questioned used his last speech on the bill to question the integrity of other people including myself. This bill is an absolute travesty from beginning to end. It is based on a specious review which interviewed fewer than 20 stakeholders in 1 short month with a conflicted chairperson of Environment Canterbury’s performance which had improved immeasurably in the time between the review’s taking place and the end of the time frame it was looking at. 
I thought the Minister was on record as saying he wanted better water quality in New Zealand. This bill does absolutely nothing to deliver on the promise that he made repeatedly when in Opposition and in the early stages in Government. Earlier today I asked a question of the Prime Minister on the issue of what he wants to see and what he is on record as seeing. I have now tabled that reference. I quote from written question No. 291 from Dr Russel Norman in which the Prime Minister stated that when earlier this year he spoke of looking forward to seeing water schemes built in the South Island this year he was referring to the Rangitata South scheme as well as to some of the specific water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
So there we have it. There is the agenda of this Government on paper. The Government wants to see new projects next year. That is what this bill is about: enabling those projects to happen rapidly and in a context where there are no new environmental frameworks or safeguards being put in place by this Government. During the course of question time too my question was rejected on the basis that it could not be authenticated by reference to Dr Smith’s comments in today’s  
Timaru Herald 
. Let me quote the  
Timaru Herald 
 of today: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections. ‘ECan put forward a negotiated solution but one of the downsides is that there was no guarantee the commissioner-adviser would have the same powers come October’ ”. 
What he is saying is that he did not want to trust the voters of Canterbury to have their say about who should decide on the functions of their regional council on the allocation of water in their region. He wanted to have control of that via commissioners. That is what this bill is about. It is the replacement of a democratic council function by executive fiat—the Fiji solution as it has been referred to in the House. There is no requirement across this bill for consultation with the public of Canterbury. What we have is the requirement for commissioners to issue public notices from time to time. Where will we see these commissioners replacing the functions of elected councillors? Where will they go out and meet with people who have issues about their rates the need to replace their fireplaces and the need to improve the city’s bus service scheduling or timetables? 
I ask the Minister where those commissioners will be. They will be cloistered in Kilmore Street in the headquarters of Environment Canterbury. They will be paid I wager the thick end of $1000 or more a day. A commissioner will be getting five times what an elected councillor would be getting. Will we get five times the value? Will they go out to talk to their constituents or will they sit there and implement the Government’s agenda? What they will do is become isolated in that castle in Kilmore Street and “ECan” will become “ECan’t” in terms of any connection with voters. That is what they will do. There will be nobody there to look after the interests of Canterbury voters. There is nothing in the bill on the question of commissioners having to meet the public hold public meetings or establish consultation groups so that they can get some window of view on what the people in Canterbury want from them. We are talking about these people being in place for up to 3½ years without any reference to the community they are supposedly serving at five times the pay rate of the people whom they have replaced. That is what this bill is about. There is no consultation mechanism whatsoever. 
It is disgraceful for a Government to put in place an enduring replacement for 3½ years whereby people will sit in splendid isolation in an ivory tower and have no contact with the voters or reference to them. There will be no requirement to consult to gauge or to go and see them. All the power rests with the Minister for the Environment and he says “Trust me. You can be assured that I’ll look after the interests of Canterbury.” Well I do not trust him and I do not believe he has the power anyway. This is another victory for Rodney Hide. This is doing to Canterbury what he has done to the super-city in Auckland. It is a two-fingered salute to the people of Canterbury as he has done to the people of Auckland. Talk about democratic process. At least in Auckland there was a select committee hearing. We have not had even a flicker of democratic process here. This bill has been rammed through under urgency without any consultation whatsoever other than the 20 groups talked to by the review group and the Ministers trotting round and having a brief conversation with some of the councils. That is what it has come down to: Rodney Hide has won the day. I suppose we can congratulate him on that but it is at the expense of the voters of Canterbury. We have to ask who will be next. Will it be Wellington Waikato or the Bay of Plenty? There will be an agenda that follows on from this. Mark my words! 
I want to comment on the Maori Party which after opposing the bill’s introduction has supported it on the specious belief I believe that it will improve the representation of Maori in whatever replaces Environment Canterbury. On the experience of Auckland that is a fond fond hope. Members of the Maori Party held out for Maori representation on the Auckland super-city and it was not delivered. Rodney Hide made it an issue basically that he was going to win or walk and so much for mana enhancement for the Maori Party. Its nose was dusted on that one and I suspect we will see the same outcomes in Canterbury. There will I think be a Maori commissioner appointed. That is implicit in the bill I suppose. I suspect that we will see somebody from the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I think we will probably see Alec Neill appointed. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What? Not Alec. It can’t be Alec. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Oh yeah they will give him a job I would have thought. But that still does not address the issues because the power will still rest with the Minister. There will still be conflict in the fact that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy embodies a whole range of principles that will not be upheld by this bill. I noted the chairperson of the Water Rights Trust said last night that there would be war if the Canterbury Water Management Strategy was not implemented and held to. Well we will see. There have certainly been plenty of protests around Christchurch already today. There were 300 people at a rally on Monday before last on this issue at short notice. People in Canterbury are very one-eyed. They are feisty and they believe in their institutions and they hold to them dearly. This Government takes that on at its peril. 
The Canterbury Water Management Strategy states that it will uphold principles concerning the environment. This bill is going in absolutely the opposite direction. I note the Minister’s crocodile tears for the staff and councillors at Environment Canterbury. He brings in a bill to dismember them and then says oh he is sorry and he really feels for them. Talk about shallow! As for his references to a step change—we keep hearing that phrase “step change”—I ask where the step change is in terms of the delivery of the improvements we want to see in environmental outcomes in Canterbury. Nothing is happening to do that. There is nothing in this bill and nothing signalled. The Minister has put a lot of faith and hope in the Land and Water Forum which will report at the end of July and it was based on the same sorts of principles that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy tried to uphold and patiently negotiated. Those principles are being put at extraordinary risk by this bill and we will see the outcomes of that in short order. 
As for the idea that water management has been holding back Canterbury members have to acknowledge that Canterbury has been leading the charge in terms of economic growth across the country for quite some considerable time. It has produced nearly half the national growth in the dairy industry over the last 10 years. So we are not being held back. We are at risk of seeing opportunities thwarted because the costs of water management will be stitched back to the people of Canterbury. They have lost their vote. Shame on this Government I say. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so because since well before being elected to Parliament I have been well aware of a high degree of frustration amongst the regional authority’s ratepayers who form part of my constituency. Despite significant changes in my electorate boundaries at the last election the level of disenchantment has remained and perhaps has even increased. 
All levels of Government bear the brunt of the disaffection of those who feel their level of taxation might not be matched by services or outcomes. It happens to central government politicians as well as to those at the territorial local authority level. In my time as an MP I have worked with one regional council and five district councils. I have received complaints about ineptitude whether perceived or real about all of those entities but the complaints about Environment Canterbury have been remarkable in the extreme. Most of the time regional ratepayers have felt a sense of disquiet in that they also feel vulnerable in complaining. There is no doubt that when someone has already battled for some 5 years to get a water consent for a small dry-land holding—5 long years—the last thing he or she wants to do is to annoy the powers that be when maybe just maybe there might be some progress tomorrow. I have heard stories about environmental enhancement being slowed up then costing far more than was advised—that is environmental enhancement I am talking about. I have heard stories about economic enhancement through the obtaining of a water consent having the same problems. In the dozens of examples that I have been approached about there has been a consistency of message in terms of distrust of Environment Canterbury’s procedures. Time and time again I have heard of council officers changing and the new case manager wanting to start again and wanting more information. Time and time again I have heard about the rules changing mid-process. 
In all of the time I have spent over the years discussing issues that relate to Environment Canterbury it has been comprehensively proven to me that there is validity in the view that the institutional failure of Environment Canterbury requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being and that failure to intervene would lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury. How the regional council has managed our water has been critical for our economic success or lack of it and for our environmental well-being or lack of it. All stakeholders agree on the importance of sound management of that resource yet we do not have after all those years a proper water plan we have growing problems of water quality and we are not making progress on the opportunities for water storage and economic progress. 
The principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy begin with environmental protection so there will not be a takeover by dairying or irrigation interests and in order to underline that I will read members the vision of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: “To enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social economic recreational and cultural benefits from our water resources within an environmentally sustainable framework.” That is in schedule 1 of the bill. There have been some 10 years of work on exactly that there is huge buy-in and the people who feel passionately about that water strategy say it is not going anywhere under the current Environment Canterbury and therefore something should be done. This Government has done something. 
So too the rhetoric of coup d’état and the abolition of democracy from the Opposition parties would suggest to me that they have been watching far too much drama on TV. Democracy has been merely interrupted to be resumed as soon as practicable and certainly by 2013 and the interruption absolutely is because Environment Canterbury has demonstrated that it has no ability to manage the precious resource that is gold culturally gold to our environment gold to our recreationalists and gold to our economic future. That resource is water. 
I finish by wishing commissioner Dame Margaret Bazley all the very best because her work is of vital importance to my constituents and to New Zealand as well. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have to say that the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill represents a very very sorry day for democracy in New Zealand. A very strong view has been expressed in Christchurch that this has been a set up from start to finish. I suggested a sequence of events during the Committee stage of this bill that started with the Ministers getting a National MP to ask her local mayor to approach the mayoral forum in order to write a letter of complaint. This was not denied by the member concerned nor was it denied by the Minister. That has added fuel to the belief that this is exactly how this matter has been brought to a head. 
Let us look at the process. A letter was written to Ministers by the mayors on 18 September 2009 despite the Canterbury triennial agreement which includes an undertaking by signatories with regard to the early notification of policy and proposals opportunities for involvement a no-surprises policy and joint and collaborative engagement with communities. Who would sign up to a Canterbury triennial agreement and then send a letter like that? Every single one of the councils in the region has committed to that triennial agreement—it is a requirement under the law—but that letter totally compromised the basis of that agreement. 
What is worse is that the mayors behaved as if they were the local authorities because not a single one of those mayors went to their local authority to get the authority to sign off on that letter. Not one single mayor within Environment Canterbury’s jurisdiction went to his or her councillors and asked them what they thought about the behaviour of Environment Canterbury because he or she was about to sign a letter with other mayors to the Ministers—which was completely in breach of the obligations under the triennial agreement—in which he or she would demand that the Government take action against Environment Canterbury. Not one single councillor was engaged in that conversation at the council level which is the governance level for councils. 
The mayoral forum has operated completely independently of its statutory obligations to get council backing for this kind of breach of the triennial agreement. Not one mayor has subsequently consulted with his or her council. They have taken the opportunity to put the boot into Environment Canterbury without bothering to even reflect on what they have agreed to. What on earth makes any one of those mayors think that this Government would not step in to undermine the democratic processes without wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward. 
I say to members that they should look at what has happened in Auckland because that could be coming to a region near them. The people of Canterbury should be thinking about that because this Government may well be thinking about imposing a super-Canterbury structure over the top of the structure that we have at the moment. I know from some elements of this report that individuals within Christchurch City will certainly want to see that happen as long as they are the ones left running the show. 
This is essentially what happened in Rodney. In Rodney there was wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward. I want to put on record the true sequence of events rather than the hysterical nonsense that we have had from the Minister. The Rodney District Council approached the Minister of Local Government to ask for a review of the council under section 692M of the Local Government Act. Who was in Government when the Rodney District Council approached the Government? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Labour. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No it was National. National was in Government when the council originally made the approach. A National Minister set up that review. During the course of the review there was a change in Government. That was when the new Minister of Local Government the Hon Sandra Lee was asked to extend the period within which the reviewers could report to the Government. She said that was fair enough as they wanted to do a good job. They called for public submissions by having public notices go out in the media and they held a 6-day hearing before reporting to the Minister. It was an extremely open process; not so in this case. 
When Sandra Lee appointed a commission to act in the place of the Rodney District Council on 11 April 2000 she did so with a great sense of reluctance but she felt that she had no choice because in the wake of the review’s findings the mayor and five councillors had resigned leaving three wards completely unrepresented. She could not ignore that. She ensured that fresh elections were held in March 2001 instead of October 2001 which would have been the normal run of events. There could not be a greater difference in process between what has happened today and what occurred in the early part of the decade. 
In the Rodney case the local National Party member welcomed the intervention. In this case Labour MPs have been completely left in the dark although it is obvious that National MPs have been consulted in this regard. So there has been no transparency at all with regard to this process. 
This report was commissioned in November 2009 and was released publicly in February 2010. It ran for about a month—or maybe 6 weeks at the most if we include the Christmas period—and no public input was invited. The report contains a list of stakeholders and we have heard people refer to who was consulted: “Forest and Bird Fish and Game White Water New Zealand Christchurch City Council Anderson Lloyd Brent Cowie Simpson Grierson Pattle Delamore Partners Central Plains Water Ashburton—Valletta Groundwater Applicants Canterbury Chamber of Commerce”—I think members will find that it is the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce—“Federated Farmers Malvern Hills Protection Society Irrigation New Zealand Meridian Energy Ltd Robert Johnston Selwyn District Council Red Bus Company Staff representatives of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu A joint meeting of all territorial authority mayors and chief executives (except Waitaki District) or their designated representatives.” That is who was consulted. It does not sound like a comprehensive list of stakeholders. In fact I would describe some of them as having a vested interest. 
Vested interest is something that was debated throughout the Committee stage of this bill. No one despite the Minister for the Environment’s nasty little asides from time to time has challenged the competence or the integrity of any of the individuals or organisations involved in the review. We have talked about conflict of interest and there is a difference because conflict of interest is either real or perceived. It does not actually matter whether it is real or perceived conflict of interest must be avoided at all costs when we are talking about protecting the resources of our environment. If the Government had wanted the process to look disinterested in that regard it would have appointed someone outside the dairy industry to chair the review. That is not a reflection on Wyatt Creech it is just a reflection on the Government’s incapacity to work out who should appropriately do that job. 
Let us talk about the other elements of process here. The review is riddled with anecdote. After stating that it had no evidence to back up certain claims made by interest groups the review panel still used these as evidence against the council. 
There is not enough time to highlight every aspect of it but I will return to one point that I made during the Committee stage which is on page 65 of the Creech report: “Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and ‘master of its own (expanded) destiny’ continues to detract from the relationship.” Christchurch City Council does not have on record any resolution supporting turning itself into a unitary authority. That is the mayor’s view about what it should be in the future and it may have been the view of a previous mayor but it has never ever been the decision of the Christchurch City Council. 
I for one am completely and utterly opposed to one of the polluters being the same authority that has to determine resource consents. The city council would be continuing to discharge into the estuary on the boundary of my electorate and the Hon Ruth Dyson’s electorate if the city council had been responsible for its own supervision in that regard. We need to have regulation of our environmental protection and that is what the primary role of Environment Canterbury has to be. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the third and final reading of the “Environment Canterbury (Democracy Abolition) Bill” which removes water conservation orders from Canterbury. The bill is all about what the Prime Minister told us in the statement he tabled at the beginning of this parliamentary year. He said to us: “The Government will also take action this year to remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury.” The Government has decided that the elected regional councillors in Canterbury are part of the regulatory roadblocks and it has decided to remove them which is what the bill does. 
The Government has also decided that water conservation orders—the national parks for rivers and lakes—are also a regulatory roadblock to more irrigation and water storage in Canterbury so it will remove those as well. That very significant part of the bill has had some attention but probably should have even more because Subpart 3 of Part 3 which basically guts water conservation orders is a very significant change to the way in which we regulate the environment in our country. 
The bill at its foundation is all about the fact that water is a finite resource. Water has become incredibly valuable all over the world because it is a finite resource and humankind keeps expanding its consumption of finite resources. Canterbury has access to quite a lot of this finite resource and it has become an incredibly valuable resource. I would say “commodity” but of course the irrigation and dairy companies get it for free so to call it a commodity is perhaps stretching things a little bit. Having access to free fantastic water has been an enormous economic boon to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies and that is what is really driving the bill. The bill is being set up in order to allow more access as if there has not been enough to more of the water resources of Canterbury so that more rivers can be dammed like the Hurunui River which is at the top of the list at the moment but there will be others; so that more rivers can be drained of their water—part of the reason why the Ashley River is in such terrible shape and why it keeps killing dogs every year is that so much water is drained from it for irrigation—and so that more water can be polluted. Anyone who has tried to go on Lake Ellesmere Te Waihora recently would have come across the high level of pollution of that lake; the same applies to many other rivers and lakes right across Canterbury. 
Canterbury has been the victim of malign neglect for so long but it looked like the regional council was going to get on top of it. It looked like there was potential for the regional council to finally take some action. However the regional council upset some very powerful vested interests. It upset some very powerful vested interests with some very close connections to the National Party and for that reason it is now paying the price. 
The Prime Minister said that he was going to take action to remove these regulatory roadblocks; the next step was of course to get the Creech report. The problem with the Creech report is twofold. First the person who headed the review had a clear conflict of interest being the director of a dirty dairy company but more than that the review had some fundamental flaws. It was a very short review; only a handful of stakeholders were interviewed. It was anti-science; the report said that the regional council should be punished for being too science-led. It was very anti-environment. It said that the regional council was not sufficiently pro economic growth. The reviewers had no idea I guess because they had not looked at the Resource Management Act that in fact that was part of the job of Environment Canterbury and that was what the “E” in ECan—or Environment Canterbury—stood for. If the reviewers did not know what the “E” stood for then maybe they were not the right people to review the regional council. Maybe they wanted to call it “Exploitation Canterbury”. Maybe that is what they thought the “E” stood for—that its purpose was to exploit the water resources of Canterbury. So the report was very critical of Environment Canterbury because it spent too much time protecting the environment and not enough time exploiting it. 
The bill removes democratic rights from the people of Canterbury—about 400000 people—for about 3½ years or possibly more. I thought Jo Goodhew hit it on the head. She said democracy has been interrupted and will be resumed as soon as practicable. Is that what democracy is? Is that the kind of value National puts on democracy? Does it think democracy is the kind of thing we can interrupt for awhile and when the powers that be who are smarter than all of us obviously—Jo Goodhew knows better than the rest of us—decide that it is possible and practicable then the people of Canterbury can have democracy again? The people of Canterbury are children; that is what National thinks and it has had to interrupt their democracy and it will resume it as soon as practicable. That is what Jo Goodhew said. 
Jo Goodhew also inadvertently hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem is that it takes ages to get a water consent. No kidding! There are red zones in Canterbury where water is over-allocated and Environment Canterbury has tried to restrict the taking of more water in the red zone and boy it has made the irrigators mad. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: This is the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which National and ACT are introducing to abolish democracy in Canterbury. It is also the third reading of the bill that National and ACT are supporting to undermine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. I think it is important to realise what that means. We can think for example of the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River. The application for cubicle farms on Killermont Station has been much discussed. The farms are reliant on accessing water from the Ahuriri River. It would have been very difficult for those farms to proceed with the water conservation order in place because of the minimum flow regime that it imposed. The passage of this bill tonight which National and ACT will vote for will mean that the Minister for the Environment can vary the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River without going through the proper process so that the developers—in this case Williamson Holdings—can have access to the water in the Ahuriri River so that they can destroy Killermont Station. 
As people may well be aware the Mackenzie has been destroyed recently by massive dairy conversions. There has been the loss of tussock country and a massive increase in pollution of the Ahuriri arm of the Waitaki River and of the whole Waitaki River system. Part of that problem will be made worse by the fact that the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River will now be in danger as a result of National and ACT pushing this bill through the House in the middle of the night. 
It is important to realise as well that there is a great paradox here. The House is passing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury and at the same time it is doing it in such a way that there is no democratic input. It is quite extraordinary. There was no select committee process. The public have had no right to submit. Members of Parliament had not even seen the bill until yesterday afternoon and then after we got the bill and a very short briefing from the Minister for the Environment we were given a very short amount of time to look over the bill and try to figure out what it is on about. The other thing about the bill is that when we look at the regulatory impact statement we see that the Ministry for the Environment states that it “has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” Well I am not surprised. Who could fully quantify the risks and costs of a proposal that is being forced through at such short notice? 
The other issue that has arisen with regard to this bill is the conflicts of interest. The Minister of Agriculture David Carter saw fit to put out a release in response to some of the claims that have been made in which he confirmed all the key facts. He confirmed that he has a farm on the Hurunui. He confirmed that currently very little of it is irrigated—so much of it is open for irrigation—but he said that at this stage he has no intention to irrigate. Well I am afraid that having no intention is not good enough because he still has the potential to irrigate which is the whole point. That is why there could be a potential conflict of interest and it should be declared. The other thing he confirmed is that he approached those who were applying to the Environment Court for a water conservation order in order to get them to stop doing it. This very interestingly is exactly what he denied doing in an answer to a written question. When I asked him in a written question to this House whether he had approached the applicants for the water conservation order he said no. I think it is very clear that the conflict of interest claims that have been raised with regard to the bill have been vindicated by the facts that Mr Carter has put on the table for our convenience and I am sure we will go into that further. 
This bill is a bill to get rid of democracy. It is a bill to get rid of water conservation orders. It will disenfranchise 400000 to 500000 people for the next 3 years. It is an unacceptable bill to the Green Party. We will not be supporting it. It is shameful that National and ACT are ramming it through under urgency without proper democratic consultation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is pleasing to rise to an ovation from the Labour Party. It seems to me that three issues have been discussed over and over again in the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and we have just heard about them. We have heard about democracy we have heard about water and we have heard about regulatory impact statements and reports on bills. As Dr Norman reminded us this is a third reading debate a debate in which to go back and reflect on the whole of the issues that have been raised over the last 24 hours with regard to this bill. Time and time again we have heard from members on the other side of the House that this bill is about democracy: the suspension of democracy and the outlawing of democracy. 
When the House resumed at 7 p.m. this evening Dr Russel Norman talked about ACT and National introducing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury. That is what he said ACT and National were doing: they were abolishing democracy in Canterbury. As the member sat down he said this is a bill to get rid of democracy and to strip 400000 to 500000 people of their rights. Well Dr Norman and his colleagues are the last people who should be speaking about democracy in this House. 
Phil Twyford 
: You’re the only one. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No I am not the only one but Mr Twyford’s party certainly cannot speak about democracy. However I suspect that Mr Twyford could speak about democracy because he was not part of the sordid sorry parliamentary Labour Party that governed this country from 2005 to 2008. That Labour Government saw the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill. 
If members are to criticise the ACT Party and National with regard to this bill on the issue of democracy then I think we need to go back and reflect on the record of the previous Labour Government over the preceding 3 years. That Labour Government introduced a bill that told all New Zealanders that if they wanted to spend so much as a single dollar—a single dollar—on speaking out either in support or against the Government then they must as a minimum sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace stating for instance: “I Phil Twyford promise not to spend more than $5000.” 
Phil Twyford 
: So how do you feel about this bill John? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I say to Mr Twyford that if one could not sign that piece of paper one was required to register as a third party. 
