Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010 
Volume 661 Week 38 - Tuesday 30 March 2010 
[Volume:661;Page:9887] 
Tuesday 30 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr Richard Ashworth MEP is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Tabling of Documents 
Clinical Training Agency—Number of Nurses Recently Employed 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 On 18 March in answer to an oral question the Minister of Health replied that 1100 more nurses had been employed since he became Minister of Health. You will recall Mr Speaker that there was some debate about the source of that information. I sought for the Minister to table the information if it was an official document. The Minister said in the House that he was referring to the ministry— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am listening carefully and I am struggling to ascertain the issue of order that the member is seeking to have me consider. So far it is litigating information which is not a valid point of order. I will listen a moment longer but I must hear the point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave to table the most recently available data outlining the number of nurses employed in the New Zealand workforce. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of that document? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was prepared for the Clinical Training Agency Ministry of Health and was published in 2009. It covers the years to 2008 and is the most recent data available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Ministerial Responsibility 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to make a considered ruling in relation to Speaker’s ruling 145/6 which relates to ministerial responsibility for answering questions. In particular I want you to rule on a written question that the Office of the Prime Minister has twice turned down as not having responsibility for which relates to a letter the Prime Minister wrote as Prime Minister to 350000 New Zealanders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. Another issue arose recently while the Deputy Speaker was in the chair around a discrepancy between an oral answer and a written answer. It is quite difficult for us to follow up these issues without the detail being down in writing. It has taken quite a lot of research to follow up that previous point of order. I am not saying there is anything wrong with what the member is asking but I ask him to put it in writing for me so that I can consider the detail of what he is seeking and act on that. It is not a matter for the House to consider right now; it is a matter for me to consider. I am very happy to do that. 
Questions to Ministers 
Accident Compensation—Pre-existing Degenerative Conditions 
1. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What changes have been made to ACC coverage relating to the presence of “pre-existing degenerative” conditions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There has been no change to the legislative cover. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) will do more elective surgery this year at about 50000 procedures than the average of about 43000 procedures per year under the previous Government and approximately 80 percent of applications are being approved. There had always been a contentious issue on the margin between what is an accident and what is a pre-existing degenerative condition. I remind the member opposite that over 50000 people were declined elective surgery funded by the accident compensation scheme during the previous Government. Most of them were declined because they had a degenerative condition. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If as the Minister says there has been no change in policy can he explain why the number of complaints that have been sent for formal review against ACC’s decision to refuse accident compensation cover has increased by 65 percent since National came to office when compared with the average for the 4 years prior to the election in 2008? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been an increase in the number of elective surgery cases taken to review. I am monitoring that closely. I have noted that the actual proportion of cases going to review where the decision of ACC has been overturned has actually declined. It is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds and I intend to continuously monitor that to ensure that New Zealanders are receiving the accident compensation support that they are entitled to receive. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How is it that ACC seems to know the full financial details out to 2019 which support its scenario that accident compensation is in a financial crisis when in response to written questions to the Minister neither he nor ACC can answer any questions concerning data on pre-existing degeneration or a decline in cover classification or concerning data on the proportion of claims for the treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of pre-existing degeneration and when there is a whole list of similar unanswered questions where information is lacking that I will seek the Speaker’s leave to table because it is too long to go through in a supplementary question? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was not sure whether the member was asking a question or seeking leave. He made the claim— 
Grant Robertson 
: Or you could just answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to answer the question. The member seems to make the assertion that ACC does not have financial challenges. I point out to the member that in the 2007-08 year the annual reports signed by Maryan Street showed a loss of $2.4 billion. In the year following that ACC made a loss of $4.8 billion. Only members opposite would pretend— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question about why ACC is not able to answer a whole range of very pertinent questions about accident compensation and the corporation’s refusal to cover claims. The Minister has gone off on a tangent that I submit to you does not in any way address my question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In his question the member made specific assertions that were incorrect about ACC not having financial problems and not being able to look forward. When members make those sorts of false assertions it is quite proper for a Minister to want to put the record correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is the dilemma that we get into. If the honourable member had asked precisely the question that he said he had asked without the little preamble bit I could have asked the Minister to answer it. But the dilemma is that the question was not quite as precise as that. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What response does the Minister have to the case of Mr Neville Toohey who last week barricaded himself in Christchurch Cathedral over ACC’s declining of his elective surgery? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly I would note that Mr Toohey’s claim was declined in 2008 which reinforces the fact that there has always been some contention around what is an accident and what is a degenerative condition. I also note that Mr Toohey did not take up the option of seeking an independent review within 3 months of that decision despite being properly advised of his right. He was also given an independent hearing of his case but he failed to turn up and gave no reasonable explanation for his absence. Taking up his review rights which are free would have been a more constructive way for Mr Toohey to test ACC’s decision to decline surgery for his back problems. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why did we go from a level of reviewed accident compensation claims that was remarkably consistent for 4 years prior to the election of the National Government in 2008 to a 65 percent increase in 1 year; was it the result of an accident was it the result of bad luck or was it the result of bad policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member’s statistics are selective. I remind the House that 80 percent of the applications for elective surgery are being approved by ACC and that 50000 elective surgeries will be provided this year as compared with an average of 43000 per year under the previous Government. I say to the member that the amount of elective surgery that is being provided is properly meeting the requirements of the accident compensation statute. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the advice given to the select committee by the Ministry of Health from the transcript of that advice about the transfer of $60 million worth of surgery from the accident compensation scheme to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Am I to understand that the member seeks to table advice to a select committee? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the select committee reported to the House? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Therefore the information is readily available to the House. I do not think we need to waste the time of the House on that. 
Budget 2010—Tax System 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will Budget 2010 make the tax system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A stream of bad decisions taken by the previous Labour Government over recent years— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear the point of order. I simply say to the Hon Bill English that when he is asked “How will Budget 2010 make the tax system fairer?” to start with “A stream of bad decisions taken by the previous Government” is hardly answering the question asked and it is out of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will seek to undo a stream of bad decisions made by the previous Government. The previous Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members may not have noticed but a point of order was called and any interjections during a point of order will see someone out of the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As you pointed out Mr Speaker the question on notice which comes from the Government side is clearly about Budget 2010. You made an intervention which the Minister deliberately flouted and the Minister’s answering questions like that will lead to disorder. He can give a solid answer based on that primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Absolutely. I agree with the honourable member that there is no need to start answering the question that way. It is bound to lead to disorder. Once the Minister has given an answer he knows he can probably make some comment but to start answering that way is inconsistent with the Standing Orders. The Minister should start by telling us what he is planning to do with tax in the Budget as the question asks. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Budget 2010 will seek to undo a stream of decisions made by the Labour Government that allowed too many New Zealanders to essentially choose the rate of tax they will pay. Labour did this by creating a proliferation of different tax rates across different entities and this has undermined the wider sense of fairness in the tax system. We want to make sure that people pay the statutory tax rates and do not exploit the opportunities provided by the previous Labour Government for higher-income taxpayers to pay less tax. 
Craig Foss 
: What options are available to the Government to reduce inequities in the tax system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has the option of simplifying the tax system. The previous Government left us with a proliferation of tax rates; for instance it set the top personal tax rate at 39c the trust rate at 33c the company rate at 30c and the rate on high-income investors at 30c. It may not be possible to bring all these rates into line but we can reduce the number and spread of the tax rates so that the system is fairer to New Zealand taxpayers. 
Stuart Nash 
: How is it fair that under details of the tax package leaked by the Government to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 
someone on $150000 gets a tax cut nine times as large as someone on $50000? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will have to wait for the details of the package as I pointed out to him previously. He needs to bear in mind that under his Government a self-employed person on $150000 could virtually pick what tax he or she paid. We want to fix that unfairness. 
Craig Foss 
: What measures will demonstrate that the Budget has produced a fairer tax system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There will be a number of ways in which people will be able to judge it. People will be able to use standard measures of equity such as Gini coefficients or ratios between different quartiles of income earners or look at how actual households benefit from the changes. We will look at eliminating the glaring inequities in the tax system that the previous Government left behind. I can also indicate that we expect the overall effect of the package to be pretty much neutral across different income levels. 
Stuart Nash 
: Does he consider a tax cut package that delivers a $2 a week tax cut to almost 70 percent of all taxpayers while delivering a $90 a week cut to the top 1 percent is a fair package? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would not believe anything that Labour said about a tax package that has not been announced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure I heard exactly what the Minister said in that answer. I believe he said he would not believe anything someone said. The question asked how certain reductions in taxation were fair. The Minister can certainly dispute the figures given but to do it in such a way that I perceive to be derogatory to the questioner is not acceptable. The question was a fair one. It might have been wrong but the Minister can point it out if it is wrong without being derogatory. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is simply putting up a hypothesis. He cannot possibly know what the tax package is because the details have not been decided. 
Energy and Resources Minister—Statements 
3. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with all recent comments by his Minister of Energy and Resources? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister is not familiar with every comment made by the Minister. If the member were more specific he might be able to help him. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that although the National Party never forewarned the public that it was intending to mine in protected and highly sensitive conservation areas it told the mining industry up to 2 years before the election that it intended to do that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I take that answer means that he rejects the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: After undertaking to remove protection from highly sensitive environmental areas in the conservation estate did National ever receive financial contributions from the mining industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has not undertaken to remove highly sensitive areas from protections against mining. What it has done is put out a consultation document proposing the removal of some areas from schedule 4. The Government has not made any decision to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether the National Party had ever received financial contributions from the industry—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance on this. If that is what the member had asked he might have got a different answer but that is not what the member asked. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is also the case as I am sure you will appreciate that the Prime Minister has no ability to answer in the House for National. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a perfectly valid point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the National Government tell the mining industry that it intended to mine in the highly sensitive and protected conservation estate but never bother to tell the public? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member’s allegation is simply not true. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many more times must the hapless Gerry Brownlee be forced to contradict inaccurate statements of fact and figures— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have been very hard quite correctly on Ministers who make derogatory comments about members asking questions. I think that should also go for members opposite who ask questions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need further assistance on this. The member makes a perfectly valid point of order but if as Speaker I intervened every time a situation like this arose I would be intervening far too often. I play the advantage rule somewhat and I am sure that once the member introduces that kind of language into a question a pretty free answer will follow and members know that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In answer to the question I say it is not nearly as often as the hapless Mr Goff who is pulling smaller crowds than his finance spokesperson at the moment. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity while Gerry Brownlee is in Mexico to announce a back-down on mining Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel; if not when will he announce that back-down? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is following a fully transparent process. It has published a discussion document. In a matter of 4 or 5 weeks’ time submissions on that document will close and then the Government will make decisions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In regard to that very transparent process does the Prime Minister stand by his own comment in the Prime Minister’s statement on 9 February that “Notwithstanding the public consultation process … the Government will … make significant changes to Schedule 4.”; if he is determined to do that why go through the farce of bothering with consultation at all? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are going through the process of consultation because growing this economy will always involve some difficult trade-offs. It is important that we test how much New Zealanders value in this case conservation areas against the possibility of the economic growth that can flow from mining. The Government does not shrink from facing those particular challenges. 
