Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10018] 
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.