The Labour Government and the Green Party which was in cahoots with Labour told the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to speak out or to criticise their Government and wanted to spend more than a single dollar on doing so at the very minimum they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace. They said to New Zealanders that if they did not like that they should rise up and protest. That Government said if people did not like that they could make a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee to tell the Government what they thought because that was its plan. I cannot think of a more despicable action for any political party to bring into this Parliament. 
We heard from Lianne Dalziel this afternoon. She got up and said she had been in Parliament for some 20 years and had never seen anything as dramatic as a bill such as this one. Well I cannot think of anything worse than saying to New Zealanders that if they wanted to rise up and speak out against the Government and if they wanted to put as little as a single piece of paper through a xerox machine in order to make that statement they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace. 
I will move on to the issue of water. Water is very valuable and we know how important it is to conserve water. But this country of ours has much potential. It has much potential and we wonder why we are not as wealthy as our neighbours across the Tasman in Australia are. The reason is that we have not governed this country properly. We have not realised its potential. We have not put in place the policies to create the prosperity that this country can create. This Environment Canterbury bill goes part of the way towards that because we have a rural economy. We depend for our exports our livelihoods to a large part on the farming sector. The Prime Minister the Hon John Key said recently that Australia might have its minerals but that once they have been dug up they are gone. What we have is water. Water comes from the skies and long after Australia has dug up the last of its mineral wealth the rain will continue to fall on New Zealand. 
We can do a lot to harness the power and the value that is in that water. Currently we harness only some 1.5 percent of the rainwater that falls on New Zealand. Can members imagine the prosperity that would come to this country if we could just double that—just double that from 1.5 percent to 3 percent? If we could catch and utilise just 3 percent of the water that falls on this country we could put that water to great use. We could put it to use in agriculture. We heard the allegations this afternoon from the Green Party about the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer. Well I say farmers work very hard and they are the backbone of this economy. But we can do something else with water: we can generate electricity with it. 
The water in the Canterbury basin and the Canterbury region will become a lot more valuable on 1 July. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It makes you wet. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I find it fascinating to stand and speak while being shouted at and abused. I will go silent so that I can hear what Mr Jones has to say. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I described you as being wet—a drip. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is more than a drip I tell Mr Jones; it is a flow and the water that flows down the Waitaki River generates wealth. It generates wealth for our farmers. It allows our farmers to irrigate our farms and it allows us to generate electricity. 
But the tragedy with regard to harnessing water is that from 1 July this country will go where no other country has gone before. We are introducing an emissions trading scheme and its effect will be to raise the price of electricity by 5 percent. Treasury told the Finance and Expenditure Committee— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The emissions trading scheme has nothing to do with this bill and I ask the member to focus in please on the third reading. This debate is about what has been discussed earlier and the emissions trading scheme is not part of that. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that what is being discussed in this bill is the introduction of commissioners in the Canterbury region to administer among other things a water plan—a plan to manage the resources of the Canterbury region. Water is a very valuable resource. It results in power generation and I was trying to explain to the House that come 1 July when electricity prices are forecast to go up the companies that generate electricity with water—and in particular I am referring to Meridian Energy and the dams it has in the South Island—by virtue of the way that the electricity market works will be able to push through a 5 percent increase in the price of electricity without paying for any emissions which their competitors like Genesis Power will have to do with regard to thermal energy. 
We will see windfall profits. We know the profits that Meridian is currently making but we have seen nothing yet like the profits that it will make because from 1 July we are essentially introducing a 5 percent surcharge on water. That will see massive windfall profits being taken and a massive value being put on water. Every single New Zealander will pay for that. I am very proud but sad to think that I am one of only five MPs who are standing up and opposing a 5 percent surcharge being imposed on the cost of electricity from 1 July—a surcharge that will go on every single New Zealander young or old poor or well off. The elderly particularly in the winter will have to pay more for their electricity simply so that companies like Meridian can earn more for its water that valuable water. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have mentioned to the member that this is a debate about what is happening with regard to Environment Canterbury and it is not a debate about Meridian electricity price increases or whatever might be affected from 1 July. I ask the member who has 40 seconds remaining to focus in on the bill. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason I am conducting the debate in the way that I am is that as you say this bill is about Environment Canterbury—the regional council—the appointment of commissioners and water. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well if the member had mentioned that that would have been fine. But I say to the member we have had about 8 minutes of other things and I did warn the member earlier on. I ask the member to come back to the bill; he now has 39 seconds remaining. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. This is I repeat about Environment Canterbury. It is about the appointment of commissioners including Dame Margaret Bazley who will be taking a lead role. She and her fellow commissioners will have the job of putting in place a water management plan for the Canterbury region which is something that Environment Canterbury has not been able to do in the last 18 years—18 years. This Government has been required to make these changes in order to put in place that plan to provide for the better use and conservation of our water resources so that we can use more water wisely. As I have said from 1 July that water will become even more valuable. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 A statement was made by Anake Goodall the chief executive of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu which I will quote in full as it sets the scene for the way in which I have seen this bill: “Ngai Tahu regretfully recognises the need for intervention in ECan and reluctantly supports installing commissioners as a temporary measure that while not optimal for the important principle of democracy is a necessary practical solution in the circumstances.” The words “regretfully” “reluctantly” and “not optimal” do not indicate wholesale complete and utter satisfaction with this bill rushed through under urgency. The Maori Party is also regretful—regretful that urgency prevents people from having a voice. For any legislation to be authentic it should reflect the processes of negotiation and discussion that would emerge from the process of consultation. 
Ngai Tahu used that word again in a letter to Ministers Hide and Smith advising that “Ngai Tahu regretfully support the recommended transitional arrangements to install commissioners in place of the council.” The interesting issue for us as the Maori Party is how the Government can overturn the democratic process in one region—by dismissing the councillors of Environment Canterbury—while in another region Tamaki Makaurau it is passionately fighting on an argument to uphold democracy by refusing to invest in Maori representation through the establishment of Maori seats. I want to be really clear. This bill is not just an issue about water although that is vitally important; this is an issue about power sharing or indeed about not power sharing in this case. 
As a local MP I have taken a close look at Environment Canterbury not just because of its significance across Te Tai Tonga but also because the way in which we work through these issues is likely to be nationally significant in terms of the place of local government and approaches to the management of fresh water. The Maori Party has consistently stated that issues about water management must include mana whenua including water rights and privatisation. We believe also that Treaty claims in relation to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the review of the Resource Management Act. It has been a matter of some pride to the party that we were able to overturn the commitments made pre-election by National to remove any Treaty references or references about the capacity for Maori to object on cultural grounds from the Resource Management Act. These sections include section 6: that “all persons exercising … powers … in relation to managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources shall recognise and provide for … (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga:”. Section 7 states: “all persons … shall have particular regard to—(a) kaitiakitanga:” and section 8 “Treaty of Waitangi” states: “In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers … in relation to … natural and physical resources shall take into account the principles of … (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).” 
I repeat these key legislative provisions because they are critical in guiding councils and communities about the way in which we protect our streams lakes rivers and waterways from agricultural industrial and domestic waste. There are many vital issues around freshwater management which the Maori Party signals will need to benefit from nationwide discussion and input and these three sections in particular provide us with a strong starting point for those discussions. 
Turning then to the specific legislation we accept that this bill is a temporary measure designed to respond to the longstanding concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. Our decision to support the legislation was made both regretfully and reluctantly but made also in response to the guidance of mana whenua. We did so also knowing that the existing situation regarding Environment Canterbury was untenable. This after all was a council that came 84th out of a possible 84 councils in the 2007-08 biennial survey of resource consent processing. This was a council that frequently appeared in the Environment Court as a result of criticisms having been highlighted about the management of fresh water in Canterbury. The proposed response to the review of Environment Canterbury therefore could have no stronger basis in my mind than that provided by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and I quote: “ECan even within its current statutory framework has demonstrably failed to reach the standard of best endeavours to give effect to its broader responsibilities to Ngai Tahu.” So there is no suggestion that there was not a dramatic need to do something. 
The question is however what exactly is the something that will be done? We have been concerned that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is being given legal effect in the empowering legislation. It is the view of key stakeholders that this strategy is not well developed that it has real policy holes and that there is risk that it erodes the Treaty rights of Ngai Tahu. Although we appreciate that there is support from many key stakeholders including Ngai Tahu and the region’s territorial authorities we want to ensure that the rights and interests of Ngai Tahu under both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 are given full cognisance in further development of that paper. In this context we acknowledge the move made by the Minister to ensure that in the appointment process of commissioners there will be explicit recognition of the collective knowledge and expertise of commissioners in relation to tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region. We welcome the opportunity for Ngai Tahu to be represented in the temporary commission that is likely to replace the council of Environment Canterbury. But we would also recommend that Ngai Tahu be represented in the new statutory entity that will be created separate from Environment Canterbury to manage water in the region and to be known as the Canterbury Regional Water Authority. As we consider the ongoing tension between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga we also raise the question that one person on a commission of seven is for ever relegated to the minority seats. 
Finally I remind the House that the report of the review of Environment Canterbury revealed that there are significant issues in relation to water management in terms of meeting the Treaty obligations of the Crown and it also recommended that iwi liaison should be elevated in importance within Environment Canterbury. We fully support the approach proposed by Ngai Tahu which seeks a commitment from the Government to a structured joint work programme so that the various governance arrangements can be structured in a Treaty-consistent manner. They would also expect that any existing undertakings by Environment Canterbury to Ngai Tahu such as the iwi management plan should be honoured. 
We have supported this bill in order to respond to the urgent need of the situation outlined in Canterbury and in line with our respect for the guidance of mana whenua but as the debate proceeded we have become more troubled about the new powers of the commission to determine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region under new criteria. The bill clearly states that they will hear appeals against points of law only. Therefore it is not an Environment Court substitute. We are absolutely committed to effective compliance with the Treaty requirements of the Resource Management Act and the requirement to look nationally at water management issues across the nation are a key priority of our party. Ultimately tangata whenua Maori perceive natural and physical resources such as water as a taonga an invaluable treasure gifted by their tupuna for the benefit and use of their descendants. It is our responsibility as tangata whenua as kaitiaki to ensure that the resource is conserved and handed on to future generations in a similar condition. It is my duty to advise the House that in light of the concerns we have raised during the course of this debate we have reconsidered our position and regretfully we conclude our struggle with this bill by voting against it at this final reading. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Waimate mayor John Coles said: “Good on the Government for having the guts to come out and do something like this.” The Mackenzie District mayor John O’Neill said that it was a bold move that would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers. The Waitaki mayor Alex Familton believed that it was the right decision and that the commissioners would have his strong support. I suggest to the House that these are the people who know. Members opposite may not understand how rural local authorities work but the 10 mayors particularly the rural mayors understand only too well the deficiencies of Environment Canterbury after the past few years. 
I am proud to stand in support of the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The debate over the last 24 hours or so has been characterised by arguments from the Opposition promoted by Christchurch-based Labour MPs. I acknowledge that they cannot help but promote the Christchurch City view because they do not represent the provinces and have little and limited understanding of the issues that have been faced by rural constituencies in their dealings with Environment Canterbury. Interestingly though the Christchurch Central member did acknowledge that Labour had failed to act on water management issues while Labour was in Government and I congratulate him on that acknowledgment. Trevor Mallard when he was the Minister for the Environment said: “Everyone knows there was a problem here.” 
The city Labour MPs have no idea what has been happening in the provinces in the area of Environment Canterbury. Labour members have no courage to deal with this hard issue. Their Sustainable Water Plan of Action—or should I say their water plan of inaction—went nowhere. So I say to the House that Environment Canterbury’s failure is also Labour’s failure. It hard for them to face up to but it is true. All the Canterbury district mayors themselves democratically elected have had enough of Environment Canterbury which they characterise as dysfunctional. All 10 mayors and councils were consulted during the course of the development of this bill. I was at meetings represented by four of those local authorities which is nearly half of those involved and all of those democratically elected mayors and councils have welcomed the introduction of this bill. 
The regional council has after 19 years failed to produce a regional water plan while other regional councils are on their second-generation water plans. Environment Canterbury has been making consent decisions in a policy vacuum which has resulted in policy making on the hoof and that has been hugely costly in terms of time and expense to the applicants. They have made applications to Environment Canterbury in a policy vacuum. What is needed for the management of an area that has 70 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water is clearly beyond the capabilities of Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury has let down its constituents and proved to be a handbrake to both the development and the protection of natural water resources in Canterbury. 
The Government wants to consider carefully the Canterbury Strategic Water Study the Land and Water Forum and the work from the Environmental Protection Authority and will take on further advice from the commissioners. This legislation gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy recognition and provides commissioners with a sorely needed and clear framework for managing Canterbury’s water. This bill looks to fix the problems we have now and set a good policy framework for water management in the future. 
The explicit intent of this legislation is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task of addressing the institutional and planning problems is achieved. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill empowers commissioners to do what is required to turn round Environment Canterbury to the benefit of the people and the environment of Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will begin my final contribution to this debate by going back to the very beginning and asking “How did all this start?”. Well we have heard during the course of this debate that one of the National members of Parliament approached her local mayor and said that there were major concerns with Environment Canterbury within central government and that that mayor could start the ball rolling by writing to the mayoral forum. Jo Goodhew approached Janie Annear to write to the mayoral forum saying there were major concerns about the operation of Environment Canterbury. The mayors then decided on the assumption that they were not just mayors but also the local authorities to take the matter further. That is how this sorry saga began. 
My message to the public as a result of this debate and of what has happened in the last 24 hours is not just to look at Auckland any more and say “Be very afraid of your democratic rights.” the public can look now at Canterbury as well and be very wary because it could be coming to a city near them soon. We have lost all our democratic rights in terms of voting for our regional council. 
The Minister for the Environment has introduced a shoddy little bill. I say that with the greatest respect to officials who I guess had no other option but to write it. But if the officials had been given a decent amount of time and guidance perhaps the bill could have been a bit tidier. The shoddy little bill was given to us in draft form half an hour before it was publicly announced as being introduced. It was introduced into the House yesterday afternoon at 5.30 p.m. It was debated until 10 p.m. with just an hour and a half for the dinner break and then begun again at 9 o’clock this morning. Soon the debate will be concluded. 
Well what is urgent about this legislation? What is not only urgent but so urgent that this Parliament considers that it is OK that not a single submission can be called for and not a single submission can be heard? People in Canterbury are really outraged. Some people would have actually come along to a select committee and said “Good move Minister. Get rid of ECan.” But they cannot. Others would have come along and said with a more considered opinion in my view that they did not agree that this measure was the way forward for our regional management in Canterbury. But neither of those perspectives nor any in between have had an opportunity to be heard because the Minister unilaterally decided that the legislation had such a high priority it had to be passed under urgency and not a single submission would be called for. I think that that is an outrage. 
We have done our best through the first and second readings through the Committee stage and now through the third reading to try to put the facts of the situation on the table. I mentioned in the dying stages of the Committee stage the water plan excuse that the Minister has constantly raised. He has been going on and on about the fact that there is no water plan. I said then that not only did we have the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—and asked whether he had noticed it because it is actually in the bill—but we also had the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan which members of Parliament like Amy Adams Jacqui Dean Jo Goodhew and Nicky Wagner would do well to familiarise themselves with. They are attacking the council on the basis of misinformation and that is not a good basis for debate. It is OK when trying to score cheap political points I guess to make things up and not tell the complete truth but when the action is about disestablishing a regional council then it should be done on the basis of facts truth and honesty and open debate. 
Environment Canterbury notified its proposed Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan in 2004. The plan was notified in 2004 and it is operating. It does not have full legal force under the Resource Management Act because of various things such as submissions hearings decisions and appeals which all have to go through a process before the plan can become operative. But the objectives policies methods and rules of the natural resources regional plan have continued from 2004 to guide decisions on resource consent applications. So the Minister said something that is completely and factually untrue because we have two plans: the first the Canterbury Water Management Strategy was specifically developed because of the huge amount of tension around Canterbury and water and the second is the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan. So the Minister is just wrong and I hope that he takes the opportunity to say he is sorry to the people of Canterbury and particularly to the staff and the councillors who have been working on those plans for many years. 
The other issue that I will shine again and take a brief opportunity to have some factual input on is the comparison that National was making—I noticed it stopped yesterday—between the process that this bill is going through and the process that the Labour-Alliance coalition Government went through in May 2000 in relation to the Rodney District Council. The first difference is that the Rodney District Council voted unanimously to ask the then Minister of Local Government the Hon Sandra Lee to intervene and appoint a commissioner. That was a unanimous decision of the council whereas there has been no such decision from Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council agreed that it should write to the Minister and ask for her intervention; no such request was made by Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council said that a commissioner should be appointed; no such recommendation came from Environment Canterbury. 
So the processes started from a completely different basis and the Minister made sure that the people in Rodney were involved in looking at the options and deciding what the problem was. She said for them to agree on the problem and then look at some solutions. They agreed on the solution. The Minister made sure that the role of the commissioner was not to take over the council as it is in this case but to ensure that relationships were mended and that systems and infrastructure were in place to deliver efficiently so that the commissioner could walk away and leave an elected council once again to take over. That happened in about a year. The Minister even ensured that the Rodney District had its elections early rather than having to wait until October. There is no such commitment to a return to democracy in this legislation. In fact one of my colleagues said that we should have a bet on who will get the vote back first: Fiji or Canterbury. Who will get a democratic vote again first? Will it be entitlement in Fiji or will it be democracy in Canterbury for our regional council? It could be Fiji. 
The other factual point that I will make is in relation to what the Creech review actually said. That has been the cause of some frustration for members on this side of the House because National has insisted on misrepresenting Wyatt Creech and the recommendations. I will put on the record what the Creech report said in relation to the negative perception of Environment Canterbury—and there is no debate that there is a negative perception. The report said: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance.” But the reviewers interviewed only 20 parties in the whole of Canterbury and it was a very narrow list. The reviewers said that they had heard that the councillors were “polarised” and “dysfunctional” that there was “insufficient leadership” and that the council was “too busy protecting individual/Party perspectives” and failing to pay enough attention to the region. But the Creech report said “Our investigation did not bear this out.” The reviewers had heard the stories. They had heard the rumours. They heard them repeated by National members but the repetition of stuff about Environment Canterbury is just not true. This is what the Hon Wyatt Creech said in his report: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … The Review found that while the process for debating strongly opposing views has been marred by poor behaviour and reflects past grievances in some cases”—well that is not good but it is not unusual—“the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.” 
There is no need for this disembowelling of Environment Canterbury. There is no need for us in Canterbury to have our democratic right to vote taken away from us and there is no need for this legislation to proceed. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 We come to the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and it is my final opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill because unlike members opposite I reflect the concern that has come through my office every day since I have become an MP about the way in which Environment Canterbury is operating. Despite the rhetoric and despite the scaremongering this concern is coming not just from one side of the debate; it is coming from people who deal with Environment Canterbury in many ways and who express constant frustration about delay and excessive cost and about being absolutely powerless in dealing with an organisation that has got into a mind-set of thinking that it does not have to listen to its people. 
In the first reading debate I started talking about the importance of Canterbury as a region. I am quite happy to stand here as one of the Canterbury MPs and say that Canterbury is one of the most important regions in this country. It has a spectacular environment and it is one of the most important regions economically. Water is crucial in Canterbury. There is no bigger issue I think we can safely say—certainly facing the people of Selwyn—than the proper management of our water. Every single person I have come across in this debate—and I ask members opposite who disagree to let me know—would agree that water has not been managed well in Canterbury. If anyone has a different view I ask that person to let me know. I have not heard anyone who is prepared to stand in this House to say that water has been well run in Canterbury—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Jones thinks that it has been. He thinks that everything is fine in Canterbury. 
Frankly anyone in this House who is not prepared to back this bill is saying that everything is fine with Environment Canterbury that we should not do anything—let it keep going as it is let us just bumble along with our heads in the sand for another 10 years it will all be OK mate and it will all come out in the wash. It will not. I can tell members that I have lost faith in Environment Canterbury’s ability to fix this crucial crucial issue. I have lost any confidence that it can turn this round. I am not saying that members of Environment Canterbury are not good people—they absolutely are. I am not saying that they have not done some good work—they have. But I am saying that I do not believe that Environment Canterbury can deal with the problem of water in Canterbury. The Government needs to step in. The Government in my view has an obligation to step in when the job is not being done properly. 
Regional councils operate under legislation from this House. We have the authority as a Parliament to step in if that job is not being carried out. It has not been done properly and there is a need for urgent action. Let us be quite clear about this: those problems have been around for a long long time. Trevor Mallard was quite honest in saying that his Government knew that there was a problem. He wanted to see action on Environment Canterbury but the Labour Government did not act because there was an election coming up. 
At the very first briefing Minister Smith received as the new incoming Minister for the Environment he was told about the pressing issues in Environment Canterbury and this Government is going to deal with them. It is not an easy decision to make it is a courageous decision to make but it has to be done. We recognise our obligations to get this right; water is simply too important for us to bumble along and pretend nothing is wrong. There is a problem it needs urgent action and we have to put in place commissioners to get this right so that we can return to normal operations in our regional councils. They will not do it on their own; they have shown that over a long period of time. This bill is necessary and I am very pleased to see it happening. I commend it to the House. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 The tension between private and public interests and the tension between the many and the few lies beneath hundreds of years of struggle in our political tradition. I take members back to the 14th century to the Peasants’ Revolt to the Levellers in the 17th century and to the English Civil War between the parliamentarians and the royalists which raged across Britain for nearly a century. I remind members about the Chartists in the 19th century who campaigned for popular sovereignty and universal franchise. I remind them of the fight to give women the vote of those who gave their lives in the Second World War to defend democracy and of the spread of parliamentary democracy around the world in the 21st century. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is far too much noise coming from the Government benches. I am having difficulty hearing the member. If members want to discuss matters then that is what the lobbies are for. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I know that members opposite do not want a history lesson but in my humble opinion they need one. We should not take the history of our democratic traditions lightly. This House is a shrine to that tradition and tonight the members on that side of the House are desecrating that shrine. 
I know that the members on the National benches think that this issue is not about democracy. I know that they think it is just a technical thing a pragmatic solution. They think that we are just twiddling with the knobs so that we can get the outcomes we want on water management in Canterbury and that it is not about democracy. Jo Goodhew said that it is just a temporary interruption of our democratic traditions and that they will be resumed in 3½ years. I know that is what National members think but I urge them to stop to think about what they are doing to our democratic process. 
The problem is that the constant companion of this National Government is the temptation to undermine the public interest and the common good in favour of stacking the deck in the interests of its business mates. It has done that in Auckland over the last 12 months where we have seen Rodney Hide John Key and Steven Joyce kicking away the safeguards against the privatisation of our public assets. We have seen it in the corporatisation of local government. In Canterbury with the thirst for irrigation and the insatiable hunger for more dairy farming on the Canterbury Plains it is so tempting for powerful business interests to say that the process of democracy is too slow too messy and too inefficient and that they could run local government so much better if the Government could just get the people out of the show and let them make the decisions. 