Health Services—Improving Front-line Services 
4. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he seen in relation to improving health services? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A specific issue was missing from the question that the member read out. I believe he left out the word “front-line”. I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you. What reports has he received in relation to improving front-line health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the member and the House that I have received a report that New Zealand last year saw the single biggest increase in the number of patients benefiting from elective surgery in any calendar year. In 2009 almost 135000 patients received elective surgery which is an increase of more than 12000 or 10 percent on the number who received elective surgery in 2008. This increase is a great reflection on our surgeons nurses and dedicated staff throughout the New Zealand public health system who are working so assiduously to improve front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Has this large increase in the number of people receiving elective surgery been achieved by delivering less complex elective operations? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No it has not. The advice I have received is that the average case weight which is a measure of complexity has remained unchanged. I also advise the House that amongst the specialities that have seen increases in elective patients treated cardiothoracic patients are up 18 percent orthopaedic patients are up 9 percent general surgery patients are up 6 percent and patients needing plastics and burns surgery are up a remarkable 25 percent. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does this report relate to the report released just last week of 66 people in Timaru waiting for surgery longer than the required 6 months and which further states that as a punishment he has taken $450000 from that district health board; how will that cut help those people get their surgery quicker? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I say to the member opposite that when the news is that 12000 extra patients received surgery last year than under the previous Government we know that this Government is providing more elective surgery for New Zealanders. The one thing those 66 patients in Timaru know is that unlike under the previous Government they will not be one of 30000 New Zealanders culled off hospital waiting lists. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does this report relate to the report released last week of the Prime Minister being booed and called a traitor due to health cuts by a large crowd in Levin—the first time in living memory that a Prime Minister has been booed in Levin? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I observe that they were probably the same protesters who made very good use of the reverse side of one of the billboards which said: “Darren Hughes for Otaki”. Those billboards were not very effective in 2008 and I do not think they will be much more effective now. What is effective is the representation of Nathan Guy the MP for Otaki. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What other initiatives is the Government planning in order to improve access to elective surgery? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is very clear that one of the best ways to deliver more elective surgery is to separate emergency surgery from elective surgery because elective surgery is often stopped or cancelled when theatres are needed for emergencies. The Government has already announced that it is building an elective centre at Greenlane Clinical Centre. I also advise that it is investigating a dedicated elective centre at North Shore Hospital and expects to make an announcement in relation to Hamilton at some time in the future. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a Labour Party postcard with mining hats on it. These postcards were dropped in mailboxes in Wellington— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a genuine document? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes it is. It is out of a mailbox. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party would be happy to give consent to that provided that the Minister could tell us whether it was delivered to his home in Dipton or— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invited that; I blame myself for this loss of order. I am troubled though. I do not think I am about to put leave to table a postcard. I do not think it is in the spirit of documentation that provides the House with information. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Impact on Economy 
5. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What will the impact of the proposal to mine protected schedule 4 land be on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The proposal itself will have no impact on the New Zealand economy but should the Government follow through on the process and remove some land from schedule 4 then I would expect that successful mining on that land would have the same impact as successful mining does on any other land—that is it would create jobs for New Zealand families and create wealth for New Zealand so that it can provide better public services and a better community. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific; the Minister is using weasel words to avoid answering it directly. The issue here— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Metiria Turei 
: —is that the question was specifically about mining— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately and cease to interject. If she reads the primary question she laid down she will see “What will the impact of the proposal to mine protected schedule 4 land be on the New Zealand economy?”. There is no way there can be a precise answer to that question; it is basically seeking an opinion and the member knows that when she seeks an opinion the answer will never be very precise. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister sought any advice about the economic impact of mining in schedule 4 land on revenues to the Crown? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not familiar with the matter of whether any assessment of economic impact has been broken down in terms of revenue for the Crown. But I can reassure the member that the Government is committed to lifting our economic growth because that is how we get better jobs and better public services. We are quite happy to have a vigorous discussion with New Zealand about some of the more challenging trade-offs we need to make to achieve that. 
Metiria Turei 
: So is the Minister confirming to this House and to the New Zealand public that he has sought no advice about the impact of mining on schedule 4 land on income royalties taxes or jobs in either the mining industry or the tourism industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a different question from the one asked earlier which was about the impact on revenues for the Government. Some pretty well-established work has been done on the wider economic impact of mining and of course the Minister of Tourism is interested in the impact on tourism. I point out that the Minister of Tourism recently opened a new visitors centre at the Martha Hill mine on the Coromandel because tourist numbers are growing so fast that a better visitors centre is needed. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can the Minister have the confidence about any impact on the New Zealand economy when his own Minister of Tourism said in this House that he sought advice but has none on the impact on the tourism industry; and when his Minister for Energy and Resources does not know whether the value for just one mining proposal will be $1.5 billion or $4 billion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is dealing in a series of hypotheses and we can all debate who has a better hypothesis than someone else. I might say that the impact of mining on the Department of Conservation estate approved under the previous Government appears to be positive when that mining has turned out to be successful because it has provided jobs for New Zealanders. The decline in tourism in recent years has not been due to mining in the Department of Conservation estate; it has been due to the global recession and a high exchange rate. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Minister sought advice about the economic impact of international newspapers and their criticism of New Zealand like that of the  
Guardian 
 when it said that the “clean green” Kiwi brand amounted to “a ‘shameless two fingers to the global community’ in the face of a dirtier reality.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A few newspapers reflect the traditional practice of the Greens which is to advertise to the world that New Zealand is nothing like as positive a place as almost all other New Zealanders believe that it is. But that is just the way that the Greens do business. We do not worry about the economic impact of that; we are getting on with growing our economy and with providing jobs for families and better public services. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can the public have confidence in the Minister of Finance when he is not interested in the economic impact of mining—as he just confessed to this House—or the fiscal impact of international condemnation on a $20 billion-a-year tourism industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As Minister of Finance and as an interested New Zealander of course I have an interest in what other people say about us. I have to say that a couple of lead writers—covering one article in two different newspapers—have shown a lot less combined negativity than the Green Party has about New Zealand about what a dirty place we are about how no one cares about the environment and about how we would be much better if there were no economic growth. I do not agree with any of that. We are getting on with the job of proving that the Green Party is wrong. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can the New Zealand public trust his management of the New Zealand economy when his Government is trading off a known $20 billion a year tourism industry against who the hell knows what? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We do not deal in those kinds of generalities and I do not think anyone is suggesting that the whole tourism industry is being traded off against one or two other items of economic growth. There has been a vigorous discussion about mining tourist numbers are rising particularly from Australia—they have been going up quite rapidly—and we are looking forward to a very positive tourism season through the winter. It is all part of the Government’s attempt to grow the economy provide sustainable jobs for families and improve our public services. 
Welfare Reforms—Advice Received on Future Focus 
6. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Did she agree with the advice she received on the Future Focus package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I received a great deal of advice on the package. I agreed with most of the advice but some of the advice I did not agree with. 
Hon Annette King 
: What research was provided to her that accurately quantifies the size of behavioural change expected from beneficiaries arising from her Future Focus policy decisions? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: A great range of research. For example one research paper I saw was that a Swedish controlled experiment found that postponing the medical checks on sickness benefits by 1 week increased the duration of compensation by 6.6 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a document. It is the regulatory impact statement of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill which says that no research was available to do what the Minister said it could. 
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 Annette King 
: Why would the Government put in place a policy when it is not backed by research when she cannot determine how many people would shift from benefits as a result of the policy when the so-called savings of $200 million over 10 years have been discredited when Treasury opposes parts of it when the Attorney-General said it does not create a fairer benefit system and while 168000 unemployed people are out there wanting jobs? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because for far too long we have ignored long-term welfare dependency in this country. For far too long it was put in the too-hard basket whilst 250000 New Zealanders sat on welfare at the best of economic times under the previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It would be helpful if I could hear answers. I ask members to be a little more reasonable. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports about advice provided to Ministers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I have seen a number of reports where Treasury advised the previous Government that plenty of money was available for tax cuts for example. I have also seen reports of Treasury advising that Working for Families would be ineffective in delivering on its key target of making work pay. A particular favourite of mine is a quote directly from Michael Cullen: “I have a very good relationship with Treasury. However unlike the member opposite I have no intention of being Treasury’s poodle.” 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. I apologise but I could not hear the member calling for a point of order such was the noise from some of his colleagues. 
Charles Chauvel 
: That was a very lengthy answer but it related entirely to matters outside the Minister’s area of responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was commenting on reports she has seen about the Government acting on or ignoring advice. I believe that is what she was answering to the House. It was difficult for me to hear but I believe that was in the answer she was giving to the House which seemed to me to be in order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a little hard to hear but I think she referred to members opposite as poodles. I think coming from a dachshund that is pretty— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had wanted me to take action on his point of order he just blew it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it’s all right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. I am not going to— 
Hon Member 
: Better than a tiger. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member not to do that. [ 
Interruption 
] I am still ruling on a point of order and I ask members on both sides of the House to respect that. I did not hear what the Minister said. If she applied a derogatory term to the Opposition then she should not do so. Likewise the Hon Trevor Mallard should not use a point of order to make that kind of comment. Let us call it one all at this stage and come back to having a little more reasonable order. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would like to finish my answer because I was interrupted by the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the Minister finish that answer. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It was a direct quote from Michael Cullen who said: “I have a very good relationship with Treasury. However unlike the member opposite I have no intention of being Treasury’s poodle.” 
Hon Annette King 
: On what actual date did she personally consult with the Maori Party on the final version of the Future Focus policy which she made a claim about earlier today? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I first met with Dr Pita Sharples on 26 November from memory. I consulted with the whole Maori Party on 16 February. The policy has been through the normal process many times which has been available to the Maori Party but those two dates come to mind at this time. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer I ask who is accurate—Tariana Turia her Associate Minister who said this morning that she was consulted at the last minute; or the Minister and the Prime Minister who said today that the Maori Party was consulted from late last year and given a chance to give some feedback? Both cannot be right. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As is the way with something this big and with this much detail it changes all the time. I think that Minister Turia saw the last paper last week and that is where her comments came from. The Prime Minister was obviously quite correct in his comments when he said that a lengthy consultation process had been done. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table the National Party benefits policy from the 2008 election— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is an abuse of the Standing Orders. 