Subsidiarity is a principle that is much spoken of. It is allegedly the founding principle of our system of local government. I say “allegedly” because there are very few checks and balances on executive power in our system even with the advent of MMP. We have a unicameral Parliament and a system that allows very little challenge to the power of the executive. Local government in our system is one way that power can be shared between the powerful and the powerless and between the centre and the periphery. What this Government is doing tonight in this House with this bill is the opposite of subsidiarity. It is showing an absolute contempt and disregard for local government as part of our constitution in this country. It paid lip service to subsidiarity in the Auckland super-city reforms while stripping out the decision making in the powers of local communities and centralising it. 
What is the Government doing with this bill? It is abrogating the democratic rights of up to half a million people in Canterbury so that it can more efficiently allocate rights to water. I say that that is dangerous. It is dangerous to our political system it is dangerous to our democracy. Why is that? It is because to shut the people out of decision making even for a 3½-year interregnum sends a powerful message. And what is that message? The message is that the people are not capable of governing themselves. That is the message. The message is that even if people pay the rates even if they pay the taxes and even if they have to live with the consequences of the decisions of their elected representatives they are not capable. But there is a superior class of person that the Government knows it can shoulder-tap that can make those decisions. In that superior class are the hand-picked mates of the National Government whom this Government trusts to make decisions on behalf of the people of Canterbury. 
You see it turns out that for this National Government not everyone is equal. Not every person is equal in value or in importance. The people are not trusted to make the tough decisions. They are not trusted to govern themselves not in Auckland and not in Canterbury and I ask where it will be next. This bill strikes at the heart of our democracy and at the idea that in the political sphere no matter whether one is rich or poor no matter whether one is brown white or yellow no matter which side of the tracks one grew up on and no matter which political party one supports we are all equal and that each of us can have a political voice. 
One of the two Ministers who are responsible for this disgraceful bill is Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government. He is fond of quoting the sacred principle of one person one vote. Rodney Hide talks about democracy out of one side of his mouth but out of the other side he is busy handing over the assets of Auckland to his mates and at the same time he is abrogating the democratic institution of regional government in Canterbury by suspending elections for 3½ years. Suspending elections has a ring to it that we are familiar with. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mugabe. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Yes and from other places closer to home. Why is that? It is because the 14 democratically elected councillors in Environment Canterbury could not resolve a system for allocating water rights—that is why. So I ask whether if the Auckland super-city cannot agree on a plan for regional public transport next year we will just sack the new Auckland Council. What if some provincial council cannot agree on whether Rio Tinto should be allowed to build a mine in its area? Well let us sack them. What about if other regional councils cannot agree on a merger plan? Well let us just do away with them because they obviously cannot be trusted to govern themselves. They cannot be trusted to make decisions in the interests of the people who elected them. 
I will quote from the regulatory impact statement which makes a very powerful case for the kind of decision that these Ministers have made with this bill. The paper sets out a number of options that were open to the Government in considering a response to the problem of water rights in Canterbury. The Government could have done a number of things. It could have installed a commissioner/adviser it could have used the existing powers in the Resource Management Act it could have put in commissioners only for the business of allocating water rights it could have invested energy and resources into the Canterbury Water Management Strategy specifically and it could have provided targeted assistance. What did the Government do? It chose the most intrusive most undemocratic and most authoritarian solution by sacking 14 democratically elected councillors. 
In a few weeks members of this House will be turning out on Anzac Day at cenotaphs and memorials up and down this country. We will pay homage to those who gave their lives in the Second World War and other conflicts to defend democracy. I hope that the members on that side of the House will hang their heads not in reverence but in shame. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I thank the officials and I also thank the 10 mayors of Canterbury. Sadly the Opposition does not understand the potential of water for Canterbury and for New Zealand. It is common sense to store water and to use it during the dry periods of summer. This conversation has been going on for 20 years. This bill is the first step on a journey to ensuring that we have a good regional water plan in Canterbury. 
The Hurunui River features in this bill because it is part of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. It is not some conspiracy as the Opposition tries to lead members to believe. It is no secret that farmers within this region would like to be able to store water and to meet the needs of all the other stakeholders and the environment. I say to Opposition members that if they can do that then why should they not be able to? 
We have heard a lot of statements from members on the other side such as “Stop stealing our water.” I think it was Ruth Dyson who made that statement. Sadly it is that dog-in-the-manger attitude that has brought us to this impasse and we have to get past it. This bill is the light at the end of the tunnel. This Government is taking brave steps to be able to manage water and we will certainly make things work in a very positive way. 
The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment spoke about a step change. When we look at what has not happened over the last 20 years we see that there needed to be a Government that had great confidence. Gone are the days when we saw crocodile tears from the other side—rhetoric and no action. It is an indictment an absolute indictment on the Opposition that during its 9 years in Government it did nothing. So when we listen to the Greens talking about how the Government is running roughshod over the water conservation orders we can understand that in actual fact the Greens do not understand the importance of them. It has been mentioned many many times on this side of the House that Government members recognise the value of water so I make the point that this is not the end but the beginning. I extend the hand of collegiality to the Opposition and ask to put our differences aside. Let us manage water in a sustainable way and on a positive note. A vote for this bill is a vote for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. A vote for this bill is a vote for better environmental management in Canterbury. A vote for this bill is a vote for the future prosperity of New Zealanders and a brighter future not only for Canterbury but for all New Zealanders. 
It gives me great pleasure to recommend the bill to the House in the sense that we have to work hard for the distant future. There is so much to be said and very important it comes from the point of view of being positive. When we talk about the vision that this Government has—we extend from the Waitaki to the Clarence River—and when we stop and think about the disregard for installations like wharves and harbour installations such as in Kaikoura we think of some of the sad things that occurred before the introduction of this bill. One of the very sad things that we witnessed was in the coastal management plan. Environment Canterbury had not recognised any of the installations of wharves or harbour in its coastal plan. On that basis it has shown its dysfunctionality and it is a real shameful situation to be in. But this Government has moved to introduce this bill and I must commend the Ministers for having the courage to do so. This is the light at the end of the tunnel for water storage in New Zealand. It is the start of a journey and I extend my hand of collegiality to the Ministers. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. The Minister the Hon Jonathan Coleman is not here tonight because he and his wife have just had a child and that is a cause of great celebration. But I will not talk about squawking children too much because I certainly do not want to upset Mr Chauvel. 
I do not intend to use my full quota of speaking time for a bill that is as short as this one. I would like to take the time however to note that the Immigration Act was passed in this House last year with considerable support. Both the Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the importance of immigration and understand the importance of this Act in modernising and future-proofing the immigration legislation. Work towards implementing the Act is under way and this bill will support the continuation of that work. It will ensure that specified powers and functions in the Act can be exercised early. 
For example it will allow the Immigration and Protection Tribunal to be set up and will allow the chair of that tribunal to initiate the education and training of members before the tribunal starts to hear appeals. It will also allow the chair to begin to work for example on a code of conduct for members. The new tribunal is a cornerstone of the new Act as it will enable the streamlining of the appeals system. It has been put in place to reduce duplication and delay in the system. 
The principal Act is significant legislation and the implementation of the changes that are being introduced is indeed a sizable task. Section 474 was included in the Act to allow certain implementation work to be done by the Department of Labour before the rest of the Act comes into effect. This bill will bring that section into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Firstly in the spirit of the House I congratulate the Minister the Hon Jonathan Coleman and his wife on the birth of the latest asset to their family their child. I am sure we all join in congratulating them. It is a wonderful moment. 
I acknowledge the speaker who has just sat down and offer my sympathy to him. He has obviously drawn the short straw. Had Mr Finlayson as an eminent lawyer been in charge of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill he would not have done what his Cabinet colleague did—that is make an omission on the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of section 474. I commend the Attorney-General for biting the bullet drawing the short straw and leading with his chin to correct the mess-up of both the Minister of Immigration and his venerable Associate Minister Kate Wilkinson who as we speak and as I said last night is probably dropping acid—that is folic acid. Everything that woman as a Minister has touched has turned to mush. From the folic acid issue to the Department of Conservation issue there has been a litany of mistakes. I commend Mr Finlayson and I again say that had he been in charge of this bill as he is an eminent lawyer which I am not I am sure there would have been no omission. 
The reason we are standing here tonight spending taxpayers’ money is the incompetence of this Government. The Labour Opposition will support and facilitate this amendment bill but we will make a couple of points going through. We wrote most of the Immigration Act when in Government and we supported its passage and the passage of most of its amendments which this Government passed on coming to office. But it is amazing that there was an omission in relation to the commencement of section 474 of the Immigration Act which as the Attorney-General pointed out allows the Governor-General to appoint the chair and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and allows the tribunal to publish immigration instructions for the granting of visas under the new legislation and to approve and issue the forms that will be used for the application process under the new legislation among other things. 
I note that the Minister of Immigration earned the title of “The Maestro” in this place and in other places. He was the maestro of the Mt Albert by-election that went so wrong. He is the person who was in charge of the Rugby World Cup broadcasting debacle. He is the person who earlier this month announced a new retirement immigration package. Of course embarrassingly for him he did not look back in history. The same policy had been investigated by the former National Government in 1999 before it lost office and the policy was dismissed because it was unworkable. I also note and I hope the Associate Minister of Immigration takes a call because she shares responsibility for the hash that has been made of this that it is interesting that we are spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to come down to this House— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Thanks to Tau Henare. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —I could not possibly comment on that—to correct a basic error in a Supplementary Order Paper. The Government cannot blame the officials for this because under our Westminster system the Minister is responsible. Thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money is being spent to correct a basic error. 
David Garrett 
: So sit down and we’ll get it done quicker. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I hear from the back a squawk from Parliament’s man Mr Garrett who tells me to sit down and we will get it done faster. On the one hand Mr Garrett comes from a party that believes in open public debate— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No they don’t. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well he says he does. His leader says that he believes in empowering communities and having open transparent debate. It is a principle that this member has never exhibited on the select committee on which he sits. He is a person who is led by the nose by the National Government— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points. One point which I guess is no record here is that Mr Cosgrove is talking about something utterly unrelated to the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. Secondly he is referring in derogatory terms to members of the House who are both present and not present. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am on my feet and there will be no correspondence entered into when I am ruling. I just make the point that yes I think there is some merit in what the member who raised the point of order said. Mr Cosgrove was straying out of the area. He was provoked I guess because of interjections but I think he has had his fair share and should come back to the bill. Secondly I did not take from his comments any particular offence that persons could have taken. I make the point to the member raising the point of order that offence cannot be taken on behalf of another person. I call on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak to the bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely and in speaking to the bill I say that it is important that we have public and parliamentary debate on this issue. It is very germane to this bill. Mr Garrett and other members may want us to sit down shut up and let these things go through because of course it suits that member. I will say again that despite being Parliament’s man in this place he is led by the nose by the Government to stifle any parliamentary debate that may not suit his purpose. I am sorry but Mr Garrett will have to stay awake. He will have to do his job and earn the taxpayers’ shilling. He will have to sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought I heard you just a minute or two ago give a direction to the member on this feet that he should address the bill. From listening to his address since the time that you gave him an instruction he has done nothing but berate a member of this House. He has not made any reference to the bill at all. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have some sympathy with the point the member has made. I invited the member to address the bill. What Mr Garrett’s views are on anything is not relevant to this member’s presentation on the bill. I invite the member to come back to the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman—I am sorry I mean Mr Speaker. You will be Chairman very shortly. I have great faith in you. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Is this a demotion or a promotion? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It will be a big promotion for you. Within 30 minutes I see great things in your future. I think you will be a Chairman very shortly. This bill was laid on the Table just minutes ago so the member has not had a chance to look at it. Clearly the debate will be a little wide. If the members of the Government’s support parties are going to interject and be just plain nasty and to use the language of Dr Nick Smith resort to personal denigration then of course Mr Cosgrove as a senior Labour front-bencher will defend his honour in that respect. All I can ask is that the Acting Leader of the House Mr Power bring his calm hand to the proceedings at this time. It seems to me that at this rate we risk spiralling way out of control. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not respond to that. I refuse to respond to that and I simply invite Mr Cosgrove to address the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am reminded of the words of my predecessor Mike Moore and I am sure members will appreciate this: “You’re only in trouble in this House when they’re praising you.” This bill is a relatively cosmetic amendment. I see that it is a four-clause bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He hasn’t even read it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have had a quick skim read because it was put on the Table about 2 or 3 minutes ago and that is it. That is why we are spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money because the Minister of Immigration either could not read or wanted this done under urgency in order to correct an error in a Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister of Immigration by his own definition considers himself to be an expert in this area—“The Maestro” some people would call him—but I invite the Attorney-General to perhaps hold some tutorials because I think the Attorney-General in another life was an academic who lectured in the law. Maybe he could hold some tutorials on legislative drafting or whatever to assist the Minister of Immigration. 
We will support this bill because we believe in the bill’s objectives. But in passing it it is appropriate that despite those who would stifle democracy and parliamentary debate in this place we make the point that this is another brick in the wall for the National Party. It is another error another piece of incompetence. I believe that the Acting Leader of the House is somewhere in the Chamber. Perhaps he is emanating from it. Perhaps Mr Power is offering Dr Coleman some tutorials. But this is another case of mismanagement as we sit in urgency tonight to debate a five-clause bill to insert a date to trigger a Supplementary Order Paper that should have been dealt with in the body of the legislation weeks or months ago when it was put up. 
I say to the National Party that yesterday I think we saw on the 6 o’clock news that the issue of moment before Cabinet was whether we should drink beer out of cans or pottles at the Rugby World Cup—not that we should go there because this an immigration debate. Today the issue of moment before Parliament is the correction of a date and the correction of an error in a five-clause A3 piece of paper that is supposed to be a bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down and let’s get on with it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am told that I should sit down. There is only one reason that Mr Henare would say that. It is the old saying from  
Dad’s Army 
: “They don’t like it up ’em”. “They don’t like it up ’em” in a political sense. They do not like it when the Opposition holds them to account exposes their incompetence exposes their mismanagement and exposes their stupidity. 
I pay my respects again to the Attorney-General. He tonight has shown bravery elegance honour and he has bitten the bullet. He obviously volunteered in an honourable way to accept the short straw in Cabinet and come down here to correct the incompetence of his Cabinet colleagues—of both the Minister of Immigration and the Associate Minister of Immigration. I will give due respect to the Attorney-General during the Committee stage. We look forward to a lengthy explanation as to why this error occurred and as to what he will do to correct the future behaviour of his colleagues so that we have bills brought to this House that are complete are correct and are not led by incompetent Ministers. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill regarding section 474 and the nature of this slight change that is necessary to give it the ability to achieve its purposes. We look forward to the support of the Opposition parties in making this bill a reality tonight so that the Act which most parties in the House have worked on very hard over a number of years and have supported can become the realistic and effective legislation that everyone wants it to become. It had been many years in the making. We look forward to that support. This is a very minor amendment. I look forward to the House pushing it through. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will also take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I understand that the reason the Minister of Immigration the Hon Jonathan Coleman is not available tonight is that congratulations are due. As a fellow MP in the Northcote area I put on the record my congratulations on the birth of another member of the Minister’s family. That is great and I am really pleased for him. 
As other people have said the bill is non-controversial. It fixes up an accidental omission in the Immigration Act so Labour will support it. It was made in the National Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Immigration Bill a bill that had been introduced by the previous Labour Government prior to the election. The Minister has described the bill in his aide mémoire. He said the omission of a reference to section 474 in the amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name was an unfortunate mistake. I have to say it was indeed unfortunate and it is unfortunate that the House is once again in urgency and that we are once again spending time on rushing through legislation. I reflect in particular on the undemocratic “Sack Canterbury Democracy Bill” which was passed earlier today. But as I said the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill is a minor and non-controversial amendment. 
However there are a whole lot of immigration issues that I hope I will get the opportunity to talk about in the Committee stage of this bill. In particular— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: This is not the Committee stage of the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I will get there Mr Henare but I just want to put it on the record in the first reading that I will want to talk about some things that have happened since the Immigration Bill was introduced such as the introduction of retirement visas for cash. We are rolling out the welcome mat to the world’s retirees and are discriminating on the basis of wealth. We are creating a “rich people’s visa” and New Zealand is to become an international retirement home. I will say a little more about that when we get to the Committee stage but in the meantime I reiterate Labour’s support for rectifying this unfortunate mistake and I give our support to its correction. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I begin by doing what the other speakers have done and add the congratulations of the Green Party to Jonathan Coleman and his partner on the new addition to their family. I am sure it will be a great joyful time for them. 
The Green Party will be voting against this bill for the same reasons it voted against the passing of the Immigration Bill last year. This amending bill implements many of the provisions in the Immigration Act that undermine civil liberties and we complained about them during the passage of the Immigration Bill. This is not to say that the Immigration Act is all bad. It does provide a more comprehensive and systematic approach to processing visitors and migrants than the previous legislation. Some of the really bad procedures in the old Act were excluded such as the security risk certificate procedure that Ahmed Zaoui fell foul of. There was a weird provision in the old Act that the Minister of Immigration could get a security risk certificate briefing but it had to be oral and the Minister could not even take notes. This involved misplaced trust in the authority of intelligence agencies and in this case the SIS which is an agency that got it so wrong in the Zaoui case. Thankfully Mr Zaoui and his family including his children are now well settled in New Zealand and he is doing very well. 
Such improvements in the Act last year as against the previous Immigration Act were no doubt behind the United Nations Human Rights Committee recognising our Immigration Act as positive in many ways in the UN report that was issued just last week on 25 March when the committee considered the application of human rights by the New Zealand Government. However this same UN report also criticises several immigration procedures. It proposes that the Immigration Act be amended to “ensure that no asylum seeker or refugee is detained in correctional facilities and other places of detention together with convicted prisoners” and unfortunately that is still the case in New Zealand. 
The committee also wants the Act brought fully into line with the principle of non-refoulement. This means according to the committee that New Zealand should not refuse to hear a refugee claim simply because the applicant could have applied in another country deemed to be a safe third country only later to find that that country had deported the person back to persecution in his or her homeland. I could give examples of that happening cases of people being deported back to places like Singapore and then on to a country of torture where they have actually been tortured. 
The committee also wanted the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to be able to “receive complaints of human rights violations related immigration laws”. That is something the Greens endorsed. In fact last year we moved an amendment in the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill on this very question. As the Human Rights Commission has pointed out it is wrong for it to be excluded from this important immigration area which commonly presents difficult human rights problems. 
One of the big problems in the Immigration Act as it was passed last year was the more extensive use of classified or secret information in immigration cases. There are now 11 Government agencies beyond the police and intelligence agencies—the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau—that can now determine that their information is classified and not to be fully disclosed to the person affected. Those agencies include such bodies as the Aviation Security Service Maritime New Zealand the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Corrections. 
Let us look at section 474 which this amending bill is mainly concerned with. Under the different provisions of section 474 there are broad powers to designate a person as a refugee and protections officer for the purpose of making decisions based on classified information. One of the provisions authorised by section 474 gives the Prime Minister a free hand in designating a body as an agency and enabling it to appoint what is called a special advocate to supposedly handle classified information on behalf of what might be called the defendant or the person affected. 
But there are big problems with this special advocate system. Special advocates are hamstrung in that once they have received the classified information they can no longer communicate with the person they are supposed to be helping defend and that means that the relevance and the full context of the information they have received cannot really be understood by the special advocate. This has been explained by the special advocate in the Zaoui case a solicitor called Stuart Grieve who presented a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. He was very critical of the whole special advocate procedure and the nature of the classified information he saw. He told the committee that 90 percent of it was information that should have been in the public domain or was in the public domain but had been wrongly put into the classified information basket. 
Under the Act the heads of these 14 what are called “relevant agencies”—and I have said that they go well beyond the traditional police and intelligence agencies—can determine through their chief executive officers what is classified and what remains classified. Even the Immigration and Protection Tribunal whose set-up was provided for by the Act cannot overrule the decisions of the chief executive officers of those agencies in that respect. The State and its departments have veto power over the system even veto power over the tribunal in regard to classified information. 
Reference was made in the introduction to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal which is being set up now by this amending bill if it goes through. There is a problem with its make-up in that it does not according to the legislation have to have on it a person with expertise in refugee law. Refugee law is a specialist body of law and it is important to have someone on that tribunal who understands it particularly as this amending bill and the Act will extend the rights of detention by Government officials. The United Nations Human Rights Committee said that there should be no detention of refugees and asylum seekers with ordinary prisoners but unfortunately that is still happening. In fact under this legislation there will be room for them to be detained even longer. There is an extension of the time of initial detention after an asylum seeker arrives at the airport from 72 to 96 hours without any justification being provided for that increase in time. 
Section 474 also gives immigration officers more powers to detain and to determine that premises can be a place of detention. This is a really important issue because we have particularly in relation to Iranian Christians who have converted from Islam cases where asylum seekers have been detained for a very long time. One of them Amir Mohebbi who has now been granted status in New Zealand was in jail for 4 years. What is in the Act is quite a challenge to what the Human Rights Committee has said in its view that asylum seekers should not be detained in that way. The whole trend of the Act is towards increasing State powers over people who are coming here to an unreasonable degree and towards too much secrecy in respect of immigration processes. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It would be remiss of me not to take a call given the warm congratulations I wish to extend to the Minister of Immigration and I am reliably informed his wife. Of course those on this side of the House are more often married than in a partnership or some other loose arrangement such as the previous speaker alluded to. 
On the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill itself I do not intend to take 4 hours as the previous speaker seemed to take. It reminded me of listening to recordings of Castro speaking for 4 hours about nothing. 
Darien Fenton 
: You can sit down now then. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yeah I will very shortly. This bill is a very short bill. I think Mr Chauvel knows what I am talking about when I say that there is a very helpful High Court rule that is known as the slip rule which allows inadvertent errors to be corrected. But apparently there is nothing quite so sensible here and we have to come back as Mr Cosgrove has informed us to correct this legislation. That is a bit of a shame. 
But I do not intend to speak about Ahmed Zaoui’s history or his various potential connections. ACT will be supporting the amendment bill. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 We also extend our congratulations to the Minister of Immigration and his wife on their new arrival. We trust that all permits are in order and that nothing went wrong with the delivery. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The terms “no guts” and “no courage” have been ruled out thousands of times in this House but that member sitting across the way from me Clayton Cosgrove has just blatantly accused our colleague Peter Garrett of having no guts and no courage. 
Hon Members 
: David Garrett. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh David Garrett not Peter Garrett. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Firstly I do not believe we have a member in the House called Peter Garrett. I think he resides in the Australian Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I want members to reflect a moment. This House will get out of order when we have personal reflections and I want to say— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yeah. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: —excuse me I am ruling here; I do not want any correspondence on the matter—that personal reflections cause disorder. When reflections are made whether of a general nature or a particular nature offence is taken to them. Just as it is out of order to refer to an individual as having particular characteristics for example being controlled it is out of order to refer to a party in the same manner. When a member makes reflections to someone on the other side it can cause offence and people will react to it. I say to members of this House that personal reflections and derogatory comments are unacceptable in general. 
During the particular point raised by Mr Tau Henare I was busy looking at the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 to speak about this matter and I did not hear the interjections so I could not take offence at them. I say further to Mr Henare that a member cannot take offence on behalf of someone else; the other person has to do that. But the member’s point is well made. I say to members that if they play it with a straight bat and do not make personal reflections against individuals or others in general this House will be much better. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not take offence on behalf of anybody; I took offence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are two sets of Standing Orders in this House. There are the written  
Standing Orders 
 and as somebody else said—a venerable parliamentarian—there are the unwritten standing orders. I simply make the observation to you that for personal reflections—which I did indeed make and I again withdraw and apologise; Mr Henare was absolutely correct—there is also another convention in this House. When a member of Parliament brings one’s spouse partner or family into a debate that is generally observed by both sides of the House as a no go area. That is under an unwritten standing order. I simply observe to you Mr Assistant Speaker that in my view that member made some very unparliamentary remarks about members in here. I am not asking you to take action because I suspect that that is in the unwritten standing orders but it is called a principle which perhaps that member knows very little about. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just say to the member that that was in some ways helpful but in other ways it was unhelpful. If the member had reflected on what I had said he would know that it was almost exactly the same point for point so it was unnecessary to relitigate. But I guess the member felt he had to get something off his chest. 
Having said that I think we should get back to business. We are here to debate. I know that the House is sitting under urgency and that it is a bit late but we should keep ourselves under a bit of a short rein and debate the issue. I ask members to play the ball not the player. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: It made for fascinating timing to receive the observations of the 98th session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in New York just as the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill was being primed for introduction. Two aspects of that report in particular are relevant for this bill. The first is the recommendation to consider extending the mandate of the Human Rights Commission so that it can receive complaints of human rights violations relating to immigration laws policies and practices and report on them. The second is that New Zealand should continue its efforts to review the status of the Treaty of Waitangi within the domestic legal system including the desirability of incorporating the Treaty into domestic law in consultation with Maori groups. 
The first recommendation is of particular relevance to the legislation we are debating today—that is legislation that is about appointing members including the chair to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. In effect this legislation is about one section of the Immigration Act section 474. The Immigration Act 2009 was assented to on 16 November 2009. Within the parameters of this legislation section 474 of the Act authorised certain persons to exercise specific powers and functions before the relevant provisions of the Act had begun. Yet when it came down to the wire section 474 was inadvertently omitted from the commencement provision. Today then we are facing legislation that will require section 474 to be brought into force as soon as possible to allow the necessary implementation work to be done. In real terms the bill will bring section 474 into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
In this way then the bill appears to be purely administrative in nature. In fact it appears to be purely a response to an anomaly that was not identified at the time whereby the powers and functions of the appointed chair and the Governor-General were overlooked. The bill basically corrects that anomaly. The powers of the Governor-General addressed in this bill are related to the capacity to appoint a chair to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The powers also enable the Governor-General to appoint members to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal which will decide all immigration deportation refugee and protection appeals in New Zealand. Clearly that is an area of considerable sensitivity and controversy. The bill specifies the powers and functions that may be exercised early including the directions for the education training and professional development of members of the tribunal. Another part of the legislation establishes a process by which the chair of the tribunal can develop a code of conduct for members of the tribunal. In accordance with the recommendation from the United Nations Human Rights Committee this would enable complaints of human rights violations that might emerge from members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and that are related to immigration laws policies and practices to be heard and reported. 
The second recommendation of the United Nations Human Rights Committee is about reviewing the status of the Treaty of Waitangi within the domestic legal system. Even though we had considered that this bill might provide an opportunity to incorporate the Treaty into the bill it appears that the bill does not provide the process to make overarching effects to immigration and as such we have been advised that any amendment we might make to bring the Treaty into this legislation will not affect how the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will make its decisions. Notwithstanding these issues the Maori Party will support this bill which we see basically as a means of improving the administration around immigration policy implementation. The bill also provides us with an excellent opportunity to advertise our keen interest in putting forward an eminently suitable applicant to be appointed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. We will support this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In the first reading speeches I thought there were a number of helpful contributions. Perhaps I can be indulged to say I heard what Mr Cosgrove said about the omission. It is a matter that I myself have raised and it could well be that this kind of drafting of commencement clauses needs to be revisited. As I have said I heard what Mr Cosgrove said but at the end of the day as Alan Martin said—and Mr Cosgrove is a Cantabrian so he may not know about L V Martin—it is the putting right that counts. I think that is important to acknowledge. 
I think too that we are dealing with very good legislation. Again I heard what Mr Locke said about human rights concerns. I respect that he is a person who has a great passion for human rights and that he is one of the staunchest advocates of human rights in this place but I have to tell him that last week the United Nations Human Rights Committee commended overall the adoption of the Immigration Act in its opening statements. That committee has recognised that the Act is a good piece of work. 
Equally I think it is very important that we get on with implementing that Act it as quickly as we can. The implementation of the changes to immigration made in the Act is a sizable task that is moving full steam ahead. Section 474 which is a very complex section was included in the Act in order to allow certain implementation work to be done before the rest of the Act comes into force so the bill will bring that section into force on the day after the Royal assent. I will not go through the detail of the bill but I say a number of important tasks need to be undertaken and the sooner we get on to that the better it will be. 
I do not intend to waste the time of the House on what everyone acknowledges was a drafting error. I will apologise to the House if it helps to soothe matters but in any event I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister of Immigration for his wonderful speech. From our side of the House we say that no apology is necessary—from that Minister at least. I think he has been very gracious to bite the bullet on this one. I am interested in his comments about what changes he may foresee in the legislative drafting process—and we may explore this in the Committee stage—and any recommendations or suggestions he has that could avoid this situation happening again. 
I suppose those recommendations could be perhaps that Ministers read the bill that Ministers read the Supplementary Order Paper and that Ministers take the advice of their officials. Having been a Minister of Immigration I know that there are some very venerable and highly skilled officials in the department and some very sound legal minds. I will not destroy their careers by naming them individually but there are some very very sound legal minds. I know that if Mr Finlayson had charge of this legislation he would have gone through the Supplementary Order Paper with a fine-tooth comb and cross-referenced the various pieces and clauses to ensure that it was completely quality controlled and we probably would not be in the situation we are in tonight. Equally he would have read the bill and he would have taken the advice of his officials— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: If only they were all that good. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As my colleague Ruth Dyson says if only all Ministers were as good as the Attorney-General who I believe was taught by Gerry Mills as I was. I think we both passed School Certificate English but in different colleges and I know that Mr Finlayson is very diligent about his work. That is what Gerry told me before he sadly passed away. 
Like the Minister we will facilitate the passage of this legislation but we note that these are things that should be dealt with efficiently with good management and appropriately. I am gratified that the Minister who is taking the lead on this at least tonight is looking to solutions so that these errors do not occur again. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I too would like to offer my thanks to the Minister Chris Finlayson for his suggestions and openness in looking for solutions. I was involved in the passing of Immigration Act 2009 as indeed many of my colleagues were. I was involved with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know the amount of work that went into this Act. Many years of work and many Ministers were involved in it. The work on the legislation was started by the previous Labour Government and we worked through lots and lots of issues that were quite difficult to deal with which we talked about when we were passing the Immigration Bill several months ago. Immigration is a very difficult area of law. It is very complex law and I suppose we can forgive the error made on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman a little bit. 
Labour was committed to the Immigration Bill. We helped to facilitate it and we worked with the select committee on it. In fact we introduced that bill when we were in Government. We want to make sure that the commencement date for section 474 is brought into effect so that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready and the rest of the Act comes into effect it is all ready to go. With those few words I am happy to support the second reading of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to oppose the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill but I think that the way the Attorney-General has engaged with the debate is good. He is treating the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its report on New Zealand very seriously. As I said in my first reading speech I recognise that the committee saw the Immigration Act 2009 as a positive development particularly when compared with the previous Immigration Act. I know that previously the committee had been worried about things like the security risk certificate provision in the old Act. In certain respects the Immigration Act 2009 represented a step forward and the United Nations Human Rights Committee was right to recognise that. In its specificity on immigration procedures and the Act it made very clear proposals which I hope the Government will listen to to not allow refugees and asylum seekers to be imprisoned in normal prisons with other prisoners as Amir Mohebbi the person who was detained for 4 years was. 
There are some very bad additions to the Immigration Act that deny human rights. One is under section 163 of the Act where the Minister of Immigration can deport anyone whom he or she deems to constitute a threat or risk to security. It is a very short direct provision that means that people can just be whisked out of the country in no time without any right of appeal. That is something that denies basic human rights. 
The other provision that really struck the Greens when the Immigration Act went through in 2009 is in what were then clauses 271 and 289. Those provisions take away from a judge the discretion to give someone in Amir Mohebbi’s position—someone detained prior to deportation—the right to be let out on bail. There is a clear definition that the judge can let someone out on bail only in exceptional circumstances. Clause 289 said that the judge cannot determine that the period of time a person has already been detained—in Amir Mohebbi’s case 4 years—can be taken into account by the judge in granting bail. Technically someone can remain in jail for ever which is a complete denial of habeas corpus. Provisions like that run up against internationally accepted principles and the principles that are accepted by the Human Rights Committee. 
With those few words the Green Party is sticking to its original position. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for all the provisions of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Clauses 1 to 4 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Mr Hughes is very modest in allowing me to take the call; it is one of his endearing qualities that we love so much. I want to briefly address a couple of things in the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill that the Minister in the chair the Hon Christopher Finlayson may want to touch on. As I said in the previous debate I would be grateful if he might advise us on what legislative solutions he may be proposing in terms of the legislative drafting process. I also want to address some of the wider issues as posed by Mr Locke around this bill. 
As a former Minister of Immigration I say that the first responsibility of whoever is that Minister in the Government is to secure the borders of this country and I think members on both sides of the Chamber agree with that. Mr Locke referred to a number of cases where alleged—and I say that advisedly—refugees were incarcerated for allegedly in at least one case converting to Catholicism thereby inviting some sort of threat because they had gone public with that in their homeland. I believe that in the reported case that homeland was Iraq. I said in the debate on the substantive legislation that I was aware of that case and of others. Where it becomes difficult is where the United Nations deems that there is not a threat and we have to be guided by that. 
I recall that on a number of the cases that I dealt with as Minister there were great protestations by members of my own church. In respect of one or two cases certain people were very nice individuals. I think that one was a chef who had cooked for Bill Clinton. But in my view those were not valid reasons to walk away from the rule of law or the legislation and to not take officials’ advice and the advice of intelligence agencies in terms of the veracity or the lack of it of those people’s claims. I say to Mr Locke that when people convert at the airport in Seoul to any religion fly over to New Zealand tear up their passports and then claim as they yell from the highest building that harm may come to them if they go back home and on top of that when the UN Human Rights Council does not make the same recommendation in respect of a threat to their life then I say that we should respect the advice of agencies including our own department and intelligence agency. At the end of the day Ministers must make a judgment and they do. It is our job as a Parliament to secure our borders as a priority. 
This amendment bill has resulted from an omission on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in relation to the commencement of section 474 of the Immigration Act 2009. I note that the powers referred to in the bill are in respect of the Governor-General appointing members including the chair to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal; the chair of the tribunal directing the education training and professional development of members of the tribunal; and the chair of the tribunal developing a code of conduct for the tribunal’s own membership. As I said the Attorney-General has been good enough to proactively suggest that he will be proposing changes to the drafting process to avoid this happening again and we endorse that. 
I come back to the original Immigration Act 2009 which was passed earlier in this Parliament. I believe it had the support of nearly every political party in Parliament. I say to Mr Locke that maybe he would like to reflect on where his allegiance lies. This is New Zealand. We have to treat people appropriately and we have to be humanitarian to all those who come across our borders but equally we expect them to be legitimate and to not abuse our rules laws and good graces by making false claims. At the end of the day whichever party the Minister of Immigration is from in this Parliament be it Labour National or otherwise he or she is charged on advice to make a decision on the veracity or lack of it of those claims. 
If people choose to stay in prison because they will not adhere to our immigration laws then I say to Mr Locke that that is a matter for them. If we look at the international jurisdictions around the world I would wager that very few of them now do not look to the security of their borders and do not look to differentiate between those who make false claims as refugees or otherwise and who abuse our humanitarian systems. If we let in someone who abuses that system then he or she will also take the place of a true refugee or true person who crosses our border to escape tyranny from another country. Finally I would invite Mr Locke to reflect on those comments. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I take up the challenge from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove with great pleasure. Of the people whom he referred to like the Iranian Christian convert who was a cook and the four Iranian Christian converts from Islam who served long terms in prison from several months to 2 years—and 4 years in Amir Mohebbi’s case—every one of them now has proper immigration status in New Zealand and is living here as a legitimate person in our country. They are doing very well. They are not committing any crimes. Clayton Cosgrove’s idea that somehow those people should be rejected was actually a view that was turned down by the immigration authorities in New Zealand in the end. The problem was that someone like Amir Mohebbi had to be detained for 4 years because he did not want to be deported back to Iran where he may well have been persecuted as a Christian convert from Islam. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The UN didn’t agree with that. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: In regard to Clayton Cosgrove’s reference to the UN I say that the UN does not always get it right. There is a simple fact governing the UN’s attitude to the situation in Iran which is that Iran takes many thousands of refugees from Afghanistan. The UN does not want to endanger that so it does not look at— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am trying to get my head around exactly which part of clauses 1 2 3 and 4— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am responding to— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I cautioned him as well. One errant speech that is quite broad does not open space for everybody else. We are debating the Committee stage. The member can make illustrations in comparison but he must tie them back to the clauses. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I relate this point back to the Immigration Act and the provisions in it as I did in my original speech. But when a member stands up and spends virtually his whole contribution criticising me on those points surely I have the right to defend myself on those points. I think that the whole question that the United Nations Human Rights Committee raised and on which it was critical of New Zealand’s immigration procedures in the Immigration Act section 474 of which we are implementing was on the question of non-refoulement—that is people being returned to their country of origin where they may be persecuted. That was specifically stated in the report issued on 25 March by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. 
In the case of the Iranian Christian converts from Islam the Iranian Lower House has passed the first reading of a law providing for the execution of people who convert from Islam the religion of their birth to Christianity. It is actually in a law that has passed its first reading in the Iranian Parliament. 
The other thing that we have to put in that context is the fact that a few days ago Amnesty International issued a report on executions around the world. No. 1 was China and near the top was Iran where they have been executing people particularly since the recent protests. If we combine all these factors particularly where asylum seeker’s names are known we know that people who are deported back to Iran are under some risk of persecution. We have to take all of that into account. We should not let people just rot in jail for the rest of their lives in violation of habeas corpus and have provisions in our Immigration Act that allow that to happen just because they will not sign bits of paper. We cannot allow them to be deported back to Iran to possible persecution and even execution in terms of the law being passed through the Iranian Parliament. That is why many Christian people particularly those of the Catholic faith but also of other faiths were so strong in their support for the people whom they knew were good parishioners in their church. They knew that they were true converts. I take Mr Cosgrove’s point that some people can use that as an excuse and no doubt some people have used that as an excuse but the people in the cases that he raised are now solid determined people with the proper immigration status in New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me say right now that I blame myself for that; I do. I am flagellating myself. The score is now one all and we will now talk about the commencement date and the issues surrounding that. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That is indeed what I intend to do Mr Chair. I do intend to speak about clauses 1 to 4 of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I will start with clause 1 “Title” which reads: “This Act is the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Act 2010.” 
Indeed we could call this bill if we wanted to the “Immigration (Unfortunate Mistake) Amendment Bill 2010” or we could call it if we wanted to the “Immigration Act the Minister Intends to Find Other Solutions for”—which of course we welcome—“Amendment Bill 2010”. I could go on about that but members on the Opposition side of the Chamber are generous and as we have noted the Minister has said the omission of a reference to section 474 of the Immigration Act on Supplementary Order Paper 32 should not have happened and he will be looking to find solutions. I do not want to blame the drafters of the Immigration Bill but I will say as I said earlier that it was a huge bill. It was a bill that took many many years to work on. Those of us who are now on this side of the Chamber worked on it; we began the work on that bill. We worked on it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in fact— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: We wrote it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —as my colleague says we wrote it—we took it through all of its process in the select committee and then it came back for its second reading under this Government. So I do not want to spend too much time on trying to debate whether there should be a different title. 
I would like to talk about clause 3 if I may which states: “This Act amends the Immigration Act 2009.” I think that one of the things that the Act does is to set up the whole kind of platform for future immigration. Unfortunately there have been some pretty awful announcements since it was enacted and I am sure that I am allowed to refer to those because this bill is about the commencement date of that Act and what happens in bringing it into force. I mentioned in my first reading speech the cheque-book immigration policy announced by Minister Coleman. I do not want to be too unpleasant about that Minister’s life; I know that he has things to celebrate. But I have to say we are very concerned that the prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidders never mind what skills and values those people may or may not possess. I do wonder about this whole thing of bringing retirees into the family category—the parent category—and whether we are talking about the Government’s latest make-work programme. You know we are going to bring in these older people— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No commencement. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Commencement? OK—no principal Act. Are we bringing people in for a make-work programme? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: All right Mr Chairperson; I will move on to the next clause which deals with the commencement of the legislation. 
Clause 4 is about the commencement date of the principal Act and some announcements have been made since that Act was enacted. A change to the registered seasonal employers’ scheme removes the minimum wage for workers there. That change has been made since the 2009 Act was enacted and it will be affected by the commencement date of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber are very concerned about that. So in relation to the commencement provisions in clause 4 we are saying perhaps we should backtrack a little and go back to the situation that existed when the Act was brought into being in 2009. The Minister should retract the announcements that he has made because quite frankly they are appalling. They are affecting New Zealanders; they are affecting New Zealand workers and other New Zealanders. As I said it is cheque-book immigration. It is about providing visas for cash and we do not support that. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In speaking to these clauses I note that in respect of clauses 2 and 4 and in light of the Attorney-General’s comments about changes that he may wish to make to the legislative process it is worth reflecting on the history of why this omission occurred. I am advised that the omission of the reference to section 430—which is section 474 in the current Act—in the commencement section of the then Immigration Bill occurred between versions 22 and 23 of the Supplementary Order Paper. I was quite astounded by that. In version 22 the commencement section contained the required reference to section 430—I am mindful in making these comments of being extremely specific about the bill—in Part 12 of the bill. I am told that in version 23 the references to sections 430 and 431 were changed to refer to “Part 13”. I am also advised that the department noted that that was inconsistent with the subsection dealing with information sharing with employers and I am also advised that the department requested that the Parliamentary Counsel Office change “Part 13” to refer to the specific sections being brought into force. Indeed in making that change section 430 was unfortunately omitted. 
That I know for those people like myself who are not lawyers sounds to be quite a convoluted process in respect of the bill’s drafting and it was unfortunate that the mistake was not identified by the Minister in the drafting process especially when there are as I have said errors occurring in versions 22 and 23 of a Supplementary Order Paper. I feel sure that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has a pretty formidable reputation as do our immigration officials I know having worked with them for some years in combing very very carefully through legislation. 
I do not have the legislative history of others but where a Supplementary Order Paper has various chapters or shall we say various versions and we go to versions 22 and 23 I would have thought that somewhere down the track the Minister having read 22 previous versions might have picked up on that error. I would have thought so. But as the Minister in the chair the Hon Christopher Finlayson has said again with a great deal of grace and honour as the person who is trying to shepherd this omission through Parliament these things do happen. Even though I am a South Islander I tell the Minister that I remember L V Martin with some interest and I remember his slogan as the Minister pointed out. But again I would be interested if the Minister would take a call— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Uncanny resemblance really with the Minister. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would never say that; that would be deeply unkind and offensive— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why? They’re both successful. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —to L V Martin! I would be very interested if the Minister would get up and give us a quick burst perhaps on how he would change or recommend changes to the drafting process. I think we have to go through the parliamentary stages but we would hate to get through this stage and pass this bill and then come back after Easter in urgency again to perhaps correct another error. So I ask the Minister on this A3-paged bill whether he could just reinforce to the Committee that we will not be back here in urgency the week after next to correct another error—perhaps a spelling mistake a date a clause a number or I do not know the grade of paper the bill is printed on. Who knows? But we do not want to be back here again. I feel confident now that we have a competent Minister in the chair that he will give us such assurances and we will not be back here to deal with such minutiae again. I look forward to it and invite him if he would be so gracious to elucidate on those points. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow up Darien Fenton’s point which I think is relevant to the bill. If we look at section 474 which a mistake was made about and which this bill corrects we see that it talks about publishing immigration instructions and giving general instructions. A lot of immigration is put into effect not through direct legislation but through regulation like published instructions. We had the example that Darien Fenton mentioned of giving easy access to New Zealand and residency to those who are retirees. The category that Darien Fenton was I think rightly concerned about was for those who effectively buy their way in through having pots of money. They probably can do a bit of a money-go-round when they get here. Whether they actually invest in the future of our country is always a bit doubtful because there are always ways of shuffling money around in between countries and whatever. 
But without getting into that detail I ask what the underlying principle is. Should people come here to be genuine New Zealanders or just as people who are buying their way in because they happen to have a lot more money than someone else? Then there is the other aspect of that in terms of the demography of New Zealand. Do we need the piles— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Come into this debate. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: This is related to section 474(4)(a) and (b): the implementing of general instructions in particular. Do we need a whole lot of older people or is there a greater need if we are to redress the problem of too many older people in the population to put the emphasis more on younger people? 
That being said of course the Green Party is very much in favour of family completion and regulations in that respect—whether the people coming in to complete the family are old or young or brothers or sisters or whatever. We are very much in favour of that and we do not want that confused with people buying their way in just because they have tons of money. It has not really worked in New Zealand’s benefit in the other ways it has been tried and I do not think it will work in terms of allowing retired people with pots of money to come and settle just because of that fact. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I would not want honourable members to think I have an unhealthy obsession with the machinery provisions of bills but I thought Mr Cosgrove made a very helpful contribution. He identified exactly what the problem was in the legislation which is what happens perhaps when we have overly prescriptive provisions in transitional arrangements or commencement clauses. 
One of the issues I will look at from a legislative point of view—and I am getting away from the particular bill before the Committee—is whether things can be streamlined because quite frankly it is not overly satisfactory that we have had to deal with this matter in this way. So from the point of view of an Attorney-General with responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel Office I tell members that I will talk to a few people to make sure that it does not happen again. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a reasonably brief call during the Committee stage of this Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I am motivated to do so because I had hoped that the Maori Party might take a call during the Committee stage. The member for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene spoke very eloquently during the first reading of the bill and I thought we might hear from the member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira during the Committee stage. Clause 1 in the clause by clause analysis refers to the change in the title clause taking place to ensure that that clause explicitly refers to the Act in which the enactment originally occurred—in other words it will enable the bill to do what Parliament thought it had done in the first place. I thought that the member for Te Tai Tokerau might have had a view on making sure that laws did exactly what he thought they would do at the time they were passed by Parliament— 
Hone Harawira 
: Steal Maori land. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —in respect of the foreshore and seabed legislation or the provisions that were going to be referred to in the news today. The member refers to stealing land by way of interjection yet I do not think that the legislation that will come to the House will explicitly refer to the remedy he seeks. So I will be very interested to hear from him and I would like him to make a contribution to the Committee of the whole House about how legislation can explicitly refer as the clause by clause analysis says to clause 1 in respect of that. He had quite a lot to say on the television news tonight and I am hoping he will share with the Committee of the whole House his views on that. 