Environment Canterbury—Stakeholder Response to Review 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What response has he received on the review of Environment Canterbury from key stakeholders including the Canterbury mayors and councils the local government association Ngai Tahu and environmental organisations? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The 10 mayors and territorial councils of Canterbury have been unanimous in their view that the Government needed to act and that commissioners needed to be appointed. The Local Government New Zealand president has said there is a need for swift drastic action by central government. Ngai Tahu said they recognise the need for intervention and reluctantly support commissioners being appointed as a temporary measure. The Environmental Defence Society has said the Government must act and the Water Rights Trust from Canterbury has said Environment Canterbury is just not up to the job. That is why today the Government has acted decisively. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What additional powers is the Minister giving to the commissioners to get on top of water management in Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask whether this question anticipates legislation because I am not 100 percent certain that it can. I must seek some advice on whether a question like that can anticipate legislation. 
I accept it on the basis that obviously a policy decision has been made which the Minister can be questioned on. I apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has announced today its response to the report which includes giving legislative status to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Government also intends to give three additional powers to the commissioners. The first is to fast-track the completion of Canterbury’s water management plan. Frankly it is an indictment that after 18 years there is no plan for water in Canterbury. Secondly the commission will be given a decision-making role on water conservation orders in Canterbury under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act and also in respect of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The third power the commission will have is to be able to instigate targeted moratoria of water takes in areas where the resource is either close to becoming or is currently over-allocated.  
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister confirm that he has acted to end a democratically elected council in Canterbury after a review that in less than a month interviewed fewer than 20 stakeholders iwi local mayors and council chief executive officers none of whom consulted their councils? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister of Local Government and I actually chose to meet with every one of the 10 territorial councils from Waitaki in the south to Kaikoura in the north. Every one of those 10 councils said to us they supported the Government taking this step. This decision has not been taken lightly. I remind members opposite that when faced with problems with the Rodney District Council in 2000 National in Opposition supported legislation through all stages to appoint commissioners in respect of those particular problems. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure greater central government direction on freshwater management? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is of the view that greater central government direction is needed on water management. That is why one of the first things we did in Government was to support the Land and Water Forum. Although most councils have managed water without national direction this Government is committed to using both national environment standards and national policy statements to ensure that there is greater central government direction. It is our view that these measures as well as the measures taken in the Canterbury region are needed to deliver the step change that is required in New Zealand’s freshwater management. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What are the next steps for the Government to deliver on improving water management in Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This afternoon I will be introducing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I am pleased to have the support of the ACT Party United Future and the Maori Party. Once the legislation is passed— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Surprise surprise! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite should reflect on the history of the Rodney District Council legislation when in 2000 the National Opposition gave support to it. Once the Environment Canterbury bill is passed the Government will finalise the remaining commissioners and their terms of reference before gazetting the commencement date for the transition of those functions. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
8. 
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 had culled 30000 people from hospital waiting lists. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How do his statements relate to the concerns expressed by Kathy James clinical adviser Health Care Aotearoa who says that “Vulnerable patients will get sicker and more will go to hospital under proposed funding cuts for family-doctor groups”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has been quite clear: we want to support front-line services in general practice and we will be moving resources in order to increase the subsidies for general practitioner visits. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How can he justify spending $6 million preparing business cases for integrated family health centres—his flagship policy—when the primary-care network covering most of Auckland has just ditched those centres in its proposal? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government inherited a situation where the previous Government had made very little progress in implementing the primary health care strategy. So this Government is seeking to do that; it will provide better more convenient services for New Zealanders. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other front-line services are improving? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Front-line services are improving in many parts of the public health service. They are particularly helped by the 1100 extra nursing personnel in the public health service. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does he explain to the people of Palmerston North Feilding and Levin that despite Nathan Guy’s advocacy their 24-hour district nursing service is under threat the diabetes lifestyle centre is under threat sexual health services are under threat and the STAR 3 rehabilitation centre for people under 65 is due for the chop as well? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Despite the Government increasing MidCentral District Health Board’s budget by $26 million this year the Government has inherited significant challenges with that district health board. There are a number of options on the table and decisions are still to be had but I am determined that the people of that area should have certainty about their services and that the district health board should not career into financial crisis. 
Tasers—United Nations Human Rights Committee Recommendation 
9. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Ka whakaae te Kawanatanga ki te tutohutanga i te purongo o te Komiti o te Whakakotahitanga o nga Iwi o te Ao e ki nei “The State party should consider relinquishing the use of electro-muscular disruption devise (EMDs) ‘TASERs’ ”; ki te kore he aha ai? 
[ 
Will the Government agree to the recommendation from the United Nations Human Rights Committee report that “The State party should consider relinquishing the use of electro-muscular disruption devices (EMDs) ‘TASERs’ ”; if not why not? 
] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. Tasers are an important tool to ensure the safety of police officers and the public particularly since New Zealand is one of only six countries in the OECD that does not routinely arm its police force. The Government has no plans to relinquish their use. I am confident that the procedures and processes in place are sufficient to meet any concerns. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha te whakautu a te Kawanatanga ki nga awangawanga o te Komiti Whakatika Tangata o te Kotahitanga o te Ao— 
[ 
What is the Government’s response to the concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Committee 
—]  
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I suspect that the problem is that there is no interpretation. Let me see whether we can sort that out instantaneously otherwise I may have to ask the honourable member to repeat the question in English. Sadly the Speaker cannot translate—much to my regret. Let me just see whether we can check why the interpretation is not coming through. 
I ask the honourable member to start the question again. If we do not get the interpretation I regret to do it and hope that he is not offended but I will have to ask him to ask his question in English. I ask him to start again if he would not mind. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha te whakautu a te Kawanatanga ki nga awangawanga o te Komiti Whakatika Tangata o te Kotahitanga o te Ao e pa ana ki te noho tarewa o nga kehi tae noa ki te 2011 mo te hunga kua hamenetia e te Operation Eight; a he aha hoki tana ki te tutohutanga o te komiti kia kaua e waiho i nga kehi nei kia tarewa mo te wa roa? 
[ 
What is the Government’s response to the concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Committee about cases involving suspects arrested during Operation Eight being held over until 2011; and what is his response as well to the recommendation that these cases not be held over for a lengthy period of time? 
] 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The matter the member refers to is currently before the courts. It is not appropriate for me to comment at this time other than to say that those arrested during Operation Eight are being accorded all their fair trial rights. This is one of the matters in respect of which the United Nations Human Rights Committee has asked for an update from the Government in 1 year’s time. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha te whakautu o te Kawanatanga ki ta te ripoata o te komiti e ki nei me kaha aro atu te Kawanatanga o Aotearoa ki te whakakore i nga mahi aukati i te iwi Maori i roto i te whakatinanatanga o te ture? 
[ 
What is the Government’s response to comments in the committee’s report that the Government of New Zealand should increase its efforts to prevent discrimination against Maori in the implementation of justice? 
] 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I do not accept the assumption that there is an institutional discrimination against Maori in the administration of justice. However the overrepresentation of Maori in the criminal justice system is a particular concern of this Government. The Government has identified four priority areas to reduce offending and reoffending. One of those is alcohol and the others include antenatal and maternity treatment and programmes to address behavioural problems in young children. Again this is one of the matters in respect of which the committee in New York has asked for an update in 12 months’ time. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the final report of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in which the criticisms of Government policy— 
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. 
Conservation Department—Advocacy Role 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she think the Department of Conservation should have an advocacy role for conservation at any public forum or in any statutory planning process? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The department should and does have an advocacy role and this is generally provided for in section 6(b) of the Conservation Act 1987—namely “To advocate the conservation of natural and historical resources generally:”. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Given that as of her press conference with Gerry Brownlee 8 days ago the Minister of Energy and Resources can decide whether diggers will be allowed on schedule 4 land is it not the reality that she now has no control of her portfolio? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does she share the concerns of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment interviewed on Radio New Zealand National yesterday about the adequacy of the consultation process over mining schedule 4 land; and does she agree with the commissioner that sharing her decision-making power with the Minister of Energy and Resources is like letting the Minister of Forestry decide whether to cut down trees in national parks? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Access to the conservation estate cannot occur without the Minister of Conservation’s signature. It cannot occur now and it will not occur in the future. However the question of access is addressed in the discussion paper. It is a discussion paper and if the member has any concerns I suggest he make a submission on the consultation paper. Submissions close on Tuesday 4 May at 5 p.m. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will she advocate for the hundreds of people who rallied in front of the House at lunchtime to send her a message that once land has schedule 4 protection it is not up for trading to her more powerful caucus colleagues? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have already had a delegation from that protest march in my office straight after the protest and I suggested to them as I suggest to that member that this is a discussion paper and that input is welcome. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will she advocate for the 1.5 million people of the Auckland region who have no immediate access to a national park and did she advocate on their behalf against mining Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel rather than simply doing as she was told by her higher-ranked Cabinet colleagues? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am not quite sure whether that member understands English but this is a discussion paper— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have made other rulings about terms of abuse and I invite you to reflect on that answer. It was not an answer to the question. It was a straight question and it received a barrage of abuse. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh that it were a straight question! 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As explained the document is a discussion paper. It is inviting submissions. We will see those submissions when the consultation is over and we will make decisions if any accordingly. 
Crown Research Institutes—Changes 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What recent announcements has he made about changes aimed at ensuring New Zealand gets the best from its Crown research institutes? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced the Government’s response to the Crown Research Institute Taskforce. In short the Government will be implementing all the major recommendations of the taskforce. In particular it will give the institutes a longer and more strategic focus which will be of great value to New Zealand business and to New Zealand science. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister received any reports about these changes? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes. Feedback has been very positive. Business New Zealand noticed that businesses would be particularly pleased with the opportunity to collaborate. I would also note that the Labour Party said yesterday: “Giving the Crown research institutes a clear directive to strive for breakthroughs to benefit New Zealand will be a key part of our economic transformation.” and of course that is exactly what these reforms will do. 
David Shearer 
: Even given the changes to the Crown research institutes does he accept that achieving a step change in the economy requires substantial new investment in research science and technology in the 2010 Budget and what assurances can he give the scientific community of that new funding? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I guess the questioner will have to wait for the Budget. 
Colin King 
: What other initiatives are under way to better support science? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There have been a number of initiatives. For instance last year there were significant increases in funding for the Health Research Council the Marsden Fund and the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund. Of course we appointed the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister and we established core priorities and there is more to come. 
Education National Standards—Minister’s Statement 
12. 