That point I am making goes to the heart of the mistakes that are made in legislation. The member opposite thinks that major mistakes were made; he is looking for remedies. This bill is a remedy for a particular mistake that the self-described maestro of New Zealand politics the Hon Jonathan Coleman managed to bring through with this bill. But tonight is a night for congratulating Mr Coleman. He has a new child; we are all very happy for him in that respect and we wish him well and that is why we are happy that the bill has been handed over to the Attorney-General. It is a good night for Jonathan Coleman. 
But that analysis of clause 1 refers to that so I hope that once I have finished my remarks Hone Harawira will speak to us about that. There will be a lot of people waiting to hear what he has to say about it I am sure. I am certainly one. 
Hone Harawira 
: Ha ha! Guaranteed. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is good. If he had said no I would have pointed out that this is one of those fortnightly Wednesdays that is pay day and he should get to his feet and explain what his views are on that. It seemed to me that there was a slightly different position tonight between that proposed by Government MP Hone Harawira who is member of the National-Maori-ACT Government and what the Ministers were proposing in respect of that law. 
I have a question for the Attorney-General who is standing in tonight for the Minister of Immigration and it goes to that correction to section 474. The aide-mémoire refers to the certification of immigration consultants under section 22(1) and that they can thereby be classified under section 23(1) and I wonder whether the Minister can explain to us exactly—well not exactly; that is unfair on him— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No no—exactly. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No he is prescient but even this close to Easter the Minister is not quite prescient in that respect; by Sunday of course he will have the answer to everything. But I ask whether he could explain to us exactly what instructions will be classified differently as a result of this reference because the bill itself does not make that clear. Even the aide-mémoire although it refers to what will happen mechanically does not go through the issues of substance in terms of the legislation. 
My second question to the Hon Christopher Finlayson is about the appointment of tribunal members which I understand was the subject of the mistake made between versions 22 and 23 as referred to by Mr Cosgrove. A mistake was picked up there and it referred to the tribunal members. I wonder whether the Minister could tell the Committee just for our own interest to what extent work has been done to begin to appoint those tribunal members. Was the mistake discovered because tribunal members were about to be appointed? 
In other words has it been decided who the tribunal members will be or has it pretty much been decided who they will be? How far down the road has that process through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee travelled? We certainly do not need to know names; we are not on a fishing expedition for that. We are almost certain that an appointment could be part of the severance package for the Rt Hon James Brendan Bolger but we are not sure about that. I certainly hope the severance package is much more generous than that because he has worked hard for our country and deserves it. But now that the Minister has told us how much work has gone on with regard to those appointments I would like to know if we passed this law tonight and we specifically did not give a commencement date this time when they would be made. Jonathan Coleman made us give a date last time and he was wrong about that so we are correcting it tonight. We are very happy to do that; there is support from the Labour Opposition in that regard. But when can we expect tribunal members to be appointed under this particular provision? 
Those are the two questions I have. In addition I am waiting for Hone Harawira’s contribution which I am anticipating will take place now. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: I move  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Once again I thank honourable members for their generosity of spirit in facilitating the expeditious passage of this bill. 
Can I simply say that during the Committee stage an issue arose about the appointment of the tribunal. My understanding is that those particular matters have barely advanced so we will get on with that now. This bill is looking as though it will pass. This bill is an important bill though a very specific one and it will help the implementation process by ensuring that certain implementation tasks can be done in advance of what could be called the “go live” date of the commencement of the bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Such modern language. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: My response to the chief Opposition whip is to tell him to get with it. It is time to move on. One cannot live in the past all the time. 
I will not go through section 474 in any great detail because there are certain things the Governor-General has to do—for example appoint members including the chair to the tribunal. The Prime Minister has to do certain things the Minister has to do certain things and the Attorney-General has to do certain things with the chair of the tribunal like agree on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary in relation to proceedings involving classified information heard by the tribunal which could be a very important matter once the tribunal gets under way. Then I have to agree with the Chief Justice on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary for other proceedings involving classified information provisions. 
There is a lot of practical work that needs to done and that is why we need to get on with it as quickly as we can why the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has been needed and why I have come down to the House in sackcloth and ashes to accept blame on behalf of the Government. I will flagellate myself later on and then I will go to confession. There we have it; a mistake was made and I have manfully and with some courage accepted it. Now having accepted it we move on as I am exhorted to by the chief Government whip. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 If only there were more moments like this in the House. I want to extend— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Nick Smith could learn a thing or two. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes Nick Smith could learn a thing or two absolutely. I want to extend the parliamentary olive branch to the Minister the Hon Christopher Finlayson who has been even more gracious than I think all of us expected him to be. Like myself he went to a Catholic school—a second-rate one in Silverstream as opposed to St Bede’s—but I have to say that he has acted— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: St Pat’s Town. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry it was St Patrick’s College Wellington. I apologise. The late Gerry Mills would be looking down in shame. I say that the Minister has acted gracefully and with a high degree of honour. We hope that he will not return to his office in the dead of night and flagellate himself as he said he would. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He promised. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He promised he would. Indeed it may be appropriate that instead of the Minister flagellating himself perhaps the Leader of the House who has made many many more mistakes than this Minister may take up that sort of biblical challenge as another Marist old boy of St Bede’s. Perhaps Mr Finlayson in giving Mr Brownlee some lessons in House management and legislative management may also give him some lessons in self-flagellation. 
This is relatively benign legislation. I note that the debate has been conducted with a degree of good humour apart from—and I have to say this as I will not let it pass—some very derogatory comments made by a member of this Chamber that bastion of principle Mr Garrett about members’ partners relationships and families. He would be the only person in a debate like this where there is a little jocularity and good humour but a degree of scrutiny who would lower himself to that level and bring the debate down into the gutter from where he seems to slither from time to time. 
In respect of the Green member I know his points are heartfelt in respect of the human rights aspects of the Immigration Act itself and this amendment to it. I simply reiterate the points I made to him before. I agree with him that when people cross our border in a genuine fashion perhaps as genuine converts to religion and enter New Zealand in fear of their lives if they return to their country of origin I believe that our past immigration processes inefficient as some of them were and the new Act would allow the Minister and the department on evidence to act in a humanitarian fashion. The member who laughs has little experience in immigration matters. It is appropriate that the relevant Government agencies scrutinise the veracity or lack of it of an applicant. 
Mr Locke asked how we will know that the UN will always get it right and that is a good point. He then went on to quote Amnesty International which I have great respect for as a non-governmental organisation but which I would put in a second order of priority after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I put it back on Mr Locke and ask him how we know that Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations that do not have the ability the intelligence capability and the intelligence agencies that the UN Governments and other Crown agencies have are able to make those judgments. I put that back to him because maybe he has a crystal ball that many of us in this Chamber do not have. Maybe he can judge the righteousness or lack of it of those who choose to take advantage of our humanitarian Kiwi spirit. Maybe he can judge that through some sort of crystal ball that we do not have. 
Shane Ardern 
: Divine intervention. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Maybe that is the case. Mr Finlayson being a pillar of the Catholic Church may rise to his feet and elucidate on that purpose. But in all seriousness this comes down to Ministers whether they be Labour or National or any other flavour in this House who sit in the chair of the Minister of Immigration being forced to make judgments on the veracity or lack of veracity of cases. Mr Locke seems to have taken my comments to heart as if I am saying that we should be sceptical of anybody who crosses our borders and makes a claim. No we should question we should seek evidence and then we should make judgments. But as Minister of Immigration I never accepted pressure from groups based on a lack of knowledge and a lack of evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a pillar of a church. I am a Catholic and I do not think I am a pillar of my church but I think I have to be judged perhaps on evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a good bloke. It is not enough to say that that person has been incarcerated for a number of years by their own choice I say to Mr Locke. 
In one of the cases that he talked about the incarceration of that person was that person’s choice. That person could have ended his or her incarceration. I recall those cases. Ministers of Immigration must be guided by international agencies. Maybe the UN has changed its mind but when I was in the chair and perhaps until recently the UN took a far different view on Iran than Keith Locke did at the time. I think we may have discussed this at the time over a number of cases. 
Our job as a Parliament as a Minister of Immigration as an Opposition spokesperson as a constituent or as a list member of Parliament representing those nationals who wish to take advantage of our Kiwi humanity is to make judgments on evidence and to represent them on evidence. But at the end of the day—and Mr Finlayson has to bite the bullet on this one tonight—Ministers and Government agencies have to bite the bullet and sometimes make unpalatable decisions. Maybe Mr Locke has the view that we should open our borders and without evidence accept all those people who come across them. Well I have to say to Mr Locke that there are some bad people in the world some people are a threat to our borders and the borders of other countries and it is our duty as a Parliament and as a Government to ensure that our citizenry first and our border first is secured. 
With those comments the Labour Opposition as we have said throughout the debate will support this legislation. We wrote most of the Immigration Bill; National passed it. We supported it. We believe in the bill and the consequential amendments and in Mr Finlayson’s cast-iron rock-solid pot-riveted guarantee that we will not be back here on the Tuesday after Easter Monday or after the adjournment in urgency correcting another mistake made by Mr Coleman “The Maestro” of the Parliament. I am sad that Kate Wilkinson the Associate Minister of Immigration who has some oversight for this area has not taken a call but it may well happen. She may do something that is completely out of character for her—front up grit her teeth and take some responsibility. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not a chance. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not be taking up Mr Hughes’ wager on that. 
I conclude by congratulating the Minister. He has treated this issue with a high degree of seriousness as we all have. He has been magnanimous and said that he will look at the Parliamentary Counsel Office talk with its drafters and make recommendations to perhaps stop the error from happening again. As I say after 22 or 23 versions of the Supplementary Order Paper going through still we had errors. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A Nick Smith special. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is a Nick Smith special. I am not quite sure what he means by that and I will leave that to Mr Hughes. But Mr Hughes did make a very pertinent comment in respect of the conduct of the Minister Mr Finlayson being gracious and honourable and his preparing to take responsibility. There are one or two members—one Dr Nick Smith sits opposite me—who could indeed as Mr Hughes said learn from Mr Finlayson’s example. There is no politics in this; it is one of those rare moments in this House when in that old-fashioned Westminster tradition a Minister will come down to the Chamber and not blame his officials not blame anybody else but actually grit his teeth and say he is responsible. The ground-breaking thing that has happened tonight is that Mr Finlayson is not actually the responsible Minister. He has ridden the horse very well tonight as Attorney-General but he is not the responsible Minister. 
I pay tribute to and congratulate Dr Coleman who could not be here. I am not breaching the Standing Orders by saying that. He has a very good reason for not being here with his wife having had a child this evening and we congratulate him on that. That obviously was not a mistake. We look forward to further debates with Dr Coleman and I look forward to Mr Finlayson in the future as Attorney-General implementing those strategies plans and procedures to streamline the legislative process. Along with Mr Finlayson I commend the bill to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has generated better debate than I had expected and I welcome the contributions from various members—Clayton Cosgrove Darien Fenton and Chris Finlayson—in that respect. I do not disagree too much with the framework that Clayton Cosgrove outlined in the last speech because I too believe that immigration decisions should be based very much on the evidence at hand. But it is important to pull in all of the evidence possible and not rely on one bit of evidence. 
Clayton Cosgrove said the United Nations’ evidence might be the highest form of evidence. I do not think that is always the case particularly because as anyone who studies the United Nations knows it is balancing competing interests and operating in a certain geopolitical reality. One of the key features of the Iranian situation is the tens of thousands of refugees it receives particularly from Afghanistan; the UN is very grateful that the Iranian Government allows those refugees to be hosted on its soil. That could colour the UN’s decisions on the danger to Christian converts from Islam. I think the other evidence that we consider in making these decisions—and I am using this one as an illustration in the context of this bill—is what happens in Iran. The Lower House of the Iranian Parliament is actually debating and passing a law that says that Christian converts from Islam can be executed—not just imprisoned but executed. “Apostates” is the term that they use. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Under the 1951 refugee convention we are supposed to collect evidence and make our independent judgment on whether people returned to a country will actually be persecuted—not just do what the UN or whatever organisation it is says. We have to look at all the evidence. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Also it is important to look at the evidence provided by the Catholic Church because it has people in Iran. It has a big international network to gather evidence. It has been involved in campaigning to stop people like the people we have talked about tonight being returned to possible persecution in Iran. 
I realised as the discussion went on that there is a common bond between me Chris Finlayson and Clayton Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove referred to St Bede’s College and I taught two terms at St Bede’s College many years ago. I think it was before Clayton Cosgrove arrived. I do not think I could have controlled a young fourth-form Clayton Cosgrove. He is bad enough when he is this age. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel that it is appropriate to confirm for the House that Keith Locke never taught me at St Bede’s. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Thank you and I thank Clayton Cosgrove for that point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No thank God! 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Thank God! That was my only problem at St Bede’s—I did not have God on my side in the way that the priests did in disciplining rather rough fourth-formers and third-formers but there we are. 
The proof of the pudding is in the eating in a lot of refugee cases. Clayton Cosgrove and I may ultimately agree on this: the reason why I think people were right not to sign papers to be deported to Iran—and I am talking about Amir Mohebbi who was in jail for 4 years Ali Panah who was in jail for 2 years and Thomas Yadegary who was in jail for 2 years—is that if they had signed that bit of paper they might be back in Iran being persecuted today. Instead they are sitting in New Zealand as good New Zealanders. That is the result in the end of a thorough immigration process. I think that people like me who defended those people have been proved right in all of the cases that were prominent in the media. 
It is important for us to pay attention to immigration issues because every MP knows that we get a lot of them and that people get very distressed if they are not being treated fairly by the immigration system. We are often defending immigrants and making sure that they are treated fairly. So we all have a vested interest in getting it right. 
Towards the end of the Attorney-General’s contribution he raised a point that in my opinion indicates that this bill gives the Attorney-General too much power. That may be OK at the moment when we have a very good Attorney-General but he himself indicated that the bill provides that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is dealing with classified information it has to work with and get the consent of the Attorney-General; in effect the Attorney-General can veto the Immigration and Protection Tribunal which is not a very good procedure to have because that tribunal should be truly independent and determine those matters for itself. Sure there should be a provision for consultation but not a provision allowing the Attorney-General to veto tribunal decisions. The other thing the Attorney General mentioned I think was that in terms of process and classified information there has to be agreement not only between the Attorney-General and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal but between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. So the Attorney-General can veto the Chief Justice which is not necessarily the best situation. Again that could have been written as a consultation procedure not effectively a right of veto. 
So there are a whole lot of things that are important to address under this bill. It is good that the UN Human Rights Committee has discussed our Immigration Act and our immigration procedures. It has come down with some criticisms and some praise—a combination of the two. Hopefully that will continue. 
I think the Minister of Justice Simon Power when he went to New York to participate in that assessment of New Zealand’s human rights including immigration rights by the UN Human Rights Committee enjoyed the experience as he enjoyed a previous experience in Geneva a couple of years ago. It is good when we are engaging with the world community to try to meet the standards of the world community. There are so many countries that do not. In general we are better than other countries but that does not mean to say—particularly on this often fractious issue of immigration and the rights of people who are trying to come here to settle here and to visit here—that we should not have the fairest processes possible. Unfortunately the Greens will have to continue to cast a vote against this bill because it still offends too much against our civil liberties particularly in undermining fair open and due process for visitors and migrants to our country. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the very non-controversial Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill which was drafted to fix up an accidental omission in the Immigration Act. As we have said Labour is supporting it. 
I pay my respects to my colleague from the Green Party because he is very well versed in the very controversial issues around immigration. We heard about a lot of them when Keith Locke was sitting alongside me on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as the original Immigration Bill went through the select committee process. As I said earlier it was a very long process and quite a difficult one too because immigration by its very nature is discriminatory and our country has to make decisions about who we will let cross our borders and who we will not and that is very very difficult. 
I pay tribute once again to the various Ministers of Immigration who helped put the original bill together including David Cunliffe Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel and—forgive me if I miss anyone—also Mark Gosche who was the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We went through a very long process on that Immigration Bill and we heard from many very very powerful submitters. They were powerful in the sense that the stories they told us were incredible and we could only wonder at the lives that some people are forced to lead. 
I am no expert in the international scene but along with most other MPs I get people coming to talk to me about their situation and about what they are trying to do. They are trying to enter the country to get a work permit to get permanent residence or to stop themselves from being thrown out of the country because their work permit has expired and so on. 
In this third reading speech I particularly want to mention as I have in previous speeches about immigration the Chorus workers who were employed by Telecom. They were mainly Filipino and they were brought here on work permits to do jobs we could not get anyone else to do. They were highly skilled workers. Their work permits were revoked and they were eventually sent home because Telecom decided to end its contract with Chorus the new contractor decided to make all those workers owner-operators and under New Zealand immigration rules people on work permits cannot change from being employees to small-business owners. I think New Zealand got the worst end of the deal. Certainly the workers were treated appallingly. I appealed to the Minister of Immigration on many occasions to intervene and I personally met a lot of those workers. Many of them came from the North Shore and in fact from Northcote where the Minister is the electorate MP. Unfortunately many of them have had to go home and I do not think that has done our reputation any good at all. 
We acknowledge that it is important that the commencement date for section 474 of the Immigration Act is brought into effect so that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready when the rest of the Act comes into effect. We will be interested in who the members of that tribunal are. We look forward to hearing the announcement from the Minister. 
As I have said this bill is a very minor and non-controversial amendment and that is why we are supporting it. I congratulate the Minister Jonathan Coleman and his wife on the birth of their child. It is probably a good thing that it happened tonight because we had quite a long list of things we were going to talk about regarding Jonathan Coleman’s errors and embarrassments. In the spirit of a new life coming into the world we will not go there but I do want to talk about decisions made since the Act came into force—decisions that I have already referred to. 
In particular I want to talk about retirement visas for cash—if I may return to that theme—which roll out the welcome mat for the world’s rich retirees. It is discrimination on the basis of wealth. The Minister has made a mistake because that policy was looked at 10 years ago and was dismissed as an expensive mistake by the then Associate Minister Lockwood Smith—in 1999. It was pointed out to him that the benefits of bringing in people of retirement age who contribute cash and sign up to health insurance were marginal while the risks were significant. Those visa holders would receive at least some of their health care from the public system New Zealand taxpayers’ resources pay for that so the retirees would not be paying for themselves. There would be the possibility of lobby groups forming in response as well as the possibility of no health insurance being available. Officials certainly bagged this policy 10 years ago but Minister Coleman has resurrected it. I am not sure why he did not look back at the advice from 10 years ago because nothing has changed. Those risks still exist today and even Jonathan Coleman admits that the benefits of this scheme are marginal at best. He said that the policy is not a huge deal and is unlikely to be a cash cow so we will not be overrun with people. Well he hopes we will not. But as with some of the other decisions the Minister has made since the passage of the Immigration Act 2009 I have to ask what is in it for New Zealand. Will it have any noticeable effect on our economy? I think that is unlikely. I think the potential costs for New Zealand associated with allowing retirement-age migrants to settle here will be greater than the potential investment earnings. 
The number of people granted residency under the family (parent) category has not been increased but those with enough money who fit under the new parent retirement category will have priority. I think that is incredibly unfair. It means that people with most of their family living in New Zealand already but who do not have a lot of money will miss out. As MPs we hear from people who have settled here and want to bring their parents to live with them. But if they have not got the money they will be at the bottom of the list—that is the truth. I think it is very inappropriate to prioritise an investor migrant under the family migrant category which is what that policy does. It is cheque-book immigration. The prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidder whatever that person’s skills and values. I suppose it could be a make-work programme because we will need lots and lots of caregivers to look after these rich retirees. We already have reports stating that there are not enough caregivers to look after the people who are already in New Zealand. There already is a shortage of caregivers—low-paid caregivers earning the minimum wage. The report I saw said we will have to import more of them. So I suppose that that immigration policy could be a make-work scheme. 
The other decision made under the Immigration Act 2009 that I mentioned earlier relates to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. The Minister decided to undermine the requirement that those workers must be paid a minimum wage that includes the cost of their accommodation. I think that is shocking. In the last few weeks there have been a couple of high-profile cases where workers have been paid well below the minimum wage. There are some real questions to be asked. Meantime the Minister has been trumpeting the policy which Labour introduced but Labour put in a lot of safeguards round it which have been removed. Now we are starting to see exploitation of those workers which I think is shameful. 
To return to the bill it is non-controversial and Labour supports it. It has to happen. A lot of work was done on the Immigration Act 2009 and most of it was Labour’s work. Immigration is a very very difficult area. We are not happy with the decisions that the Minster has made since the Act came into force but we will support this amendment. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be now read a second time 
. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill was tabled in the House in October 2009. It had its first reading on 28 October 2009 after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received and considered 11 written submissions and heard nine oral submissions on the bill. 
This bill improves on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 by providing more flexibility in the pricing and allocation of regulated raw milk both now and in the future. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 permits the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations that require Fonterra to sell up to 5 percent of its milk supply to independent dairy processors. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 currently require Fonterra to supply up to 600 million litres of raw milk to independent processors at a price determined by a formula in the regulations. The formula was originally required because of the historical industry practice of bundling milk and capital returns into a simple payout for farmers. The industry has since moved on and Fonterra now provides a distinct milk price that is separated from capital returns. It is now time for the regulations to move on too and adopt a more modern approach to pricing. 
Upon the passing of the bill I will replace the old formula with the Fonterra farm-gate milk price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids. The Fonterra farm-gate price represents the average price Fonterra pays farmers for raw milk across the season. The additional 10c per kilogram of milksolids represents some of the additional costs to Fonterra of providing independent processors with an even quantity of milk through the season. An even supply is more valuable than the seasonal or bell-shaped supply that Fonterra receives from its farmers. The new price will apply from 1 June 2010 which is the start of the 2010-11 dairy season. The new price will remove the immediate mispricing of raw milk that was identified during the 2008 review of the regulations. 
Some submitters on the bill raised objections to the new pricing system as they were concerned about the impact of a price increase on their business. Although this objection can be expected the change is needed to ensure that the independent dairy processors that buy milk under the regulations will pay the same price that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of that milk. The new price will provide independent dairy processors with improved economic incentives to source milk directly from farmers where practicable rather than under the regulations. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk this new price will better reflect the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand. 
The bill also allows for regulated raw milk to be allocated through an auction system or any other method. This future-proofs the Act by providing extra flexibility in the way that regulated milk is allocated to independent processors. Developing a system for managing excess demand for regulated milk will become increasingly important over the next three to four seasons as the dairy industry is becoming increasingly diversified and the number of independent dairy processors has increased. An auction would provide one method for efficiently allocating regulated milk amongst competing processor demands and is one possible long-term solution to regulated milk pricing. Submitters on the bill raised concerns about mainly the design features of an auction system. These features would be critical to ensuring that an auction system produced efficient prices and resulted in an efficient allocation of milk. If an auction system is to be introduced in the future the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will further consult the industry on the appropriate auction design features. 
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is currently reviewing the longevity of the entire pro-competition regime that regulates Fonterra. The review is looking at the regulatory regime to see that it remains fit for purpose given the evolution of the structure of the dairy industry since 2001 and therefore should be continued for longer than currently planned. If the review finds that the raw milk regulations should be extended into the future then it may become necessary to introduce another mechanism for ensuring that regulated milk is both priced efficiently and allocated to those it was designed to protect without discouraging important contestability in the market for farmers’ milk. 
The flexibility provided by this bill means that a number of policy options including an auction system will now be readily available through amendments to the regulations only. The bill also includes a provision to allow our external documents to be incorporated by reference in any regulation made under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The Primary Production Committee has recommended amendments to the incorporation by reference clauses in the bill in order to ensure that these are consistent with current standards. I support these recommendations. 
This bill is about a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for pricing and allocating regulated raw milk. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk this bill builds on the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to provide for the efficient operation of the all-important dairy industry and its markets in New Zealand. I particularly thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the hard work and effort that has gone into this bill. I think that the Primary Production Committee is respected as one of this Parliament’s most effective committees for our most important agricultural industries and I thank the committee for the work that has gone into the report that was tabled on 22 February. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Since 2001 the Minister of Agriculture has been able to require Fonterra to supply up to 5 percent of its milk supply to independent processors at a regulated price. This was brought about by the formation of Fonterra and the need to protect independent processors in competition with it. At the time Fonterra might have been inclined—and there were signs that it was—to overprice those supplies to independent suppliers. A regulated price was brought in to ensure that independent processors got milk supply and got it at a reasonable price. In fact the supply of milk to independent processors tended to be underpriced if anything and the cost to Fonterra and therefore to the dairy farmers who supplied it was somewhere between $5 million and $17 million a year depending on the farm-gate price that Fonterra paid at the time. 
In addition the value of an underpriced milk supply to some independent processors was further enhanced by their ability to take advantage of the flexibility to increase or decrease the quantity of raw milk that they purchased through the season which was a flexibility that Fonterra itself did not enjoy. It had to take all milk delivered to it whenever it was delivered and pay for it. Fonterra not to weep too much on its behalf had received a very significant benefit from the original merger which took place due to the Commerce Act being suspended by the then Labour-led Government. But it would be unfair if suppliers to Fonterra paid an unfair subsidy to the competitors of Fonterra which in the event proved to be the case. 
This Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides some balance and certainty to that situation. It permits regulations to be made that replace the current wholesale milk price formula with the Fonterra farm-gate price plus a seasonal margin of 10c per kilogram of milksolids from the 2010-11 dairy season onwards. It also allows for raw milk to be allocated through an auction process in the future. This will mean that a framework and a system will exist to manage excess demand for regulated raw milk by independent processors and therefore manage the transition risk associated with the approaching end to Fonterra’s statutory obligation to supply regulated raw milk which runs out very soon—thus there is some urgency about this bill. 
The previous Labour Government had intended that the auction should start in the 2009-10 season. The auction was to allow for excess demand to be priced rather than regulated through quantity of supply. The price mechanism would also have a component that would guarantee supply to small processors so all elements of the dairy industry were taken into account. For a variety of reasons this option ran out and the first auction will now take place in the 2010-11 dairy season. This change has created considerable uncertainty for the dairy industry and it is very desirable that that uncertainty is ended as quickly as possible so that informed investment decisions can be made for the 2010-11 season. 
The option that this bill supports will mean there is a fair and efficient price any excess demand is managed efficiently uncertainty in the industry is removed and there is a stepping stone provided to introduce an auction system. It will also mean there is no incentive for Fonterra to manipulate its wholesale price because to do so would mean that it would have to overpay all of its farmers—not just the 4 percent who are being supplied as independent processors but the other 96 percent of Fonterra’s suppliers. That is not economically credible or viable for Fonterra to do so any temptation it might have had to overprice will be dampened somewhat by the cost of any such action. I think that is rather a neat solution to what could have been a significant problem. 
Replacing the current regulated price formula—that is the wholesale price of milk—with the Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids from 2010-11 requires amendments to the original Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides for those amendments. I support its second reading and its progress through the House. The dairy industry is our major export industry. It is among our most efficient industries. It is highly competitive on world markets. It has been innovative and it has expended a significant amount of New Zealand’s research and development budget to ensure its position as our No. 1 exporter. It well behoves the House to take this bill seriously and expedite it so that all of the measures I have mentioned in the words I have addressed to the House so far can take place in a timely manner. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. In doing so and at the beginning of my comments I declare that I am a shareholder of Fonterra. In accordance with the Standing Orders I declare that interest. 
What we are talking about in this bill and what two earlier speakers have talked about is the raw milk regulation under which Fonterra has to provide milk—up to 600 million litres or up to 5 percent of its total milk production—to its competitors. Those are the small companies and sometimes not so small companies that also participate in the international market and in the domestic market in New Zealand. I will mention a figure and I ask members to take note of it. Fonterra now represents 84 percent of our export milk not the 93 percent not the 95 percent not the 100 percent monopoly and not the other figures that we often hear about but 84 percent of our export milk—that is products made from milk that are exported annually from New Zealand. 
The Primary Production Committee as the Minister said in the first reading debate considered a number of issues listened to many submissions and made some recommendations which I am pleased to say have been accepted. One of the submissions was from Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. which was one of the companies that were originally involved in the Dairy Board. I guess it was one of the legacy companies at the beginning of the process that chose to stay out of the merger that originally formed Fonterra. Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. made an excellent submission in the sense that it identified the intent of the legislation—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001—and said the company had been disadvantaged by that Act. That is another side of the argument. The company said that it was disadvantaged because of its location and that because the company had understood entirely the intent of the raw milk regulation when it was first set up the company had chosen not to take up its entitlement to collect the 50 million litres of raw milk that it would have been entitled to collect from Fonterra. 
As it has turned out the milk provided by Fonterra to other companies was provided at a subsidised price and because other companies that export into the same markets as the Westland company chose to take that milk the Westland company felt that it had been disadvantaged. So its submission was about whether the Act should be extended beyond the point where of course the triggers within the Act will be met. Those triggers are a percentage of milk in the South Island that is not going through the Fonterra structure and a percentage of that milk in the North Island. As previous speakers have said the South Island trigger is probably about 12 months away from being met and the North Island trigger is 2 or 3 years away from that on current forecasts. So within 3 years or maybe 4 years the current raw milk regulations could expire. 
The debate is about whether the triggers in the Act should be extended. The question is what percentage of milk going through Fonterra and into our export markets is acceptable. If 84 percent is still considered to be too high then what percentage would people be happy with? If we compare that system with the structure of other primary industries such as our meat and wool industry structures and if we talk to people involved in those industries we find they feel that their industries are too fractured. They will potentially come to the Government at some stage and ask for some assistance somehow or other to merge companies so that they can get more critical mass into their export structures. 
That is the debate in essence. The select committee was happy with the general direction that is being taken as the Minister said when he announced changing from the raw milk regulation we previously had in terms of pricing to the current proposal—that is it will be the Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per litre to take into account the “shoulder milk” or seasonal supply of milk. I think that is a good step forward. The 10500 shareholders and farmers who represent Fonterra and who also represent something like 25 percent of this country’s export earnings will be happy to hear that that has happened because there was a subsidy previously. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill on behalf of the Greens. I should also start by making a declaration of interest. I am not a shareholder of Fonterra but I am a fan of Fonterra even though at times I have been quite critical of some of Fonterra’s water issues. Fonterra is one of our most important companies—in fact it is by far our most important company. Fonterra is a producers’ cooperative. I think that a lot of New Zealand industry could learn from the cooperation that dairy farmers have shown and the effectiveness of the producers’ cooperative when competing in the global market. However Shane Ardern’s point is right: the proportion of milk exports that Fonterra controls is now down to 84 percent and that reflects the changing nature of the dairy industry in New Zealand. 
Two different groups in the industry take advantage of the regulations within this bill. One group which the Greens are very fondly disposed towards are the small New Zealand producers that further process raw milk and add value to it whether for the domestic market or the international market. Those smaller New Zealand producers make a very positive contribution towards the New Zealand economy and we are very supportive of regulations that ensure they get raw milk at a competitive price. 
However another group of much larger producers which is increasingly foreign-owned is taking advantage of the raw milk regulations in order to access cheap milk. They have to be subsidised by Fonterra shareholders and for that reason we certainly support the changes in this legislation that give Fonterra and its shareholders a much fairer price for their milk than under the current arrangements. The current arrangement means that the foreign-owned processors are basically getting a subsidy from New Zealand dairy farmers and the Green Party thinks that is totally unacceptable. The reason this is particularly pertinent at the moment is of course the large foreign interest in buying up the New Zealand dairy sector. That is happening both at the processing level and increasingly as we have seen in the most recent applications in terms of dairy land. It is quite critical that as these large foreign firms look at buying up the New Zealand dairy sector we provide some protections to Fonterra so it does not find itself having to provide subsidised milk to Chinese Government - backed processing firms so that those companies can export that product back to China. 
It is important to note as foreign intervention goes into the New Zealand dairy sector that it is not just any old competition. We should not treat it as just another capitalist company coming into New Zealand. In fact these companies are often backed by the Chinese Government which has made it very clear that it expects Chinese companies to buy up agricultural land overseas and has given directions for Chinese companies to do that. When Fonterra finds itself competing with these companies and having to provide them with milk at a regulated price these are not just regular everyday any old companies that are trying to make a profit around the world. These are companies that often have the backing of the Chinese Government which is of course a totalitarian State. The Chinese Government recently locked up some people from Rio Tinto because the attempt by Chinalco the big Chinese miner and processor to buy Rio Tinto was turned down. 
It is very important to realise that we are dealing with some very aggressive competitors that are trying to take over the New Zealand dairy sector and take advantage of whatever regulations we have in place. It is quite important that we change the regulatory structure using this bill so that a fair price is paid to Fonterra shareholders. I think that we probably need to look a little bit further. In my view it is only fair that we should discriminate between smaller scale New Zealand processors and large-scale foreign processors. I stand to be corrected but my understanding is that within this bill as it currently stands we do not discriminate between providing milk at a regulated price to small-scale New Zealand producers and large foreign-owned producers. 
It seems to me that it is not in New Zealand’s interests to force dairy farmers to provide raw milk at a regulated price to our foreign competitors—often backed by the Chinese Government and others—that are coming into New Zealand in an attempt to undercut the New Zealand dairy sector. Given the dominance of Fonterra within the market I certainly support providing milk at a regulated price to smaller scale New Zealand producers but I am not at all supportive of the situation where the dairy farmers of New Zealand should be made to subsidise and support the large foreign multinationals backed by the Chinese Government in their attempts to undermine the New Zealand dairy sector. 
Fonterra is a fantastically successful example of cooperation. It is a fantastically successful New Zealand cooperative and company and it has played an enormously important role in the New Zealand economy. These regulations will continue to help Fonterra to do that job but I think we need to future-proof these regulations and to look at how we will deal with the continued attack and intervention by large foreign multinationals that are trying to undermine our cooperative. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour to speak on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. This bill has been supported by every member of the Primary Production Committee and I acknowledge and applaud the chairmanship of Shane Ardern. As he said he is a farmer and a shareholder in Fonterra. He disclosed that up front and he has done a really good job. 
This legislation is so important because we are dealing with New Zealand’s single biggest industry. The dairy industry produces 25 percent of our exports and that is not something this House should trifle with. Any change in or consideration of the dairy industry that comes before Parliament should be considered very very carefully. Fonterra is also our only truly multinational company owned by New Zealanders. All the rest of them have large shareholdings offshore or they have bailed out completely. This is one multinational that is owned by New Zealanders for New Zealanders and it produces 25 percent of our exports. 
Fonterra is so successful that it controls almost 40 percent of international tradable products in the dairy industry across the world. That makes it a considerable player in the world of food exports across the globe. It has huge potential and that is something that we must realise if this country is to go forward. Nokia is to Finland as Fonterra is to New Zealand and we must keep it that way. 
This legislation deals with at most 5 percent of the milk produced in this country. However it is a 5 percent block of milk that is either sold at higher value through domestic consumption or goes into many value-added products. I think Fonterra and its managers and officials should be reminded that they are not the success story; in fact they have built on the success of the New Zealand Dairy Board and its predecessors in the dairy companies. There are many senior executives who think that they themselves have created this amazing company but they should be reminded on a regular basis that it has been built through the good work investment and wisdom of New Zealand dairy farmers and they have an obligation to ensure that Fonterra stays in the hands of New Zealand farmers as well. 
It is 5 percent of the milk produced in this country that we are dealing with and a number of speakers have talked about what we are doing here. Effectively we are setting up an auction system for the up to 5 percent of milk that was addressed through the original formation of Fonterra to ensure that we had competition on the local market that dairy farmers were able to enter and exit Fonterra that there was some balance to the monopoly position that the dairy board was in as the buyer of milk from farmers and the exporter and seller of milk products that there was not an abuse of that monopoly power that we had some competition in the domestic market so consumers in New Zealand had fair prices for dairy products and that farmers were not locked into an organisation that might not pay them a fair price for their milk. 
It has been quite a process and this legislation is an evolution of that domestic supply situation. I have to say that it is a bit late in coming to the House. The National Government for all its rhetoric in saying that it supports farmers has mucked around—to use a rural term—on this issue. Mr Ardern knows that. The Minister David Carter came in and could not quite grasp the problem. The previous Minister Jim Anderton had done a lot of good work. He had got to the point and recommended that an auction system be put in place. It should have been in place for this season but the Minister came in and hesitated and procrastinated. He did a U-turn as the National Government has done in a whole lot of areas and decided that we could not get it in place this season so we will bring in a new pricing structure. 
Hon David Parker 
: For a year and a half. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Well a year and a half is a short time for the National Government to procrastinate believe me. The Government will do about two or three U-turns in that time. Anyway thankfully we have got back to a sensible situation here which is why the select committee and all its members have supported the bill going forward. 
In passing this legislation I think it is important in a second reading speech to mention the likelihood—in fact the strong possibility—that we will have other legislation in this House dealing with Fonterra in the near future. Fonterra has just announced that it is about to start discussions with farmers on a capital restructure. A lot of farmers are not quite sure what this means. They have been told and there are many people running around the country saying that Fonterra needs more money to grow the business. That is true. I have to say that Fonterra and the New Zealand Dairy Board have done very well so far. I do not think there is an industry that has grown so steadily so sustainably and so profitably as the dairy industry has. Do members know how they have done it? Through caution retained earnings smart investments and not allowing its debt to get out of control. 
I have to say that the new management of Fonterra has allowed debt to slip out beyond the level that is comfortable. They should have retained the earnings in the year that they paid record money to the farmers. They should have retained a billion dollars of that money on their balance sheet and they would not have had an issue. But they chose not to and I do not think they deserved a bonus that year. But that is by the by. We have moved on. We are likely to have legislation in this House supporting a capital restructure if the farmers deem that this is necessary. 
Before this House agrees to any change we should look very carefully at Fonterra its success and its importance for New Zealand and in the international tradable market for dairy products. There has recently been a report from Desiree Reid who is a Nuffield Scholar. She is one of the smartest brightest leaders in the dairy industry. She is currently in Ireland and Europe looking at the dairy industry and she has reported back. She has visited Irish farmers who are working hard to replicate our low-cost pasture-based advantage. They are using our crossbred genetics and all of our wisdom to try to catch up. But they have said that Fonterra is the jewel in the crown of our dairy industry. 
There are proposals to recapitalise Fonterra because there are claims that it does not have enough money to grow. I am not quite so sure about that. The question is why people would be doing it if that is not the case. Well there may be some people who think for philosophical reasons through blind ideology or whatever that we need just to get some outside capital into Fonterra. I say to this House and I think the dairy industry should say to this House: “Don’t mess with us. Don’t mess with success.” If Mark Weldon John Key or others think that there is a need to bring in outside capital outside control and ultimately outside ownership into Fonterra then they should be warned. I think farmers will dig in for a big fight. 
I cannot help but mention a situation that the Prime Minister finds himself in. He is a big investor in a company called Dairy Investment Fund which is a private equity investor focused on deregulating the dairy industry to quote the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 2008. I am not sure what the Prime Minister’s current situation is. But before we do anything else to the dairy industry before we pass any further legislation—in fact even before this bill is passed—he should disclose in this House whether he is still a major investor in the Dairy Investment Fund. There are vultures waiting out there to take control whether they be Chinese whether they be New Zealanders or whether they be any other people around the world. If control of Fonterra is taken from the dairy farmers in this country we will see that control slip offshore. 
Fonterra is our multinational company. It is the most successful industry in this country. It is very important that this legislation that we are passing dealing with only 5 percent of the milk is sound—I believe it is and that is why Labour supports it—and that any other legislation we bring to this House is sound also. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading debate on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I must acknowledge the experience that is in the Primary Production Committee both the chair and the previous chair and also other people within the agricultural industry. The point I want to make—and I will not take too long a call because I think the matter has been canvassed pretty well—is that we listened to submissions and the submitters were a number of the processors who take milk that is made available under regulation and legislation. There are 600 million litres available. There are 21 processors that take milk. Out of those 13 take 4 million litres or less so that is quite a few. 
The argument from the submissions really came down to whether there was justification for the principle of a Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per milksolids. It is clear that the evidence came down on the favourable side—that that should be the way it is run. The premium on the farm-gate price is because of the seasonality of milk production. It was important to square up those shoulders. There is a mechanism for an auction system in this bill and on that basis we look forward to that being progressed at an appropriate time. No doubt the Minister of Agriculture was given sound advice that there needed to be more work done on that. We look forward to that being progressed and this bill makes that provision. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill to examine some of the clauses that have been introduced. I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. In saying so I am delighted to acknowledge my colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. The select committee is chaired by Shane Ardern and I must say that he does a good job. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: He should be the Minister. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Indeed Damien O’Connor took the words from my mouth. Shane Ardern should have been the Minister of Agriculture because he does a good job on the committee and I thank him for that. 
In talking about this bill I will say a few words about the dairy industry. The white gold that we have in New Zealand is well known around the world where as has been said before Fonterra exports 80 percent of our milk. We earn about 25 percent of our export income from the export of dairy products including milk which are very well known around the world. The main purpose of this bill is to replace the current regulated pricing formula that we use with a new formula which will include 10c per kilogram milksolids. This bill will also allow an auction system to be put in place in the future. 
John Hayes 
: An auction system for visas? 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I will leave the member’s comment there. We are talking about 600 million litres of milk or 5 percent of our total milk for auction. The key thing is that the new regulations allow for fair and efficient pricing for regulated raw milk and they ensure that the excess demand for regulated raw milk is managed efficiently. The regulations also remove any uncertainty from market conditions for people who are suppliers particularly for those who process the milk. So it is important that the regulations are upgraded for the future of our dairy industry. 
The committee received 11 submissions on this bill and we heard nine of them. Of course many of them supported this bill. However there were some small players in the processing area who did not quite agree and were not quite happy with this bill. In particular Green Valley thought that the proposed auction system would create ambiguity in the milk market and was not sure what would happen. It was concerned about the impact of the auction system on the price paid for milk and also about a possible increase in risk for independent processors and local market operators. Clearly Green Valley was a bit concerned about the impact of the auction system. Similarly Cadbury’s had some concern. It thought that the auction system may not be equitable for all the players and it wanted the opportunity to have input into the consultation process. 
This bill is supposed to become an Act by tomorrow—by 1 April— 
Colin King 
: In 2 days’ time. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Of course yes the date here in Parliament under urgency is a couple of days ago but this bill is supposed to become an Act on 1 April. In a way it shows that this is a lazy Government. It has left it until the very last moment to pass this bill under urgency at midnight tonight. 
This is a useful bill for the industry to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system particularly for the auction of 600 million litres of milk. Fonterra and Federated Farmers supported this bill. On this side of the House we are delighted to support the bill going forward given that our dairy industry is well known around the world and we are the largest exporter of milk and milk products. At the same time the other day we were talking about the perception of dairying when we discussed the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. We have to make sure that our dairy industry is well perceived around the world including potential news about the treatment of animals. We talked about cruelty to animals. We must make sure that those issues are dealt with properly and in time. This industry is a major source of income for New Zealanders—25 percent of our income comes from dairy industry exports—and we have to make sure that overseas markets perceive the industry here to be clean and green and that potential issues of dirty dairying and animal welfare are dealt with before any bad news gets out to the market. 
The food safety issue is particularly important. It is important that in relation to our food safety regulations around the manufacture of foods particularly in the dairy industry and the meat industry importing countries are sure about the quality and safety of the product they are receiving. We have heard about some of the issues such as melamine in China and similar problems. They are not good news for New Zealand. We need to make sure that the milk products we export are well regarded and continue to be well regarded for the future of this country. 
As an agricultural scientist I can foresee the markets gaining a big momentum particularly in China and elsewhere in Asia. We will soon have a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong and other countries. We are in the process of it right now. In my view the dairy industry is the industry that we have to protect and enhance particularly in relation to research and development. Unfortunately when this Government came in it scrapped the Fast Forward fund we had for research and development. 
Colin King 
: Be constructive. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: No I have to be honest about that. I think that this Government has taken a very short-term view on research and development. The $700 million we had put in that fund was money allocated for research and development particularly in pastoral farming. I think we need to invest a lot more money into pastoral farming because our future is dependent on the goal I mentioned. I think that the farmers on the other side of the House members like Shane Ardern understand that. Unfortunately another MP has been a bit of a disappointment. Phil Heatley was one of our students at Massey University but he has been a disappointment. With those few words I commend this bill to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call and concur with my colleague across the House Ashraf Choudhary that Shane Ardern is an excellent chair of the Primary Production Committee. We all work so well together because we all fully understand the importance of agriculture and that it is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. 
Although the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act is meeting most of its intended purposes the 2008 review of regulations found that the regulated price formula was flawed. This formula requires Fonterra to sell raw milk at a lower price than it pays farmers for the supply of raw milk. That was never the intention of the regulations and we needed to change it. The bill ensures that the price paid by independent processors for raw milk is the average price that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of the milk and includes the additional cost to Fonterra of supplying a uniform supply profile to independent processors across the season. I hope members all understood that. This price ensures that Fonterra is fairly compensated for supplying the raw milk. I wanted to take just a short call on that. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. Labour supports this bill. It flows on from the dairy industry restructuring that we as a Government undertook some 9 years ago. I concur with the comments made about the chairing of the select committee by Shane Ardern; he does a good job as chair. Perhaps he should be the Minister of Agriculture and perhaps Colin King should be the “Minister for Small Grains and Seeds” in support. 