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. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What misrepresentations led to Professor Hattie criticising the standards in February this year because as he said they do not recognise that children need to learn at their own pace that bright children would be neglected that the standards are at best a data-free educated guess about what students should know and that an emphasis on benchmarks may lead to teachers hiding student failure? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: In addition to that Professor Hattie said national standards offer the most wonderful opportunities for refreshing and reinvigorating an already top-of-the-world system. He said of standards that if implemented well they can make a difference but he also said much more tellingly that we cannot defend a system where one in 10 schools are deemed to be failing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty simple question about misinterpretations and I do not think quoting other things from Professor Hattie addressed or answered that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes an interesting challenge because in respect of misinterpretation the Minister added further comments made by Professor Hattie which gave further information about his interpretation of national standards. I do not believe that that was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I think it was a reasonable answer to the question. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has she received of members of Parliament indulging in misrepresentations? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received two reports on misinterpretations. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not accept that question as being in order at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point. The Minister is not responsible for members of Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] Before I come to the Hon Trevor Mallard I will give the member a chance to ask a supplementary question that is in order. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has she received of others indulging in misrepresentations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can be responsible only for issues to do with education. I have given the member a second chance. 
Louise Upston 
: Sorry; can I have one more go? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under the “three strikes and one is out” policy this is it. 
Louise Upston 
: What reports has she received about misrepresentations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she allowed to stay or does she have to go? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not mean it in that manner. I meant that I would rule out her chance to ask another supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What misinterpretation led to Hamilton East School stating that it had reported to parents on the basis of national standards but had not moderated its results with those of other schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Mr Speaker the primary question was about criticism of the national standards being based on misinterpretations. From the sentence that the member has just read out I see that as a perfectly responsible report to parents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems that if that is the case though the Minister could answer along those lines. It would seem that the supplementary question is related to the primary question and the Minister was asked about what misinterpretation was involved in that course of action. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I do not see that there was any misrepresentation. In fact the school has been very open with its parents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That seems to be a perfectly reasonable answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of that answer is the Minister stating that moderation is not necessary; if so how can her standards which involve teacher judgment be described as national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not stated that moderation is unnecessary. In fact as I have talked around the country I have talked about the moderation that currently happens in primary schools and about the fact that benchmarks from national standards and from existing assessment techniques will also be used for moderation. That statement from that school to parents is not a criticism of national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is moderation between schools necessary before reports are made to parents under her national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Moderation is currently carried out in primary schools and it will continue. In fact they use it all the time. They will apply the same standardised criteria using their current assessment tools. They will use external references which will now be national standards and they will use nationally standardised criteria which are exemplars that are produced from the national standards. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was about the simplest question I could have asked. It asked whether there was a necessity for moderation between schools. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To simplify this I invite the member to repeat his question without the loss of a supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I might need to be given some leniency because I asked the question a while ago. The essence of the question I asked was: do schools have to moderate between schools before they report to parents to full national standards for reporting? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: They may. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How is it possible to have a national standard if a school does not moderate its results with other schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: They will continue to do what primary schools do now which is to provide moderation using as I have explained the various reference points that they use for moderation now. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the member on a point of order I say the member has been asking a series of serious questions and I ask his colleagues to allow the Minister to answer. It was rude to their own colleague who asked the question for them to make so much noise that I could not even hear the Minister’s answer. If the Minister recollects the question I invite her to answer it again because I could not hear the answer. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The answer that I gave to the member who asked the question and who has asked the same question in a number of different ways is that schools will continue to use the moderation that they currently use. It happens in schools now. They use various reference points to moderate and they will continue to do that. But the national standards will now provide a nationally consistent reference point and the exemplars that are developed from that will also provide a second reference point in addition to the reference point used from the existing assessment tools. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to push this once more but again we had a very good description of what happens within schools. But the question of whether schools are required to moderate between schools which was the essence of the question—which I think I have now asked three times—was not addressed. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have said on a number of occasions that schools will use the practices they currently use and that includes working in clusters which is inter-school moderation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not conduct a debate on the answer by way of a point of order. A point of order was raised and I listened to the Minister in response to it. I think that is a fair conclusion to that exchange. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the Tapanui School newsletter of 5 February which includes a statement of that school’s position on national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table the Taipa Area School’s newsletter its principal’s welcoming newsletter of 5 March which includes that school’s position on national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I seek leave for that document to be tabled could I humbly ask the member how many more such documents he may seek leave to table. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Quite a set. I am happy to do them as a group if the Government says yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker may in fact not put leave. The member has a choice. I will put leave on this occasion for the Taipa Area School document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a bundle of reports from schools from their principals and from their boards of trustees giving those schools’ positions on national standards. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that set of documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill is referred to the Social Services Committee and that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 30 July 2010. 
In the context of this legislation my focus is on the future: the future of New Zealand; the future of the welfare system; the future of individuals families and children; and the future of our society. Do we want a society that values work and the ability to provide for ourselves and our families? Do we want a society that says we will look after those who are most vulnerable and most in need? Do we want a society that teaches its children by example that the path to a better more prosperous and fulfilling life is through work not welfare? I believe that the answer is yes and I believe that that vision for the future is shared by most New Zealanders. Surely we all aspire to a better future for our children. 
When this Government took office 18 months ago it inherited a welfare State that showed no sign of diminishing despite having enjoyed a decade of favourable economic conditions and strong employment. So through the best of times Labour failed to do anything about long-term welfare dependency; it simply squandered that opportunity because it dared not challenge the status quo. That status quo which Labour has been so wedded to embodies an attitude towards welfare that is quite frankly dangerous. An entitlement mentality has become entrenched to the point where for some welfare is viewed no longer as a last resort reserved for the most vulnerable but as a right of all citizens. National recognised that attitude as an unhealthy unsustainable burden on those who work hard to support the system. It is those hard-working New Zealanders who gave National the mandate to bring this legislation before the House today. National’s manifesto commitment to fairness and an unrelenting focus on work on what people can do and not on what they cannot do is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is that promise that we deliver today. 
It is ironic to think that after enjoying such sunny economic times Labour left office and slunk off into the sunset while behind it the storm clouds of a major economic recession were already breaking. New Zealanders were left to struggle through an economic storm that washed away the remnants of a strong labour market leaving many people high and dry with fewer jobs to cling to. Those hard-working New Zealanders struggling to pay the bills who battled on supporting themselves and their families watched their tax dollars flowing out each week to support a growing number of people on welfare and asked themselves whether that was fair. They asked whether the people they were supporting were really those in the greatest need. 
Fairness is a vital part of this legislation. It is a sense of fairness that calls us to rebalance the incentives and the obligations to ensure that only those who need help will get it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure we are spending their welfare dollars carefully because every dollar we spend on welfare has been earned by a hard-working New Zealander. We have a responsibility to get this right because this system has been left to its own devices for too long. We have a responsibility to those who are on welfare and have the ability to do more to actually follow through and give them the support they need so that they are not consigned to a lifetime of limited choices and limited potential. 
Why are we making these changes? We want to ensure fairness in the system with the right balance of obligations and incentives to address an unreasonable sense of entitlement and to introduce a set of expectations. Yes we do expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. Yes we do expect those on a domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be working towards work or taking part-time work. Yes we do expect those on a sickness benefit to be getting well so that they can return to work. These are fair and reasonable expectations. We have changed the processes around sanctions so that when obligations are not met a first time a 50 percent cut in the benefit kicks in. That means those who do not turn up for a scheduled job interview for example could lose half their benefit unless they have a very good reason for failing to meet their obligations. If again and again they fail to turn up their benefit will be cut completely except for those with dependent children who will lose a maximum of half of their benefit with no changes to add-ons like the accommodation supplement so that they are not penalised unfairly. But let us be clear: all we are asking is for people to meet their obligation to make an effort to get off welfare and into work. If the work is not there their benefit will remain. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The children will suffer. 
Sue Moroney 
: You’ve failed to provide jobs. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I say it one more time for the snappy turtles: if the work is not there their benefit will remain. The safety net is not being hauled in completely; it is just being trimmed to catch only those who need it. 
We are providing greater incentives for those who are on benefits to transition into work by raising the abatement levels so that those who do work for a few hours a week keep more pay in their pockets. I am thrilled that we went a step further than our manifesto and increased the upper abatement level from $180 to $200. That is a fair incentive. 
But there is a higher purpose to this. It comes back to the question of what kind of society we want to live in. Are we happy to leave thousands of children of beneficiaries to languish in households living a hand-to-mouth existence and leading limited lives? Are we happy to do nothing about the 82000 who have claimed a benefit for 5 years or more? Frankly although Labour was content to ignore this problem this Government is not. National has greater aspirations for New Zealanders. They involve a brighter future for many people a future where they are in work and not on welfare. We know that it is vital that we implement supports for those who are reliant on welfare to provide pathways into work. 
Sue Moroney 
: There are no jobs. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The Minister should be ashamed. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Those members should listen up. That is why we are investing $223 million a year in employment-related training and support—$223 million a year. We are investing in industry partnership wage subsidies straight-to-work programmes and Training Opportunities Programmes providing help with writing CVs boosting literacy and numeracy skills and placing those people in work. We know that a country of 4.3 million people cannot continue to support 345000 beneficiaries. It is not healthy for our economy it is not healthy for individuals and it is not healthy for society. 
This is a conservative start one that sees our tightening up the system to provide only for those who genuinely need it while sending a clear message that those who can should. We must get this right. This is a crucial opportunity to effect a major shift in thinking a shift in attitude and a shift in aspiration that lifts people’s sights up beyond a simple existence on welfare to a meaningful rewarding life as a working member of society participating and giving back. We are effecting a change in the way that society views the welfare system. This policy makes it clear that welfare is a stopgap not a solution. The introduction of clear obligations and expectations will change the way that people use the system by discouraging long-term dependency. 
National is taking this opportunity to have the first real honest discussion this country has had about welfare in a long time. We are quite simply calling a spade a spade. Labour likes to talk about “clients” “supports” “help” and “entitlements”. It is called welfare and beneficiaries are paid benefits—let us at least be straight up and honest. But Labour fails to see the bigger picture which is a New Zealand that does not have 12 percent of its working-age population on welfare and a New Zealand that values work and self-responsibility. And here is the rub of it all: if we shut our eyes to the bigger picture as Labour did we will be blind to what is staring us in the face. The fact is that if we do not do something right now our children will be mortgaged for years to come by an irresponsible reliance on a welfare system that supports an ever-growing population of beneficiaries. Working New Zealanders cannot support an ageing population as well as an increasing number of people on welfare. So I say that society has arrived at a crucial junction: we can continue on as we have been without ambition or we can move ahead. This legislation provides the first few steps on that path. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The policy this bill will implement is to give beneficiaries a kick in the backside. The policy this bill will implement is to tell beneficiaries the dream is over. The dream is over; the dream the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself took when she was in the position to take it; the dream she took so that she could get ahead and get a job and bring up her family; and the dream she would like to deny to others. Well I say to her that I have never heard a beneficiary tell me that living on the benefit is a dream. 