The main purpose of this bill is to replace the current regulated pricing formula that independent processors pay to Fonterra for farm-gate prices and to add a premium of 10c per kilogram of milksolids. I should say at the outset that I do not need to declare a conflict of interest on this issue. Unlike Shane Ardern I do not have an involvement in the dairy industry but I guess I do have a connection of a kind that I need to declare. My daughter is getting married on Saturday. Her husband-to-be is the son of a dairy farming couple from Northland who have recently retired. They are good people. They are not of my political persuasion but they were loyal Fonterra suppliers. There is a little irony in all of this. Over a couple of glasses of wine one night after we first met I remarked that Fonterra was a good socialist organisation and the parents baulked somewhat at that description. But as I reminded them the dairy farming industry was in dire straits in the 1930s because of the activities of the then party in Government which was the predecessor of National. Mickey Joseph Savage and the Labour Government came in and delivered loans to that industry. They provided guaranteed minimum prices. They supported the expansion of the cooperative system. A good socialist system has seen that industry grow and grow to the point where today it is our biggest single export earner and that is a great thing to see. 
I have to declare my support for Fonterra. It is 100 percent New Zealand - owned and long may it continue to be so. We would rue the day when there were changes that saw foreign capital flow into Fonterra because it would start a whole chain of events that would I think be potentially cataclysmic for New Zealand. I acknowledge that Fonterra has led the growth in the dairy industry in my region of Canterbury and Southland. That might sound a little curious coming from somebody who is known to hold very very strong views in terms of issues such as water quality. But whatever issues we have about water quality certainly in any contact that I have had with Fonterra and its leadership not one person in the senior team has ever been anything other than absolutely committed to improving the current water-quality in my region of Canterbury and to working with Fonterra’s farmer base to try to lift that quality. If we have a New Zealand - owned entity like Fonterra I think we have an odds-on chance of getting the balance right even with regard to the less positive events in the House earlier today. The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord with Fonterra may not be delivering the sort of progress that we want to see but it is certainly a lot better than nothing. I commend Fonterra for its support. 
There is certainly a question as to whether we would see the same sort of commitment if we moved to an industry with a strong and growing profile of foreign investment. It is a valid question to be asked and I pose it in the House. I believe that the commitment over the generations to New Zealand of the farming cooperative system that Fonterra represents is the sort of commitment that represents outcomes in environmental values as well as the bottom line. I think that is truly important because Fonterra is the jewel in our economic crown. It is our single biggest export earner. It level pegs at times with the tourism industry one has to acknowledge. Obviously there are some tensions between those two industries that we have to get right. We want to see both do well in respect of our revenues and export income receipts. But I think New Zealanders need to know where the Government will stand on the issue of Fonterra’s capital base. I ask the Government whether it will take a position of following market ideology and whether we will be seeing a public float of Fonterra’s shares. I think that would be a really backward step. The pressure is on. We have seen proposals to float those shares on the sharemarket which luckily the Fonterra stakeholder base has managed to thwart but the issue will come up again. I think we want to see Fonterra held in New Zealand hands and using its own shareholder base as the way to create some new capital for it. 
There has been considerable commentary in the last week about the Chinese company with a billion and a half dollars to spend on the purchase of New Zealand farms and infrastructure. I believe that one of the intended targets for it would be the Synlait company based in Dunsandel which was set up as one of the offshoots of the dairy restructuring changes that we introduced as a Government back in the early 1990s. I visited Synlait last year and as somebody with no deep understanding or knowledge of the dairy industry or how it operates I have to say that I was surprised to see Fonterra tankers pulling in and out of the Synlait plant in Dunsandel as well as Synlait’s trucks although I think the Fonterra trucks outnumbered them. It was explained to me that that was the basis of the dairy restructuring—Fonterra was obliged to supply milk to Synlait. 
We now begin to understand through this bill that the basis of that has been uneven. It has been tilted a little too much in favour of the competition that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act provided for and this bill brings back some measure of balance to the equation. Competitors will pay a premium of 10c per kilogram of milksolids to ensure that they are given competitive reasons to provide their own facilities rather than simply if you like milk the tit of the Fonterra machine. 
One of the concerns that I have about the future of the industry relates to the Overseas Investment Office. Last year one of the first acts of this Government was to weaken the overseas investment rules. I think that is a concern. We all acknowledge the role that foreign capital has played in the creation of our nation and the role that it continues to play. We are not talking about shutting the gate but we have to be judicious about the way that we allow foreign investment to flow into this country as any other nation is. If we were to see further loosening in respect of our dairy industry then I believe that would be detrimental to New Zealand’s interests. At the moment I think the landscape is tilted in favour of foreign investors anyway because our monetary policy settings give them interest rate advantages over other domestic New Zealand capital. It brings to mind the call that Labour made about having some reconsideration of current monetary policy settings. 
I was interested to hear the comment from Shane Ardern about the percentage of exports that Fonterra now commands—84 percent was the figure he used I think. That surprised me a little given that we know Fonterra still holds about 92 percent of the industry in terms of the milk flows. Obviously the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act created competition. It is truly there in place. This bill is trying to make sure that those supplies of raw milk do not continue to give rival companies some sort of competitive edge and that we have a flow through the season that does not see them given all the benefits of being able to buy through the season at prices that are not available to Fonterra—they obviously enjoy the peak of the season prices. 
In conclusion I note that this bill makes a change to the wholesale milk price. It adds 10c per kilogram of milksolids. I think that is a sensible solid move towards assisting Fonterra. It is a rebalancing exercise. It is an appropriate way to try to ensure that we maintain this jewel in the crown to keep it functioning to keep it producing and to keep it delivering export receipts for New Zealand. Yes we want the competition there; it has a place in the market. But we do not want the field tilted in such a way that we give an undue competitive advantage to other organisations some of whom currently—let us be blunt about it—certainly have more foreign shareholding than Fonterra we hope will ever have. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee I seek leave for all the provisions of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. 
Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I guess that this gives us the opportunity to go through the nitty-gritty detail of the legislation which we have all agreed we support. Once again I have to raise what I guess is the urgency of the situation. As the Acting Leader of the House probably knows and as the Committee definitely knows unless we get this legislation passed by midnight the dairy industry will be in trouble. It is not quite sure how it will then supply milk or what system it will use to supply milk—up to 600 million litres of milk. Actually I do not think that too many people out there will understand how much 600 million litres of milk is. It is a hell of a lot of milk and producers want to know what they are to do with it. 
Shane Ardern 
: It’s a few tanker loads. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is a few tanker loads and if it is not dealt with properly it becomes a huge burden and one might say an environmental dilemma. 
I will take the opportunity to go back to the regulations. The legislation was passed in 2001. In 2008 through that process we became aware that there were difficulties in pricing the milk for the people buying it—that is Cadbury’s Open Country Cheese Co. and Tatua. It was not the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co.—not yet anyway. All the companies purchasing it for value-added purposes for the most part or for domestic milk supply were not quite sure whether they were getting a fair deal whether they were paying too much whether Fonterra was getting ripped off or whatever. 
In Labour’s wisdom as we always were wise as a Government we conducted a review. It identified three main issues. Firstly the wholesale milk price formula systematically underpriced regulated raw milk—that is the farmer-supplier shareholders of Fonterra were effectively subsidising the companies that purchased the milk from Fonterra. They could get on the phone ring Fonterra and say: “We want a tanker load of milk.” which is a huge privilege for any business dealing in a perishable product. They could do that then not ring for a week or two but Fonterra had to process that milk that kept coming out of the cows’ udders. 
We must understand—and many out there probably do not; a lot of young kids think that milk comes from bottles which is understandable if one has been brought up in the city—that cows need to be milked twice a day. In fact there is one farm down in Oamaru milking 2.7 times a day but we will not go into the detail of that. In very efficient production systems it is up to three times a day. For their own welfare cows need to be milked. The milk has to be taken from them and processed somewhere; there is an obligation on Fonterra to do that. The original legislation said that it had to take the milk from the farmers who were supplying it. The companies that wanted up to 400 million litres or up to 500 million litres as it was at the time could ring up and get it when they wanted it and not get it when they did not want it. That placed a huge burden on Fonterra and its shareholders to build the stainless steel with the potential to process that full amount of milk when it might come from the cows in the peak of the season not knowing whether someone would ring for a tanker of milk or not. That is a huge impost on the system. It is a cost and the review of the regulations conducted by the previous Labour Government identified that those people were getting the milk cheaply. Understandably the farmers were getting pretty agitated about that. They could have got another few cents a litre or a few cents per kilogram of milksolids for the milk they supplied to Fonterra. So there was a need for the Government to do something. 
The second thing discovered is that there was no system for managing the excess demand by independent processors for regulated raw milk. Some of those businesses grew and wanted more milk. They did not know whether they could come to Fonterra and get that milk or whether Fonterra would just say: “No sorry; go away.” Obviously that would place constraints on their ability to grow businesses that were often adding really good substantive and sustainable value to our milk in this country. We wanted to enhance that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the honourable member again I just say that this is the Committee stage of the bill. We are addressing the nuts and bolts of the bill. This is slightly different from previous debates. This bill has been to a select committee and has come back with a select committee report. I know we are going across the bill but I want to start as we intend to continue and not have wide-ranging speeches. I just want to bring the member to the contents of the bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson; I respect that. I guess I am trying to give some context to a bill that for many people seems to be rather minor but a huge transfer of wealth was taking place and that needed to be addressed. Everyone in this Chamber who has any connection to the dairy industry knows that farmers were demanding it but farmers are disappointed that it has taken so long to do it. 
The legislation that was drafted and put to the Primary Production Committee did not require a huge amount of amendment because I think we had all agreed that we needed to address the issues. The third issue identified in the review was that there was an unmanaged transition risk associated with the prospective ending of the Fonterra statutory obligation to supply raw milk. At some stage those people building their businesses could actually have lost all supply so we had to bring in a fair system. 
An auction is an obvious way of addressing that and this bill effectively sets up an auction process for raw milk. We applaud that because there were companies involved such as Synlait; New Zealand Dairies which has Russian shareholdings; Open Country Cheese with Singaporean shareholders; Goodman Fielder; and Cadbury’s. All these companies were taking milk from shareholders and we needed to make sure they were paying a fair price for it. 
I will go back to the legislation as you have advised Mr Chairperson and look at some of the submissions that came before the select committee. These are submissions relating directly to the bill. I cannot help but refer to the wise words from the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. Ltd. That company has stayed outside the Fonterra structure. It is an independent company. It was until recently the second-largest processing company processing about 2.5 to 3 percent of the milk in this country. It decided to stay out of Fonterra. It firmly believed in and supported the single-desk structure—that is that we should have one seller offshore. But it stayed outside because it thought it would lose control of its destiny and be controlled by Auckland which I think was very astute and very visionary of that company and I think that many farmers accepted that. That company came to the select committee brought its submissions and it was upfront and honest. It supported Fonterra’s position that there should not be an obligation to continue to supply up to 600 million litres of milk to those companies. Fonterra believes that time has moved on and that many of the companies taking milk should be working on a process of ensuring their own supply. I agree with that. If companies are big enough and mature enough—be it Open Country Cheese Synlait or Cadbury’s—they should sit down and negotiate with farmers to secure supplies. 
Hon David Parker 
: That’s what Cadbury’s used to do. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Cadbury’s used to do that; there is no problem. In fact if companies are truly developing value-added products then they are in a position to offer a bit more to farmers and should be able to secure regular supply in normal commercial arrangements. So Fonterra believed that and Westland came to the select committee and supported Fonterra absolutely because Westland is a fair honest and very astute dairy company I have to say—not that I am of course praising people— 
Hon David Parker 
: Director Mr O’Connor? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No I have no vested interest; I am not a shareholder in any way. I have brothers who are and a father but I am not in any way a contact. Westland also said however that if we are intent on continuing with this structure then it will apply for milk which seems a little bizarre given that that company actually objects to the whole set-up anyway. But it said that it was in its commercial interests—and it has an obligation to its shareholders to maximise returns—to ring up Fonterra and ask for tankers of milk to be supplied in Hokitika. Of course it will pay for transport but it is still worthwhile for it to do that because being able to square one’s supply curve—that is fill in the gaps and get consistent supply into one’s factories—is invaluable in any large processing structure. 
There is a value in that that had not been assessed by Fonterra or those purchasing. I thank the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. for its honesty because it did help the select committee and I guess reinforced the view that we need to move towards an auction system where the market will identify the true value and we will not be attempting by regulation to set a fair price on a commodity—milk—the price of which fluctuates on a regular basis in the international market place. In fact it fluctuates quite a bit domestically on the basis of those international prices. So I hope that Westland does not have to continue to access milk from Fonterra because it will be a transfer of wealth from Fonterra to Westland shareholders. Maybe that is quite a good thing actually but anyway I have to thank them for their submission. 
There were a number of other submissions one from Federated Farmers which I have to say was fairly consistent. They still believe that the market will deliver everything without regulations. I think it is a little naive of them but they do understand that there was a dilemma and their farmer shareholders were searching for and seeking a resolution to this. I have to tell them they are getting it a year later than they should have because of the National Government’s procrastination and that is unfortunate. It is not because the select committee sat on its hands. We moved immediately. We heard submissions. We processed this as quickly as we could and I think we have done a pretty good job with it. 
I will refer to just one other submission which was from Open Country Cheese a large and growing company in this country. It has concerns. It has enjoyed the benefits of accessing milk. I think it is prepared to accept that an auction system will be the fairest way for it to move forward. But it has views too around the capital restructuring of Fonterra—the next step that we will see in this House—and how it thinks that it may lock farmers into Fonterra. That is not the intention of this House and was not in 2001 when we passed the legislation. Farmers need to be able to come and go. Land use needs to be able to change although in my humble opinion there is a loss of value to this country of continued land use change and a waste of capital. But I think we will look at that in hindsight—[ 
Interruption 
] Of course if that Minister Steven Joyce gets his way Fonterra will be listed on the stock market his friend Mark Weldon will be enjoying a slice of the action when the shares are bought and sold and he will be patting himself on the back saying what a wonderful thing he has done for New Zealand agriculture. In the end as the stock market has done before time and time again those shares will disappear offshore but Mr Steven Joyce has no fears about that. It does not worry him who owns New Zealand as long as there is someone around making a slice on the transactions as those shares come in and out. That is the warning that I have. 
The detail that the select committee has worked through on this legislation has been done because the chair and the committee members are firmly of the view that we are doing this to improve the situation for the dairy industry in the belief that it will remain in New Zealand hands. If we were—and I think we have checked and double-checked—making a mistake by bringing in an auction system that will better facilitate the capital restructuring and will allow shares to be traded on the stock market then I would not vote for this piece of legislation. But I think that in the staged way that we are approaching this this is a good piece of legislation. 
The technical details in this bill—which I have not dwelt on too much I have to say even though this is the Committee stage—I think are all sound. We have amended through clause 4 section 115 which deals with the issue of auctions and what may be required. The Minister of Agriculture will have the right to set a reserve. There are some concerns about that. The chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—and I see some officials in the Chamber who I am sure will be listening carefully—is required to maintain the auction system. The chief executive is required to maintain a sound fair and honest auction system. That does not always occur when there are a couple of big players and some small players. That is why the concerns that some of the smaller players had have been addressed and there will be a certain amount of milk available for smaller players—I think it is up to 40 million litres. So if one wants to start a little cheese factory then one will be able to bid at the auction and one will not have to compete with Open Country Cheese Westland Dairy as they might bid into it Synlait or the Russian-owned companies as who knows what foreigners may come into this country the Chinese or anyone else. Opportunities for small innovative entrepreneurial New Zealanders have been protected with the set-up that we have and the changes we have made. 
New section 119A has been inserted to allow regulations to be made under the Act. We need some protections to ensure that there is decent consultation. We have dealt with those technical issues as best we can in the bill. Maybe one of the Government members or the chair of the Primary Production Committee can get up and give us an assurance on that. I feel comfortable with it. We have to make sure that the regulations that this bill allows do apply and that we can have a fair and honest auction system. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to highlight two points in particular. One is about what Fonterra wants out of this and one is about the concerns expressed by other players in the dairy industry about how the Minister of Agriculture and the officials will handle those situations. Fonterra believes that the auction system must be limited to no more than 600 million litres of milk. That is its the bottom line. Also it wants the reserve price to be at least 10c per kilogram of milksolids and to set the seasonal value of the milk. It wants that to be included in this arrangement. But some of the other players the processors like Green Valley and other industry players like Cadbury’s for example have concerns that the auction system will not be fair and equitable. Also they wanted to ensure that there is consultation prior to the auction system being put in place. I think that is where the concern is. They believe that the new system particularly the auction system will not be fair and equitable to them and they want to have consultation in setting up that system. 
So I would appreciate it if the Minister as a stand-in Minister or the chair of the select committee would take a call and perhaps give some assurance to the small players the processors who are likely to buy this extra milk that the auction system will be fair for them. As I understand it there will be at least 300 auctions per week. So there will be a lot of auctions of milk and if the milk is not auctioned it will be subtracted from the total milk available. So clearly we need to have a system in place that is fair otherwise we will be back in this House asking for changes to be made. Small players in the industry have some concern about this issue. Clearly there is a concern that Fonterra will not be fair to processors and will want to charge 10c for a kilogram of milksolids at a seasonal value. Some of them are suggesting that this is an unnecessary extra cost they have to pay. I would be very keen for Shane Ardern or the Minister in the chair to be able to give an assurance to processors that they will have a fair go if you like once this auction is put in place by 1 June of this year. We want to make sure that all players in the “white gold” industry in New Zealand which is well regarded overseas have equitable access to available milk and that they feel they are part of the restructuring of the industry. 
As my colleague Damien O’Connor has said other bills are coming through regarding the capital restructuring of the industry. We must make sure that this bill and particularly the auction system is fair to all parties. At the moment we have an online auction of milk sold overseas which I understand is working very well. In the local situation we need to have an auction system that is fair to all players. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I know that members will be nervous that I am the Acting Minister of Agriculture particularly colleagues of mine like Shane Ardern who are far more knowledgable than me on such issues. There is a healthy tension between me and the Minister of Agriculture. 
There are two points that I want to answer. Firstly a very reasonable point has been made by Ashraf Choudhary on the auctioning system the number of small players and what reassurance they can be given that the auctioning system will be fair to those businesses. I reassure him that the law requires a process of consultation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to use the regulating powers that the bill provides that process of consultation will provide some reassurance for those players that it will be fair. 
Secondly I will also make a brief comment about an amendment to clause 2 that has been tabled in my name. I confess that it is an area of the bill that I do understand properly and that is the date of commencement—that is something I can cope with. The issue is that the Governor-General will not be available to sign this bill tomorrow. The commencement date currently in the bill reported back from the Primary Production Committee is 1 April. The amendment simply changes the date of commencement from 1 April to the date of Royal assent which is likely to be the beginning of next week. It is a pragmatic little response. My big contribution to agricultural legislation will be getting the date of commencement right on the bill. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Outrageous! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an outrageous decision. I assure Damien O’Connor and other members of the Committee that that will probably be the extent of my contribution to agricultural law in this House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I follow in sequence from the Minister in the chair the Acting Minister of Agriculture in acknowledging that I am no expert on the dairy industry either. However we are partners in crime in respect of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill as we go through the Committee stage. 
I will comment a little further on the current beneficiaries of the raw milk pricing system. A number of those are present in the market place one of which is the Synlait dairy factory in Dunsandel. I understand that currently it has a shareholding owned by Mitsui of Japan of 22.5 percent. I have talked about its plans to quintuple production so obviously it will be seeking to expand greatly. The details of this bill will be important in terms of Fonterra being able to ensure that in the future its supply to that dairy plant in Dunsandel is done so on an equitable basis. 
New Zealand Dairies will be a dairy company known to many members in relationship to the Studholme family who started it but its total shareholding now belongs to a Russian company called Nutritek. That plant is at Waimate near the Waitaki River and the growth in the dairy industry has fed into that plant. 
Open Country Cheese is a Waikato-based dairy company. Amongst its shareholders is a former Deputy Prime Minister one Wyatt Creech who is known to the Minister in the chair at the moment. Olam International a company from Singapore is a major shareholder there. 
We also have the Cadbury’s factory in Dunedin a proud institution on the Dunedin landscape. Britain is the major shareholder or I think wholly owns that Cadbury’s factory. There are two others. Tatua has already benefited from the raw milk supply from Fonterra which is the subject of this bill and I think there are predictions that Westland Cooperative Dairy will in the next season also become a recipient of milk from Fonterra. 
One of the issues that the Primary Production Committee had to consider was the balance. It considered whether Fonterra was too dominant and whether it was getting the benefits it deserved from the current system and I guess there was a sense that Fonterra is not the bully over the little guys in this respect. Those smaller players are growing in strength and size and obviously we want a system that balances those interests. Some of those players can hardly be described as small. When we consider that Open Country Cheese collected about 850 million litres of milk last year it is not exactly a small player. 
In relation to the issues of the auction and that option is provided for in future the basis is that although the Fonterra farm-gate milk price reduces the underpricing associated with the current wholesale milk price—and the addition of a 10 percent premium provides an allowance for the seasonal pricing to smooth it out if you like—the fact remains that the current regulated milk remains underpriced. The full value of the seasonal price has been calculated at around 15c per kilogram of milksolids rather than at 10c per kilogram and the 10c premium does not attempt to capture the benefits for the independent processors. They are able to limit the risk to their factories through having a diversified milk supply and they have the enormous convenience provided by effectively being able to dial up a Fonterra tanker. That provides them with enormous financial strength effectively at the expense of the balance sheet of Fonterra. 
The reason to use the farm-gate price is that it ensures independent processors do not purchase raw milk from Fonterra under the regulations at a lower price than the average price that Fonterra pays its farmers for raw milk over the whole period of the season. Therefore employing the farm-gate price to regulated milk establishes a price equivalent of about 4 percent of the raw milk that Fonterra has to divest under the current regulations with Fonterra keeping the price of the remaining 96 percent. We have heard the figure from Shane Ardern that although it takes 96 percent of the milk it provides from that only 84 percent of the exports so that again really enshrines the nature of competition that Fonterra is facing. The price adjustment of 10c a kilogram of milksolids reflects the additional costs to Fonterra in providing what is called a square supply curve which is one that goes right the way across a season. The additional price above the farm-gate milk price is required to ensure a fair and efficient price because that farm-gate milk price reflects the average price paid by Fonterra for a farmer’s annual milk supply profile. 
I reinforce the point that Fonterra is our largest and our only truly large-playing New Zealand private company. Its success is our success. When Fonterra’s milk price drops the economy dips with it. When the milk fat price rises the economy rises with it. Farmers gear up on that milk fat price—sometimes one would have to acknowledge in a rather profligate fashion. 
We know that some of the banks at the moment are doing some restructuring in the dairy industry due to the expansion that a number of farmers engaged upon because they began to believe that prices nudging towards $8 a kilogram would be sustained. That is a foolhardy proposition. Anybody with any experience in the industry would know that prices can range from between $3 and $4 a kilogram and the top end price of I think $7.80 a kilogram which was achieved in the season before last. 