We have just heard nothing but pure spin from that Minister—pure spin. She said that in the time of the previous Labour Government we did nothing about beneficiaries unemployment or the whole benefit system. I shall tell that Minister what we did. We took the number of unemployed people on the benefit down from over 400000 New Zealanders to around 280000 in the time we were in Government. That was not doing nothing; that was ensuring we put in the right support to help people to get jobs and to get training. We did not pull out the support that they needed which is exactly what the National Government did at the first opportunity. It cut the training incentive allowance took away scholarships and did not put the focus on creating jobs which it ought to have done. We now have 345000 people on benefits in New Zealand. That number has gone up from 280000 under that Minister’s watch and she has the cheek to tell this House that the previous Labour Government did nothing about beneficiaries. 
Well if she thinks this bill will solve the problem then she really is in cloud-cuckoo-land as Paul Henry said last week. I tell the Minister that when one work tests people for a job the first principle is that there have to be jobs for people to go into. It is interesting that even Treasury said not to do it now that the timing is not right to try to work test sickness beneficiaries into jobs—and I will get on to that shortly. If there are no jobs out there and the Minister is bringing in her “kick in the backside” and is “ending the dream” as she says where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that go from 9 to 3 with school holidays off? Where are the jobs for people who are unwell who have to take medication and have to have medical treatment? Where are the employers who are coming forward as the Minister blames and shames beneficiaries because they are in that predicament? That is exactly what the Minister is doing. She stands up and talks tough although she herself was quite happy have the advantage that a good social security system gives this country. 
I have to say that the stated intent of this bill is not what the bill means. In fact the Minister claims that the bill will give a fairer system of social assistance to New Zealanders. Let me just read what the Attorney-General said about the Minister’s own bill and her policy. The Attorney-General is the most senior Minister in Cabinet in terms of being a lawyer. He is the Attorney-General. He is the top lawyer in the National Government. Let me just read what he says—[ 
Interruption 
] I hope the shrieking Minister listens because she obviously did not read this when it came to Cabinet. This is what her own colleague the Attorney-General said: “The stated objective of the Bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. While this is an important and significant objective the different treatment of people on the [DPB single parent] compared to women on the [widows benefit and DPB women alone] does not deserve this objective because it does not”—it does not—“create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment. Nor does it recognise the benefits of work for women on [the widows benefit] and the [DPB women alone]. Expressed another way the limit is not rationally”—listen to this—“connected to the Bill’s stated objective. Nor do the distinctions appear to serve any other valid non-discriminatory objective.” That statement was not from the Opposition; that statement came from the Attorney-General who is a Minister in that Government on that side of the House. 
This is not a bill that is fair to all people who are in receipt of a benefit. This is not a Labour bill. This is not our policy. It is National’s policy. It has chosen to discriminate against certain groups of women and men on the benefit. It has chosen to say that a person who receives the widows benefit equals good but a person who receives the domestic purposes benefit and is a single parent—who is on the benefit because she is divorced because her husband took off with somebody else or because she does not have a partner—is bad and should be work tested. But not if she is a widow and there is a subliminal message in that. It comes from the fact that John Key’s mother was a widow. She was not one of those domestic purposes benefit recipients who got themselves pregnant and then were on the State’s purse. That is the subliminal message because there is no other reason why a Government that is going to discriminate—as this Government wants to do—does not say that it includes all people. 
The other discrimination is that men who are widowers will be work tested under this policy but women who are widows will not. That is not Labour’s policy; it is National’s policy. Why would the Government discriminate in such a way? It does not make sense and the Attorney-General said it did not make sense. 
This bill sets out some objectives. It has a clear focus on work. You know most New Zealanders want to work. Members should never forget the 3000 New Zealanders who queued outside a supermarket only a few weeks ago to get 150 jobs. They queued for hours because they wanted to work. They could not all have a job but they wanted to work. And most New Zealanders do want to work. They want a job. But this policy says they ought to get a job. Well if the Government can help to train and prepare people for the jobs can help them into work that is fine. But to bring in this policy when everyone knows that 168000 people are unemployed now—and that does not count all the jobless—is crazy indeed. 
What did Treasury say about this policy? Treasury is not necessarily known for its sympathy I have to say for those on benefits but this is what it said: “we do not support the introduction of the SB work-test into legislation at this time. We recommend that the issue of work testing for those on health and disability-related benefits be considered by the proposed Welfare Working Group”. That would have been the place for us to look at these changes. “Currently” Treasury goes on to say “the SB is not appropriate for a part-time work-test as it is designed for people who will eventually return to work full-time (the majority do). Applying a part-time work test to the current SB would require someone to seek additional hours of work for minimal financial gain. For example a Sickness Beneficiary on minimum wage would receive approximately $1/hour in additional income for each hour worked beyond the abatement threshold (70% abatement applies…)”. That means that a person who is sick who goes out to work will work for $1 an hour under this policy. 
Labour will not support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We will vote against this bill going to the select committee. The bill has one or two very small matters of assistance to beneficiaries. It lifts the threshold for abatement to $100 from $80 but if the Government really intended to do something about the level of abatement it would lift it to $130 not $100. The bill puts into legislation rather than leaving it to convention the pegging of the benefit to the CPI and it lifts the threshold of abatement for a non-qualifying spouse on superannuation. But apart from that this bill is ill-thought-out. It is not even based on evidence or research as the Minister’s own regulatory statement says. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to support the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill today. I can think of no better Minister in this House than Minister Bennett to put forward this bill. She is a Minister who understands the welfare system who has empathy and compassion and who will deliver for those people on benefits a brighter future which the previous Government under Helen Clark could not deliver. That Government failed people on benefits it failed to give them aspiration and it failed to deliver that brighter future. It is very interesting that Annette King stood up and asked where the jobs were going to come from. She asked “Who gives 9 to 3 jobs?”. I tell the House that my office does. My office is open from 9 until 3 and I employ people who are coming back into the workforce. I employ— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: But that’s just one. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: No it is not. Steve Chadwick says that that is just one job— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One office. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It is one office that is correct but it is more than one job because I have job-sharing. I want to have people with children who want to come back into the workforce working in my office because they contribute. Members in the Opposition are sitting there shaking their heads but I challenge them to use job-sharing in their offices and to offer jobs going from 9 to 3 so that people can re-enter the workforce. Members on this side of the House do that. We actually walk the walk and talk the talk. We do that and that is what this great Minister is doing today. 
I find it interesting that many many members of this House have been solo mums and they understand how hard it is when people have been at home—and it is not just solo mums; it is mothers and parents who have been out of the workforce—for them to go back into the workforce to build their confidence to retrain and to feel as if they can add value to the workforce when they have been out of it for a while. We are not underestimating that. Many of the mothers on the domestic purposes benefit are well-educated and well-trained but they have been unlucky in getting into that situation which was never planned. They never thought they would be there and now they want help to get out of the situation they are in. They are keen to go back to work. They know what they will get from having a job—the value that it will bring them in their self-esteem. That is what this bill will do. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It won’t happen in that way. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It will happen and it will happen under a National Government. We care about those women and those partners who have been out of work who want to get back into work and add some value. I can tell members that if we want to give some aspiration to the children of this country who are in the homes of beneficiaries we will have to encourage them and help them to get there. That is what this Government is doing. 
As chair of the Social Services Committee I can tell the House that this bill will be coming into our select committee tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the submissions and what they have to say and to finding out how they will add value to this bill. I look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee tomorrow. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Minister in introducing her Government’s Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill talked about the future. I suspect that she was referring to a National Government future a future of division—of “divide and rule” and of the rich versus those who are in need—a future aimed at destroying our clean green image by digging up our precious conservation areas and a future aimed at undermining our democratic processes by running roughshod over the Auckland super-city. That is not the kind of future that the Labour Opposition supports and that is not the kind of future that New Zealand society supports. 
In 1999 Labour inherited about 161000 people on the unemployment roll. In 2008 when Labour left office there were only 20000 people on that roll. That is the number we gave over to National when it took office. At the end of 2008 the number of unemployed people had gone up to about 37000. It was acceptable at that time because people generally recognised that there was a recession. So we went with that because there was a recession. However there was no mini-Budget at the end of 2008 and there was no jobs budget in 2009; but there was much ado about a Job Summit and many of us today are still waiting to see what the jobs were that were created from that Job Summit. To this day I do not know whether any jobs were ever created in our community. Things are worse now and not better. There was a freeze on public sector pay. The Government kept talking about putting a cap on the workforce instead of making a cut in the workforce. More and more people have been added to the number of unemployed until at the end of last year about 168000 were on the unemployment roll. Those numbers continue to rise. 
There was also a bit of a splash about a $50 million cycleway. It was predicted supposedly to produce 4000 jobs. Again we ask where those jobs are. And I have to say that many in my community are asking who can afford a $100 or $200 bicycle for the cycleway. 
If we are talking about the future as this Government seems to believe it is doing by targeting the unemployed solo parents and sickness beneficiaries then let us ask the Government what it will do for the children and young people who will be affected if these benefits to needy families are cut. What will the Government do for families who will struggle with meeting the day-to-day rigours of life and the cost of living and whose children will end up going without? The future is about our youth about strengthening our economy and about looking after and strengthening the workforce which is predominantly Maori Pacific and Asian in areas such as Manukau and Mangere. What is this Government doing to strengthen our future workforce so that we can expect this future generation to pay for future superannuation? What will this Government do about strengthening the future workforce so that young people today will be able to pay for the future health-care that this country will need? What will this Government do to prepare the younger generation the future workforce in order for them to be able to pay for the education that the young generation will need in the future? These reforms will not achieve that. They will not achieve that at all. 
One has to wonder why last week the Government made this particular announcement. My colleague the Hon Annette King said that this was dog-whistle politics and she is absolutely correct. She is absolutely correct. Why was this announcement made when the Government was constantly under attack by New Zealanders because it was looking to mine all our conservation areas? It was a deflection; it was about deflecting the issue. Again this is sending out dog-whistle messages to the rednecks out there to those who do not understand the hardship that many families are going through and the hardships that some families have no control over. 
I want to read an example from someone who came into my office but I will not say who this person is. This person was made redundant in 2009 from Fletcher Construction in Penrose. He was paid a redundancy and all of that went on the bills. He has been going back and forth to Work and Income for any assistance that he and his family can get but because his wife works and because she earns a mere $300 net per week Work and Income has advised him that he is not eligible for any kind of support. He is on the books of New Zealand Labour Hire but only as a casual because assignments are very short and few and far between. My office referred this family to the Mangere budgeting service and when it went through the books to determine his income and outgoings there was a total household deficit of $287.41. 
That is an example of the families in my electorate and no doubt throughout Manukau and other parts of New Zealand who are struggling. This Government seems to label everybody in this way and say that they are trying to— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Labelling them as bludgers. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes it is labelling them as bludgers. Again it is a stereotype that is not true. Many of those people in Pacific communities and in Maori communities and many other people who are unemployed want to work. The dole is not any place for our families. The dole is not any place for people who want to get ahead. People want to get ahead and the only way that they will get ahead is through having a job. That is why we have asked the Government: “Where are those jobs?”. 
We saw images on TV not too long ago of 3000 people in line applying for 150 measly low-paid jobs at a local supermarket. Three thousand people were out there early in the morning with their CVs and applications because they wanted to work. Where are those jobs? What will the Government do with the solo mums who will now be put under pressure? Will they stand in line behind those 3000 job applicants or behind the 168000 people without jobs? Is that the future for the community out there? I hope not. But that is the kind of future that this Government is talking about. 
I have had numerous emails from New Zealanders across the country who on hearing the announcement by this Government are outraged. I want to read out some of them. This is from a woman who is a resident of Wellington. This is what she said: “These are my thoughts around this matter.” referring to the Government’s welfare reform. “I have noted that whenever National gets into Government there is a pattern of stigmatising the beneficiaries. It is often the women who are demonised for having the children despite the fact that Aotearoa needs a growing population to support the growing aged cohort who I might add need medical treatments to keep them alive. It seems ironic that it’s the aged cohort who support National’s policies and yet it’s now the young generations that are funding it. How the heck do they think they’re going to maintain the gold card and the demands on the health sector? The aged generation needs the young generation employed or otherwise. These ridiculous statements cause divisions within our society in terms of class divisions. It continues to be the children of the families on benefits who are penalised by having to go without some of the fundamentals in life. The National Party have cleverly put a woman in charge of the MSD portfolio so that the feminists and other women can’t protest. Presently people who are applying for jobs are finding they are overskilled for the job. What makes the Government think that unskilled parents are going to have a chance at obtaining employment that is family friendly? National policies are harsh and ridiculous. Where are the thousands of jobs that the National Party promised?”. 
What we want from this Government is job creation and skills development. That cannot happen if the Government continues to cut areas where it should be investing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 With respect to my friend from Labour I do not think this is dog whistling. I think this is a siren to National supporters. This is all about an ideological position. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is not dog whistling at all. It is about making it loud and clear to National supporters perhaps even to their funders that the Government will attack the most vulnerable families and do damage to the children of the poorest families in order to win itself a few extra votes. That is where this National Government is coming from. 
I do not think that it is an extreme position at all to say that this is dreadful legislation. It is abusive legislation which is misconceived out of the traditional National Party—and I do not say this lightly but I think it is true—pathological hatred of beneficiaries in this country. National has a pathological hatred of the poorest and most vulnerable families in this country. I am appalled that a Minister who herself was once a beneficiary as I was is responsible for the introduction of this legislation. It is a direct attack on her own community that seems deliberately designed to build on the failures of past National-led Governments in the area of so-called welfare reform. 
I lived through the first tranche of this in the early and mid-1990s. I was a beneficiary at that time and I worked with beneficiary families at that time. The “mother of all Budgets” cut welfare spending and cut the domestic purposes benefit by some 40 percent leaving those families hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families at the very bottom of the breadline and barely able to feed themselves at all and pay their rent and power bills. They were purposely put in that position by the National Government and it is intending to do that again. We can see how that is happening in this legislation. 
But I want to talk about the evidence—about whether there is any—for the intention of this legislation. Let us start with the regulatory impact statement which states: “There is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response from these changes in policy.” There is no evidence at all of any behavioural change. It goes on to say: “This prevents estimates with the degree of accuracy required from being made of the number of people who will move from benefit to work over a year as a result of the proposed changes.” There is no evidence to show that the policy will make any changes in people’s behaviour and therefore there is no estimate about how many people will be moved from benefits to work. This statement confirms what the Minister said in answer to a question I asked him last week that the Government does not know who the target is. The Government does not know who it is talking about when it says it wants to move people from benefits to work. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s just rhetoric. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Yes to National they are some faceless families. They are certainly not faceless to me because I was once a part of one of those families and I still deal with those families. Clearly the National Government does not deal with them and this Minister certainly does not. 
In other words the Government does not have the faintest idea whether or to what extent this bill will achieve its stated objectives. It is a pure form of ideological beneficiary bashing without there being a shred of evidence that anything in this bill will actually work. The regulatory impact statement reveals some interesting comments from Treasury and the Ministry of Health about aspects of the bill. That is a euphemistic way of putting it because the actual documents show that Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries. Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries one of the cornerstones of this legislation because as we heard earlier it will have sickness beneficiaries working for less than $1 an hour once their earnings exceed 80 bucks. That is less than $1 an hour for those who are ill. It is less than $1 an hour for those suffering from an illness that they need support to recover from. They need support so that they can be well and can go and earn better money in better jobs—jobs that can support them and their families. But no this Government will force them out so that they will end up earning less than $1 an hour. These are New Zealanders in the 21st century with a Government whose mind is still in the time of Dickens. Government members still have their minds back in Dickens’ day. 
I can understand why the Ministry of Health is concerned. There is already a creaking public health service that will struggle to cope with an additional 49000 extra doctors’ visits a year from sickness beneficiaries—49000 extra doctors’ visits a year that the public will pay for. The purpose of those visits will not be to treat these people to provide medicines and support or to provide assistance to help them to get well but to simply fulfil the bureaucratic requirements of this Government. This Government is putting in place the requirement for sickness beneficiaries to make those visits and for the public to spend all that money so that this Government can say that it will work test and continue to punish beneficiaries particularly sickness beneficiaries. So much for putting money into front-line services! Those 49000 extra bureaucratic doctors’ visits a year will do nothing for sickness beneficiaries and this National Government is costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
Then there is the report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the Attorney-General. It stated: “I conclude that by introducing a part-time work test for DPB-SB but not the WB and DPB-WA” the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that that inconsistency “cannot be justified”. The bill is discriminatory against a woman because of her circumstances and that discrimination cannot be justified. In answers in public to questions last week the Minister for Social Development and Employment seemed to be suggesting that it is somehow fair and reasonable for the Government to make that discrimination but we know that that is not true. This is not an argument to increase the work testing regime to those women who are receiving the women alone payment or who are on a widows benefit. This is an argument for asking why women who find themselves in a particular kind of situation—mostly it is not due to anything that they have done; it is not their fault—should be subjected to discriminatory work tests that will impact severely on them and on their children. It cannot be justified. 
In the case of sickness beneficiaries we oppose work testing because of the ridiculous situation where people who are ill end up earning less than $1 an hour. Also it is compulsory work so if they do not take the job that will earn them less than $1 an hour then their benefit will be cut. But these people will have no option. They will be forced into this work forced into earning less than $1 an hour. In that regard this shows that John Key’s Government has reneged on a promise that it made in its election manifesto. It has broken another promise—one to add to the many. 
This Government’s policy was that the abatement threshold for all benefits would increase from $80 to $100 a week but that is not what it is delivering. It is delivering that for only some and those who will miss out are some of our most vulnerable people: those on sickness benefits. We know from the evidence that when Australia introduced a similar policy of work testing in 2006 subsequent reports looking at the effectiveness of that work-testing policy showed that it failed. It made no difference whatsoever to the number of people who were moving on and off the disabilities benefit which is the equivalent benefit in Australia. It made no difference at all to those people’s needs because people will move on to the benefit when jobs are scarce and when they need that support and they will move right off again as they did in the late 1990s and the early 2000s when jobs become available. We know that in a time of recession as we are in right now the impacts fall on those on the lowest income first. Those jobs are not there. 
Finally I will address the provisions that relate to the unemployment benefit. This benefit is paid to people who are actively seeking work and quite rightly so. That is the whole point of the benefit and those people are seeking work. This bill requires them to be interviewed 12 months after first receiving the benefit and to reapply after that date. But if this Government was serious about assisting these people into work then I ask why it would not do that earlier. Why would it not do at 3 months when people have had a chance to try to figure out what the job market is like and have had some time for support? I ask why the Government does not do it at 3 months but does it at 12 months. Actually it has nothing to do with trying to support people into work. It is just another bureaucratic measure that will cost more money punish people and make it look as if this Government is doing something about beneficiary issues when in fact all it is doing is abusing these people. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 When welfare was created the goal was to provide temporary support for people who were able-bodied but were without an income. It focused on returning them to the workforce promptly and as soon as possible. Today the concept of the right to live off a benefit often outweighs the obligation to get a job. This Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill in my view restores some of that balance. 
As a result of what has been happening in this country and despite favourable economic circumstances the number of working-age beneficiaries dependent on the State today is around 300000. One child in three now lives in a benefit-dependent household and research identifies that such parents and children fare badly in education health and crime statistics. By seriously weakening work incentives by softening fraud recovery and by increasing benefit payments the requirement to move from welfare to work has been dangerously undermined over recent years in my view at least. This bill changes some of these incentives. It is for this National Government a major piece of legislation putting in place National’s manifesto commitment to reform the welfare system. The main changes—which I support—are those that require people who are receiving some benefits to seek and accept offers of work and that require that financial support should reflect the circumstances and need of the individual. 
Certain principles and I think basic truths flow from the situation that New Zealand now faces. New Zealand cannot I suggest succeed as a nation when a quarter to a third of all adults are being supported by the State. Nor can we get ahead when high taxes and increasing compliance costs are stifling jobs and growth. True compassion demands that welfare provides a hand-up to work independence and a better future. State assistance should aim to be of a temporary nature. Public policy priorities should protect the interests of children by recognising that in general children raised on welfare fail to do as well in all areas of life than those raised by parents in work. 
If New Zealand is to succeed then we need to put personal responsibility self-reliance and work above welfare dependency. We need to reduce the barriers to economic growth and to restore full employment. We need to eliminate long-term dependency of working-age beneficiaries who can work and we need to dramatically reduce the number of working-age New Zealanders on welfare—in particular the unemployment benefit the domestic purposes benefit and the sickness benefit. We as a nation simply cannot afford to waste the human potential of 300000 working-age people on benefits. We simply cannot afford that particular level of waste. 