Dairy farmers in the Fonterra structure are given a lot of confidence in the future of the industry. It has been around a long time under various guises. It has had enormous growth. Through this bill we want to ensure that the success of Fonterra which has been a large part of the success of the New Zealand economy continues. We want to see that those who have taken their positions in the market as a result of the dairy industry restructuring of nearly a decade ago are not given golden windows of opportunity and are not having windows shut. I am confident that this bill as it was passed through the select committee process will deliver the sort of balance that we want to see in the New Zealand dairy industry. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 April 2010” and substitute “the day after the day on which it receives the Royal assent”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture) 
: I move  
That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be now read a third time 
. I do so as the Acting Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Hon David Carter who is currently hard at work for New Zealand’s interests in the all-important opening market of China. I want to acknowledge his work on this bill as well as the very cooperative constructive way in which all members of the Primary Production Committee have helped to move this bill through the House. 
The bill was tabled in the House in October 2009 it had its first reading on 28 October after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee. The select committee reported back the bill to the House on 22 February 2010.The bill has now had its second reading and passed through the Committee stage with only a very minor amendment in respect of the date of its coming into effect. 
The dairy industry is an integral part of the New Zealand economy. The industry contributed $11.3 billion or 27 percent of New Zealand’s total merchandise export value in the year to March 2009 and the industry continues to grow. As a result of productivity improvements and the expansion of dairy farming over the past few seasons New Zealand’s milk production is growing at around 3 percent per annum and there is great potential for further growth over the next 10 to 15 years. On the back of that strong milk growth we have seen increased investment in the industry through the entry and expansion of dairy processing companies and specialised food processors over the past few seasons. The increasing diversity of business models that have entered the dairy industry provides choice both to New Zealand farmers as well as to domestic and international customers and consumers wanting high-quality New Zealand dairy products. 
The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act has provided the regulatory framework in which new companies are able to enter the dairy processing industry and test the efficiency and the profitability of the different business models. The purpose of the pro-competitive measures contained in the Act was to promote the efficient operation of New Zealand dairy markets to ensure that New Zealand markets for dairy goods and services were contestable. The contestability of milk supply provided incentives for all dairy companies to seek innovative opportunities to drive cost efficiencies thereby improving the value of New Zealand milk and the returns to New Zealand farmers and the wider New Zealand economy. 
Upon the passing of this bill some of the inefficiencies in the current pricing system can be removed so that the dairy processors will be provided with the right economic incentives to source milk directly from farmers where practical rather than under the regulations. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk this bill builds on the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand. This bill allows for raw milk supplied to independent processors by Fonterra under the Raw Milk Regulations to be allocated through an auction system or through any other method. The bill improves upon the Act by providing for more flexibility in the pricing and allocation of regulated raw milk both now and in the future. As the industry continues to evolve the Government needs to have the tools to be able to modernise the regulatory framework in which the industry operates. This bill provides a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for pricing and allocating regulated raw milk. 
I want to pass on the Government’s thanks to the officials and to the industry which has constructively engaged in helping us get to the point of being ready to pass this bill. The bill builds on the objectives of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote a contestable market for farmers’ milk and ensure that the dairy markets in New Zealand operate efficiently. Yes it is an important issue for dairy farmers but actually the importance of the dairy industry makes this an important bill for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 This is a very good bill if only for the reason that I am sure the Minister for the Environment is a lot wiser about the dairy industry now than he probably was earlier this evening. That is progress. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What a nasty thing to say. He’s the nicest bloke. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: There is someone who certainly needs some education in every area of his portfolio. Perhaps he can learn a bit about Auckland; I am sure he will shortly. 
Labour supports the bill. The purpose of the bill as was stated by the Minister is to replace the current regulated pricing formula for a formula that is fairer to the parties—to Fonterra to suppliers to shareholders and to independent processors. It sets up ultimately we think an auction system. There are possibilities of other systems but the auction system is one that has been investigated. It has been identified as being the fairest to the parties. Minister Smith’s amendment identified once again the fact that this Government has let this bill languish. It has procrastinated it has not realised the importance of the bill and this bill is late going through the House. I suggest it is going through a year later than it should have been but even now it is too late for the Governor-General to sign off so we had an amendment at the last minute saying that the bill will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent instead of 1 April. This is just an example of the mismanagement that occurs from time to time. None the less the Opposition is happy to facilitate the passage of this bill and to agree to it. 
We did look at these issues very very carefully. As Minister Smith said we are dealing with the most important industry in the country. It is a primary industry that has thrived and grown in spite of critics out there saying that it should do better it could do better and we have to restructure and change the whole thing. I say to the House to members opposite to Ministers—in particular Mr Steven Joyce who is an enthusiastic seller of State assets in New Zealand—and to anyone who wants to come along that that is why the Minister assisted with the changing of the Overseas Investment Office rules. We will see whether he stays around long enough for the sale of many many things but hopefully not Fonterra. 
Farmers should be concerned that although we are improving their returns and rebalancing the system of auction for 5 percent of their milk the 95 percent that we are not addressing tonight in this House has to be carefully managed. The returns and the value from that milk have to come back to New Zealand farmers because they are the people who produce 25 percent of the export revenue for this country. 
Colin King 
: 27. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is 27 percent—there it is; it has gone up. It must have gone up in the last few days but anyway 27 percent is a huge chunk of wealth creation in this country. It is not the investors it is the farmers who have made the investment in the land in their stock in their machines in their knowledge and in their commitment as individuals—it is a hard life often—whom we have to ensure we look after because they have driven this economy right through the 1900s and will drive it in the 21st century as well if we get it right. 
The passage of this bill deals with 5 percent of the milk industry. It allows opportunities for independent processes for companies like Cadbury’s and for the cheese producers but it also continues to supply opportunities for growing and larger companies like Synlait like Open Country Cheese and like Westland Cooperative Dairy. The bill provides opportunities for those companies to access milk and that is a privilege in any commercial arrangement. In the interim they pay 10c above market value for raw milk but ultimately it will go to auction we think on the basis that it will offer a fairer deal for all players. 
As I have said we have to get this right. I have some concerns about what will happen next. We will pass this bill and then there will be another one before the House. We will have people advocating for recapitalisation the capital restructure of Fonterra and questions must be asked whether that will assist with the progress that we have made here or whether in fact it will detract from the wealth that can be created and retained by New Zealanders. I say as the Irish farmers say and as Desiree Reid has discovered that Fonterra is the jewel in our crown. It is owned by farmers and the Irish dairy industry is desperately trying to recreate that position. 
There will be people in this House and people who have gone and looked at Kerry Group plc which was once a cooperative owned by farmers and said what a wonderful measure of success it is for the dairy industry. Well I have to say that the Irish dairy industry found very quickly that it has left farmers in a desperate situation. They are receiving the lowest payout of any dairy company and the same could happen in this country. The dairy industry would be ruined if we allowed farmers to be just the takers of the raw milk price rather than the owners the shareholders and ultimately the beneficiaries of a totally vertically integrated dairy system. That is the reason why we have a successful dairy industry that is able to produce 27 percent we are told of our export earnings. That is based on smart carefully assessed legislation. 
This has been the discipline that has driven success in the dairy industry. It has been good legislation. I trust we are passing good legislation now. We worked through it under the wise guidance of the chairman of the Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern who should be the Minister. I have concerns about his ministerial colleagues and what they will bring to the select committee if they are brave enough of course. They might try to divert it to another select committee but I know that Shane Ardern will fight tooth and nail to ensure that any dairy legislation in particular any legislation relating to possible capital restructure will come to the wise— 
Hon Member 
: All-powerful. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: —all-powerful and astute Primary Production Committee. If it does not there is a danger that people for their own reasons will want to see capital restructure. 
The question I ask as I did in my second reading speech is whether John Key is one of those people. Is he still a shareholder and a major investor in the Dairy Investment Fund? This is a private equity investor focused on deregulating the dairy sector so it can invest in this profitable sector. The question I ask which I know Mr Ardern will ask and will want the answer to is whether John Key is still a major investor in that fund; if so will he declare an interest with the passage of this dairy legislation and any other possible dairy legislation that will be considered by this House? 
I know we have members such as Shane Ardern who are farmers. He has declared an interest up front as a shareholder. But it is the subtle investments through back-door deals such as the Chinese wanting to come into our dairy industry with $1.5 billion. We have had Russian interests and we had Singaporean interests through Synlait. We have a number of overseas interests in the dairy industry and they are growing in both their influence and their power. The question is: if Fonterra goes through a capital restructure and if as many want to see its shares are put on the stock market will John Key still be an investor in the Dairy Investment Fund which will be out there trying to lap up and buy up shares in Fonterra? 
Ultimately the loss of control by farmers will be the demise of the dairy industry. They will end up taking a price for raw milk that will see them just survive and nothing else. That is the experience internationally and that is the experience of the Irish. I suggest to anyone who thinks otherwise to read the wise words of Desiree Reid who has been travelling over there. 
Labour supports the passage of this legislation. It addresses issues around 5 percent of the milk supply in this country and issues around the other 95 percent have to be carefully considered. I trust that we can end up with the same good outcomes. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise once again in support of the third reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee very much for their fulsome support of myself. But I ask them to please lay off because I do not think that it is in the best interests of my political career going forward to be so forcefully and roundly supported by the Labour Opposition. But I thank them none the less; they worked very hard in the select committee where sometimes we had difficult characters before us. We managed to get the bill reported back to the House on time with some reasonable recommendations for the Minister which have been accepted. 
I will recap what the dairy industry in New Zealand in respect of this debate is about. As the Acting Minister of Agriculture said—and I was surprised to hear this myself when he commented; I hope it is correct—the dairy industry now provides 27 percent of our export earnings. It was 25 percent the last time I looked but it is now 27 percent. I am sure that figure is correct because the officials would have given it to the Minister. 
Fonterra is made up of approximately 10500 shareholder farmers. They are hard-working mum and dad New Zealanders. They are the hard-working individuals who own the industry through the shares that they hold and the land that they purchased. They risk their capital and it can be a substantial risk. I know some cases of directors who were about to press the start button on the new factories they had built. Had those plants not operated up to the specification range that they were supposed to operate up to they would have lost their farms. I am talking particularly about the Waharoa site now the Fonterra site in Hawera South Taranaki. It is a 20-tonne-an-hour powder plant that is world leading—the first in the world. That was how it worked. That was the risk they took that was the capital they invested and those were the decisions they made. I have never seen another industry in New Zealand with that type of backbone in terms of that integrated structure—from the producer right through to the market—and investing that type of capital. 
As I said earlier and most people were surprised to hear this Fonterra now represents 84 percent of all milk exported from New Zealand. Let us understand the difference between export and domestic. We seem to be able to understand that the All Blacks playing against the Springboks is different from when Taranaki plays Waikato. But when it comes to trading internationally for some reason we cannot understand it. There is a mental block about the domestic market and the international market. Fonterra exports 84 percent of all the milk processed in New Zealand. Fonterra exports 84 percent not 90 percent not 100 percent and not all these other figures that are put about. Fonterra with 10500 shareholders exports 84 percent of all milk that is processed in New Zealand. Fonterra represents a substantial part of the economy in New Zealand. This bill allows up to 600 million litres of Fonterra’s milk to be made available domestically to competitors of that company—that is what it does. The purpose of the bill is to set a fair pricing mechanism. Some legitimate concerns were raised by speakers from the other side about how fair that pricing mechanism is. It is the Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids to recognise the seasonal production curve. 
The Prime Minister has just recently opened in Edendale Southland what is now the biggest powder plant in the world. I think it now processes 27 tonnes an hour. I understand that the specification range of that plant is somewhere between the commodity bottom-end powder which is skim-milk powder at about $1500 to $2000 a tonne right up to the very high-end specification which sometimes can be in excess of about $7000 per tonne. I stand to be corrected on those figures but that is what I understand to be the case. The plant will be efficient—and on paper it is the most efficient in the world—only if we can get milk into that plant for a long enough period. The legislation that we are passing tonight allows competitors of that plant like Kraft General Foods which is the total shareholder of the former Cadbury’s plant in Dunedin to be able to collect milk directly from under that new powder plant in Edendale deliver it to Dunedin and get that milk at Fonterra farm-gate prices in a Fonterra tanker plus 10c a kilogram. 
The debate is whether that process is fair and equitable and that debate will continue. There will be another round of discussions and there is a consultation paper out there. The small processors at the other end of the scale argue that of course they should have access to milk and if they are innovative and if they are developing markets in New Zealand or internationally that will bring a higher return to New Zealand from that process then yes of course they should. That is the balance we have tried to strike. I acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee for the work they did and I thank them for their support. I commend this bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This bill the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill is a natural evolution. It follows on from the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act passed by the previous Labour Government. As the previous speaker Shane Ardern indicated in some detail the bill addresses some of the problems in the domestic market supply which came through in the industry review initiated by the Labour Government. The bill will in essence mean that Fonterra’s farmers will get a fair price for the raw milk that they deliver. 
One of the points we want to make is that this bill should have been passed some time ago by this House because it will help to improve the performance of an industry that is the most important industry to this country in many many ways. The dairy industry provides 27 percent of export receipts so for every dollar we spend as a nation 27c comes from the dairy industry. Therefore this bill should have had priority status attached to it. When we consider that this House has debated bills to cut the seats on polytechnic councils for instance instead of considering this dairy industry restructuring bill we have to ask where the Government’s priorities were. This bill was on the back-burner and other lesser bills were given front-status treatment. 
This is a refinement bill: an ongoing refinement of the dairy industry regulations and legislation that Labour introduced and continues to support. It is only one of the larger issues that the Government will face in terms of the dairy industry. At some point the Government will have to bite the bullet and make decisions about the capital restructuring of Fonterra. Last year we saw that the Prime Minister and his good mate the chief executive officer of NZX looked at proposals for quite considerable change in the dairy industry capital structure. They were defeated by the dairy industry stakeholders themselves and that was a welcome move. But that issue will come back and I think that sooner or later the Government has to give some signals as to what its position will be. It has to think very very carefully about those issues. 
Fonterra is our only multinational company. It is 100 percent owned by farmer shareholders and is our biggest player in international markets. I think I have heard figures tonight about the amount of the international dairy industry trade. I think 40-plus percent was the figure coming from this one company with its 10500 shareholders across New Zealand. Fonterra does a fantastic job. It is indeed our prized jewel. We need to make sure we protect it not expose it to the vagaries and fluctuations of international capital markets. Fonterra needs to remain in New Zealand hands in New Zealand ownership and deliver back to New Zealand every dollar that it gets. 
Whatever benefits foreign investment brings it brings other consequences. Every dollar that has to be repatriated to foreign shareholders is another dollar we have to find as a nation in terms of our balance of payments. Every dollar that we repatriate is another push on our New Zealand dollar keeping it high. Every dollar that we repatriate to foreign shareholders represents another pressure on our interest rates. All of those things end up costing New Zealand— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What rubbish! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The member says “What rubbish!”. This is absolutely fundamental. Every dollar that we send overseas we have to find somewhere else and the member is telling me that that does not impact on our balance of payments. Is he telling me that that does not impact on the level of the New Zealand dollar? Is he telling me that it does not impact on New Zealand interest rates? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Correct. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I find that extraordinary—no I do not actually coming from the leader of the ACT Party. He believes that the market delivers everything. He does not believe in Fonterra. He thinks the market does better. 
Hon Member 
: That’s why he got 2 percent. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right. That is why he got 2 or 3 percent of the vote. 
We need to make sure that Fonterra gets some measure of protection and I think this bill does that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Why don’t you sit down until you’ve got something to say? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Why do you not stand and take a call Mr Hide rather than sitting in your chair like a chump? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will not bring the Chair into the debate. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The point about this bill is that it gives a measure of protection to the Fonterra shareholders. There are 10500 hard-working New Zealanders who every day go out and deliver for New Zealand. 
There are some people in this House who believe that the market can do better. They are the kinds of people who have taken the axe to the apple industry. We are seeing that industry doing so terribly well! They would now like to see that expand to the kiwifruit industry because they can do so much better! That is despite the way that Fonterra has shown that the shareholding structure that it has the cooperative nature that it has actually delivers real returns for New Zealand. Twenty-seven percent of our export receipts are delivered by that one company. That is a pretty impressive figure. But it is “socialism at work” and some people ideologically think that is anathema. They think the market can always do better even if the evidence strongly shows that that is not the case. I think the debate will happen and we will see people like Mr Hide take a role in it. He has had success today with the bill to gut Environment Canterbury. I hope he does not get his hands on Fonterra because that would be to the detriment of every New Zealander not just the 10500 people in the industry. When we get 27 percent of our export receipts from one company what a bunch of fools we would be to allow market ideology to take control of that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: National fools. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That would be one way of describing it. 
What we would see from a public float of Fonterra’s shares is ownership going outside of New Zealand outside of the hands of New Zealand farmers. That could lead to Fonterra falling into the hands of foreign investors. If it is going to be described as some kind of myth I tell members to look at the developments of last week when a Chinese company with a cheque book of around $1.5 billion indicated that it wanted to spend up large in the New Zealand dairy industry. It has seen the gains that this industry has delivered for New Zealand. It would like to take out a share of that. That is the way the world works but most nations of the world would say that is a short-sighted approach and that it will not protect New Zealand jobs it will not protect New Zealand investments and it will not protect our returns but will simply open the floodgates to a whole repatriation of money that should be staying in New Zealand. 
The door has opened somewhat. The Minister of Finance in one of his first acts last year as the new Minister ordered a review of the overseas investment legislation. The Overseas Investment Office’s ability to operate in the interests of protecting New Zealand’s sensitive land and resources was streamlined for reasons of speed and efficiency. We are now more open to further buying up of New Zealand’s land and the Overseas Investment Office which is our only protection against that does not have the tools necessary to make sure that it does a proper job to try to protect New Zealand interests. 
We have seen some people take a very strong position on issues like the sale of Auckland International Airport. Some of us happen to believe that there are things that are worth holding in New Zealand hands—like strategic assets. I have to say I list the New Zealand dairy industry as one of those. It would be foolhardy to do otherwise. Already that sort of investment is strongly under way. We have a wholly owned Russian company in Waimate. We have a company with a 22.5 percent Japanese stake in Synlait in the Dunsandel area of Canterbury and we will see more attempts I am sure to buy more of our dairy industry. I say let us keep Fonterra in New Zealand hands. 
We want to get it right as a nation in terms of fundamental industries like Fonterra and we have to get it right in terms of fundamental issues like water. Fonterra I acknowledge has been one of the architects of the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. It is not delivering as it might and should but I applaud what I hear from the Fonterra leadership. They want to work to get the balance right and I have to say that Fonterra’s farmers are probably doing better than some. 
We are already under some assault in terms of our “100% Pure New Zealand” image.  
The Economist 
 was the most recent international critic of that branding. We have to get it right. When we see potential for big new rapid growth in my region of Canterbury we have to say that that is short-sighted. If we do not get the balance right we will be at risk because the international market place is watching and judging us already. Although that might be unfair because other nations probably have worse water quality than us other nations have not branded themselves as “100% Pure” as this nation has. It is not a bad brand to have but living up to it is now incumbent upon us as a nation. 
Similarly issues of animal welfare are important in the international market place and our reputation will be judged on that issue as well. We have a bill on animal welfare issues before the select committee at the moment. It is mostly focused I think on domestic animals but obviously it is also focused on many millions of stock animals. Animal welfare has to be delivered to stock animals as well as to pets. 
This bill is a start. It is giving the right signals in terms of the new milk-pricing regime. I support it and commend it to the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a privilege to rise and take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill and I do so at 6 minutes to midnight. I wonder how many people are listening to this debate and how many New Zealanders are following a debate on the pricing of raw milk at 6 minutes to midnight. So it would be very easy to give up the opportunity to take this call and to shorten this debate. 
The reason that I am taking this call is that as we have heard this evening the dairy industry is a very very important part of New Zealand’s economy. We earn a huge amount of foreign currency from the dairy industry—some 27 percent. The Acting Minister of Agriculture the Hon Dr Nick Smith led off this debate. He explained that the dairy industry accounts for some 27 percent of New Zealand’s exports and that this bill would allow some several hundred million litres of milk to be opened up to other processors to produce. He talked about opening up contestable markets and how that would allow other people to come into the industry to purchase milk. They would pay a 10c-per-litre premium to secure supply. 
I then listened with interest as Mr Damien O’Connor talked about the great work that Shane Ardern had done. Mr O’Connor said he knew that Shane Ardern would fight tooth and nail to protect farmers’ interests. So although this is a third reading debate it has generated into a more general discussion on the dairy industry. 
The previous speaker Brendon Burns took the opportunity to raise issues not just to do with the pricing of milk but to do with other concerns that confront the dairy industry. For example Mr Burns talked about the capital restructure of the dairy industry the potential restructure of Fonterra and the need to raise new capital. He talked about the potential foreign investments in the dairy industry and he referred to the recent Chinese proposal to invest in farms. He went on to talk about animal welfare. 
I would like to talk about another aspect of the dairy industry and that is the price of inputs. I would like to bring the debate back to the concept that people who want to purchase milk other than Fonterra will have the opportunity to do so at a premium charge of 10c a litre. That figure of 10c a litre is quite interesting because from 1 July this year the emissions trading scheme comes into place and that is forecast to add 7c a litre to the cost of processing milk. Just as other companies that want to compete in this market will pay a premium so too will dairy farmers in New Zealand pay a premium for their electricity. 
I found it very interesting that the Prime Minister John Key would go along to a meeting of the Federated Farmers executive last November to try to assure farmers that they need not be concerned about the surcharges they will pay for their electricity under the emissions trading scheme tax. He told those farmers not to worry as their dairy stock would not come into the emissions trading scheme until 2015. He said there would be a 5-year period before Mr Shane Ardern would have to fight tooth and nail to protect their interests. 
What Mr Key did not tell the Federated Farmers executive was that the cost he was referring to the cost of the animals made up only one quarter of the total costs. So only one quarter of what dairy farmers will pay for the emissions trading scheme tax relates to animals. The other three-quarters that the dairy industry will face the huge proportion of the input costs will come from electricity petrol and the cost of the emissions of those Fonterra plants that we have heard about this evening. 
I am told that Fonterra is forecasting that that $25 a tonne will cost it some additional $80 million to process milk. Fonterra is being offered an interim price a half-price of $12.50 and that will reduce its costs to $40 million. So starting on 1 July we have an input tax an additional cost of processing milk for Fonterra alone—and we heard that that is only 84 percent of the market—of $40 million. That is $40 million to come off the price of milk. 
Hon Member 
: The Opposition tried to help. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I thought that might have been an interjection. I have before me figures from Meat and Wool New Zealand. It forecasts that the additional cost input that dairy farmers will face is some $10000 for the average dairy herd. Of that $10000 only $2500 or a quarter relates to animal emissions of methane. Of that figure $7000 is for electricity petrol and Fonterra’s emission costs. Half of that starts on 1 July. We will be the first country to tax our farmers the first country to charge our farmers extra for their petrol. That does not happen in Europe. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)