In summary the welfare system was intended by the original designers many of them from the Labour Party as temporary assistance to alleviate poverty. It was not intended to make people dependent on the State reward irresponsibility or dysfunctional behaviour or contribute to the breakdown of the two-parent family. I support the bill as a move in the right direction. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. In looking at the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill I have to look back at the history of the struggle for tino rangatiratanga a long and hard road whose early beginnings were paved by warriors who fought and died to hold their lands by statesmen who sought a peaceful path but got trampled underfoot by colonial invaders by small communities retreating into themselves in a vain attempt to stave off the devastation of European diseases and by the many new Maori religious and Government systems set up to try to deliver the shattered dreams of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for a society where the white man governed those for whom he was responsible Maori managed their own affairs and both societies worked together for the betterment of all. 
I list historical figures from throughout that time such as Eru Patuone and Tamati Waka Nene who signed both He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and who tried to hold together a shaky peace that settlers had no intention of keeping; Hone Heke who opposed British taxation in an area he considered his own and went to war against the Crown to protect those rights; people from small communities like Whakapara where one of the iwi actually had to live in the cemetery to bury the dead to save his people from the raging deaths caused by the common cold and the dreaded influenza; Anikaaro for creating a religious umbrella to try to protect her people; the rangatira who founded the Kotahitanga movement to give their people an alternative Government based on kaupapa Maori; and Hone Heke Ngapua Tai Tokerau’s greatest ever member of Parliament whose vision and courage and maturity belied his youth and whose memory has been thankfully captured in a wonderful book by historian Paul Moon. 
In looking at this bill I also add to that list more contemporary figures such as Sir James Henare the last true paramount chief of Ngapuhi who reminded us that we know that we have tino rangatiratanga when we have the power of life and death over our people. We might never exercise it he was quick to point out but it most assuredly rested in our hands—a sobering thought indeed. I think of Whina Cooper who realised that genuine power rested in the hands of Maori women and formed the Maori Women’s Welfare League to give voice to that power and who energised the whole of Maoridom by leading the great Maori Land March to Wellington. That protest had a simple slogan: “Not one acre more.”—a slogan that has been ignored by every Government since. I think of Dame Mira Szaszy who said in the year of the land march: “The loss of land has haunted the Maori since the Treaty of Waitangi. Some action is necessary to lay this ghost to rest for ever. Only then it seems will Maori find themselves and become once again a self-determined self-respecting people. The march must go on if for no other reason than the expression of an awakening spirit.” I think of the Hon Matiu Rata who gave birth to the Waitangi Tribunal and established a pathway to redemption that successive Governments have eagerly travelled all the while reminding Maori to be realistic in their expectations which is the Government’s way of saying: “We’ll say sorry but you must be joking if you think we’re gonna give it back!”. And dare I say it I also include old “Dirty Dogs” himself the Hon Tau Henare who in his short time as Minister of Maori Affairs flouted the rules at every opportunity snaffled money for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori where none existed signed off on our wharekura at Te Rangianiwaniwa when all the bureaucrats were saying no and proved that belief in boldness was a genuine prerequisite to the exercise of good ministership. 
So when I come to this benefits reform bill I am reminded of a history that teaches me to speak truthfully of the issues to speak boldly of the future but to be guided by the words of Matiu Rata who said: “If you think on your journey through leadership for our people that your road will be hard you can rest assured that it is 10 times harder for the rest of our people out there.” 
That is why the Maori Party opposes this legislation—because Maori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency and nor do we seek poverty but neither are we the guinea pigs to be mucked around with by a bureaucracy that victimises those who are powerless and who are suffering because of the crash of a system of bloated financial greed fed by past Governments and rescued by current ones. 
I know heaps of folks who have gone hungry looking for work rather go on the dole because they know what a demeaning experience it can be. They know the shame that comes from not being able to provide for their kids. They are already feeling worthless and then a Minister comes out with a line like “The dream is over.” I know heaps of people on the benefit and for them it is no dream. There is no dream in having to push your baby downtown in a rainstorm because you cannot afford a bus. There is no dream in living on the edge when money is tight and you are worried sick about the kids needing to go to the doctor the power being cut off the car breaking down or needing money for school trips. Having no job ain’t a dream either. It is a brutal reality. There is no dream in being so addicted to tobacco that people sacrifice food to buy smokes especially when we know that Governments current and past know it is a killer but will let people die so that they can take $1 billion every year in taxes. A dream? Not bloody likely. It has been a nightmare. 
We hear a lot of talk about this bill creating a shift away from dependency and into employment. But the truth is that the economic downturn has actually resulted in a greater need for social security. Honestly forcing 43000 domestic purposes beneficiaries to go and get a job when their child turns 6 sounds a bit bloody ridiculous when we already know there are not even 4300 jobs out there. And that is just the domestic purposes beneficiaries. What about the 26 percent of rangatahi Maori and 27 percent of Pasifika youth registered as unemployed? With that level of unemployment the question is obvious: what is the point in waving the big stick when there simply are not any jobs out there? Why penalise and even criminalise beneficiaries when clearly a more positive and inclusive approach is required? 
That brings me to Whanau Ora because that is what Whanau Ora is all about. It is a way to help Maori lift themselves out of despair to help Maori lift themselves back to square one to help Maori realise that they are the masters of their own destiny by reshuffling the resources to ensure the help gets to where it is most needed rather than going round and round in aimless policy circles in Wellington redesigning idiotic schemes that change according to the politics of the day and generally have no impact whatsoever on those they are intended to help. Whanau Ora was designed by Maori to help Maori. And it is not even about money. Hell given the confidence and support of the Government it would very quickly lead to less money because Whanau Ora is about helping whanau to see that they are the answer to their own future that they are the focus for their children and that Whanau Ora is indeed all that Future Focus can never be. Whanau Ora is not just about amalgamating contracts nor is it just another social welfare programme like the many failed ventures of the past. Whanau Ora is a bold attempt to rewrite the book; to take the $1 billion currently being wasted on social recovery for Maori and make that money work for the whole of society by putting it in the hands of providers who are directly connected to the communities they serve so that they can work with whanau to change their circumstances and take responsibility for their future. Yes we support the calls to move people off the dole for a move away from dependency and towards a world where work is an option for all. But the better option is Whanau Ora not sliding back down that well-travelled road of targeting the victims. 
We are passionately opposed to any move that will penalise families living in poverty. We will oppose any legislation that will hurt children who have no way of defending themselves. And we will work with anyone who wants to address those issues in a positive manner rather than through bills that are already sending signals that those in need are a burden on society rather than a reality in a world still struggling to cope with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Maori Party accepts the position that Minister Turia is in as we accept also the view that Whanau Ora is the only positive option available to address the many social concerns facing Maori at the moment. We are disappointed that at a time when a bold and visionary approach is needed to deal with the desperate social plight of many in our society when we have the chance to take up Whanau Ora as a mark of that boldness and that vision the Government has simply chosen the “blame the victim” option. The Maori Party will be opposing this bill. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri noa i to tatou Whare tena tatou katoa. I stand unambiguously and unequivocally alongside the Minister of Social Development and Employment in supporting the introduction of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Emotive language has been used about punishment and penalty but this bill is far removed from that. It is focused instead on how we can get fairness into our society. 
If the Opposition thinks it is fair to condemn benefit-dependent households to a lifetime of benefits then all I can say is I am glad we are in Government. We have far higher aspirations and ambitions for the people of New Zealand. We want fairness for benefit-dependent households; we want fairness for the children in those households. The Opposition thinks the best life that the children of New Zealand can have is one of lifelong dependency on society. I will never support that. The children of New Zealand require hope; they require the understanding that it is not normal not to see people go to work and that it is not normal to grow up in a household of multi-generational dependence on the State. It saps the spirit of those children it saps the spirit of those adults it saps the spirit of the grandparents and it saps the community that they are a part of. This Government is not prepared to sit back and let that happen. 
And this Government is equally committed to fairness to the workers; to the workers who every day go out and do the “measly” kind of job that that member over there dismisses; to the workers who are prepared to pay their taxes who want to be fair to people who are benefit-dependent who want to be able to help but who also want to ensure that there is fairness in our society. And we want fairness in the future. We have a burgeoning population. We need to have growth in our economy. We need to have people with an aptitude and an attitude oriented towards work. This bill is based on that. 
The Opposition members are going on and on about work while dismissing as measly the jobs that are available. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: What jobs? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: If Opposition members are prepared to listen I will tell them. As at Friday just past Youth Opportunities through Job Ops and Community Max had delivered 7391 jobs. But of course Opposition members want to be judgmental. They want to talk only about work as they define work. But 7391 people are delighted to have the opportunity to work. Those members say there is no work. Currently 6000 vacancies are advertised with Work and Income but I guess that is not the kind of work the Opposition is talking about. Opposition members are concerned about theoretical work in an ideal world whereas this Government lives in the real world and delivers up real jobs. That is what this Government is about. 
The Social Services Committee will be delighted to have this bill referred to it. We want to hear from people who are committed to a long strong and sustainable future where they are not subject or condemned to being dependent. 
Moana Mackey 
: If only rhetoric could create jobs! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: This is not rhetoric; this is knowledge. I happen to come from a community that is hugely benefit-dependent. I happen to have worked in that community as have many of my whanau and all of us are committed to finding work for those people. I speak with some authority because we have started businesses that have given work to those people whom Opposition members wax lyrical about but do they do anything about them? Oh forget it! Those members would rather whinge and moan. I am interested in rangatiratanga; I am interested in the practical personal kind of rangatiratanga which allows individuals to have authority over their own lives to be able to make decisions for themselves and to not have to rely on a Government of any kind because they have the quality of life they want and they are not subject to the idea that they are dependent on welfare. That is a disease. Nobody wants to embrace a life living on a benefit. 
Let me tell the Opposition this: this Government is committed to helping people who cannot help themselves and it is committed to finding ways to support people to get back into work. Why? Because we think benefits are about being a lifeline not a lifestyle. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity—[ 
Interruption 
] This is not about you Hekia. This is not about you at all. 
Hekia Parata 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that we have been told often enough that the word “you” is reserved for yourself the Speaker and it is not to be used in denigration by one speaker to another in this House. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will not have anyone speaking on this. The word “you” is not banned entirely. The word “you” is not acceptable when people are making incorrect references to the Speaker. The member who was speaking said “This is not about you” etc. and he named the person in the same sentence. In that particular context I find it acceptable. The “you” refers to the person named: the member Hekia Parata. The member said “This is not about you Hekia Parata”. It is quite clear from the sentence that it is not about me the Assistant Speaker. I want the member to reflect on this. I know emotions are running hot in this debate and that is good. I ask Mr Prasad to continue his contribution to the House. 
Todd McClay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker from the Opposition did not address Mrs Parata correctly; in fact he was far too familiar with her. We have often been told about that in this House and I ask you to correct him please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that I thought I heard him say “you Hekia Parata”. If I did not hear him correctly I say to the member who is about to speak that when he addresses members of the House he should do so correctly and by their proper address. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I do believe that I addressed the member both respectfully and correctly. I said— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The member should not refer to a matter that has been ruled on. I said the member is to continue with his speech so he should do that. He should not traverse the matter that has been covered by the point of order. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member who spoke previously Hekia Parata raised a whole series of points and raised them with some passion and I respect that. However there is nothing in the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill that addresses many of the points that the member makes—nothing at all. It is hyperbole and a kind of filibustering but it does not add to the argument at all. 
I do believe in a caring society. I do believe in one that invests in parents in families and in their children. I do believe in that kind of society. 
Paul Quinn 
: Talking about the benefits? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What is the point that Mr Quinn would like to make? What is the point that the member is making? I will respond to him if he asks a question. What is the question you want to put to me? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This is a debating chamber. Points are to be addressed to the Chair. This is not a private conversation going backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I advise the member that he has 10 minutes to make a presentation on the matter. I invite him to continue with his address to the House. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I have no difficulty with the notion of a society using its wealth to address the problems that are being experienced by members of that society. We should create the best possible environment for our children; it is what they will grow up in. The investment that we make will pay handsome dividends: they will make a contribution to our kind of society. We should use the resources of the nation State our taxpayer dollars to give our children the best start in life. I support the system. It is designed to make that investment particularly in those people who miss out from time to time. When there are lives that are less fortunate or that have gone wrong the wealth and resources of the State ought to be used to give those children and families the best possible start. Therefore I support the provision of a fair system of social assistance. No matter what it has taken that is the kind of system we have designed since 1935. By and large it has worked well. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Members opposite may be interested to note that I also support the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money when our farmers through droughts and floods require assistance. In the same way that our children will those farmers will pay a handsome dividend to the nation’s wealth. That is fine. I despise those who abuse the system. I have worked in the system and with many of the people in the system. They are wonderful people whose lives have gone awry but some do abuse the system. I will not spend a moment defending anybody who abuses that particular system. There are any amount of provisions to address those particular things. Let us use those provisions to address that issue. 
However when people find themselves in the situation of relying on social assistance to provide that assistance based on a moralistic expectation of what they must do in order to earn it—that they must live in a particular way in terms of their personal life—is to begin to expect from the most vulnerable something that we do not expect of ourselves. These are the people who are forgotten. National Governments have always picked on this particular sore in our society by making the vulnerable the target of our contempt and designing programmes to punish them. National Governments have done it time and time again and this bill does the same thing. This bill creates a climate where people begin to believe that somebody is taking their money away that taxpayers are the honest citizens and that anybody who receives assistance is somehow to be despised. Those who receive assistance become fair game: we pick on them and we punish them. They tend to be brown less educated than other people poor and those who have suffered violence. 
I do not understand what it is about the members opposite and those leaders in our society who have had the very type of assistance that I speak about. The Minister is a case in point. She put a hand up and received the kind of assistance that this society ought to give to any mum with a young child who finds herself in that particular situation. We need to give those people a hand up and give them space to go off and do the best that they can. Of course the Minister has done very well and I congratulate her on that. But what I do not understand is why the very same people become the most feral when they attack others like themselves. There are cases in point and we can name them but I will not do so in this Chamber. There is something about those people. They become very punitive towards people who are like themselves. They have somehow made good having had assistance and now they say we must punish those who find themselves in the same position. 
This Government is introducing a very old concept. It is the concept of the deserving poor. If the Minister does not understand that I hope she will get some advice on it. The deserving poor are those whom we rile against morally and we expect of them particular standards of behaviour. This is a Dickensian model. It was designed out of Victorian England when the Industrial Revolution took place. That society used whatever human resources it could to produce labour for the factories and the human carnage that was created was incredible. That is the kind of Dickensian England if you like that this Government and this bill take us back to. 
This bill is a mess. The Minister is really unclear. She sounds quite confused in terms of a logical development of ideas to address what she sees as problems in our welfare system particularly about what to do with those who are on domestic purposes benefits. Nobody disputes that work is something to be strived for. The term that has come up in relation to this bill and the unyielding pressure to get into work are nothing new. Steve Maharey talked about it. In fact the whole Working for Families package was a realisation that the best way to really help people is through work but it is not the only way. 
Todd McClay 
: It’s a very very good way though. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: There are those who require different types of assistance at different points in their development cycle. I hope that the member who is chipping in on the other side understands that but if he does not then he can easily be given a lesson on that particular point. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you understand it? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: You bet I do I say to that member. I can give that member a lesson on this. I ask him which part of it he does not understand. 
This bill talks about providing a fairer society and a fairer system. Well I challenge the next speaker from the Government side to tell us what the components of that fairer system are. We have not heard that. We do not know how many people will come out of this particular status we do not know what the targets are and we do not know how they will be achieved. Somehow that is to be done by becoming as punitive as this set of provisions is towards solo parents etc. 
The current system is a very very good one. It has been highly highly successful and is one of the most successful in the world to get people back into work. Work and Income triages intensively. This is the same department that provided this service under the previous Government and did so very very well. Why does this Minister not believe that the system and that department can be as intensive as they were then in getting people into work? There is no need for any of these provisions. This is simply dog-whistle politics because it panders to those of the conservative ilk who somehow believe that people out there are stealing money from them. The National Government has created the figment that a huge amount of rorting is going on in our society and therefore it has developed a punitive mindset. In the end members opposite will regret this legislation because it will be their communities families whanau and whanui who will experience its effects. In the end people will be no better off because there is nothing great about a punitive society. How does the sanctions regime put children at the centre of our social intervention? The members opposite cry about the importance of children and of early intervention but when they get an opportunity to really screw them down they do that—and this bill does it. 
There is no need at all for this set of interventions. We have a very effective Work and Income which could work very intensively to address the concerns that members have. But no this bill is about the opinions of those who call talkback radio hosts.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a terrible thing when a political party seeks to corral and maintain for itself a sector within society and refuses to let any other political party speak on that sector’s behalf. That is what the Labour Party has done with the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Labour members have decided that anyone who is unemployed or is receiving any benefit from the Government is theirs to speak for. The previous speaker Dr Rajen Prasad accused our Minister for Social Development and Employment of going feral which is absolutely ridiculous. He then accused her of bashing up on beneficiaries and corralling them. It is absolute rubbish. Nothing within the bill has anything whatsoever about being punitive. 
It reminds me very very strongly of what took me from being an ardent supporter of the Labour Party to becoming a paid-up member of the National Party. In 1987 the Labour Government’s Minister of Labour cut all those people off the Project Employment Programme scheme because it was too expensive to administrate. Many of the Labour members who were in Cabinet in those days occupy the front benches opposite today. They were there and they still have that dirt on their hands. They said that employment was just too good for those people. They paid them a benefit and got them to stay home. Those members did not want to see those people but they wanted their votes because they were theirs. Those people carried Labour’s brand but it did not actually give a stuff about them. That is what those members are saying today. They are saying exactly that. 
I remember my days as a sole-charge policeman in Patea after the closure of the Patea freezing works. The member who has just resumed his seat was talking about the young children involved and saying that this policy has nothing to do with them. It was those young people under the previous Labour administration who were relegated. They saw their parents in bed in the morning waking up having a cup of coffee and going back to bed. Because those parents did not have to tip out of bed in the morning and go to work those young children spent the next 10 years of their lives watching their parents do that. What did they aspire to? They aspired to get on to a benefit as quickly as they damn well could. 
For the Labour members sitting over there barrelling on the point is that it is fundamental to Labour Party policy to keep a large sector of the community poor and pissed off so that they never have to look at themselves for aspiration or growth within their communities. Other members ask where the jobs are. They forget that welfare policy in this country is about aspiration; it is not about relegation. Under the previous Government it was about relegation so that if a person was on a benefit that person should never ever be allowed to aspire to be anything other than low paid or on a benefit. Well National in Government has greater aspirations for those people who are the most vulnerable within our communities and are as the previous speaker said the least well educated and have the least prospects for the future. Let us give them something to aim for and let us encourage them. 
The Future Focus policy is a mixture of incentives and most of them are about encouragement. It is saying that if someone is on a benefit for 12 months he or she must reapply. If there are jobs people will be encouraged to make an application and we will take them there. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: They know that now. They can call them in any day they want to. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: The member says we have that now. Yes some of those provisions are there and under this legislation they are enhanced. That member’s party spent 9 years in Government and never took the massive leap of allowing someone on the domestic purposes benefit the chance to earn another measly $20 a week. Will the member vote against that? I look forward to hearing members opposite stand up and justify in their electorate offices week after week why they refused to allow people on those benefits to earn another $20 a week. Dr Prasad would withhold their benefits if they earned another $20 a week. 
Under National we are offering incentives; some of them are positive and some are negative. We remember for instance the huge growth in numbers of people moving from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government. If the 70000 people who went on to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government were truly sick and truly incapable of work if every one of them had not been moved just because of a Government policy to remove people from the unemployment benefit and hide them on the sickness benefit we would have had an epidemic in this country so serious we would be on the international stage for having some malaise or sickness epidemic that was seeing thousands and thousands of people relegated into a situation where they could not work. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: The audit report disproves that and the member knows it. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: The member who has not shut up since I got on my feet protests that that is actually the case. I suggest that the malaise under the previous Government must have been verbal diarrhoea because it is leaking from every orifice. 
Paul Quinn 
: Ah! Peace at last. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: And we just love it. The fact is that this Government has been aspirational for New Zealand and it is putting in place a number of measures to make sure that we take this country somewhere. The previous member said it was dog-whistle politics. Well we hear dog-whistle politics when a Government is under pressure. I do not know how many papers those members opposite read but this Government is not under pressure. This Government is doing very nicely thank you. In fact the people who are under pressure in the political scene in New Zealand are those members opposite. That is where we hear the dog whistles coming from. That is where we hear for instance that the answer to our economic demise is to cut the salaries of the top 16 public servants. That is it. Dog-whistle politics is when the would-be Prime Minister puts his hand up and says a millionaire should be able to receive a welfare benefit. 
New Zealanders expect that there is a quid pro quo. New Zealanders accept that in a civilised society with a welfare system there is a quid pro quo. In other words they expect that there is a safety net. They expect that those who need assistance to better their circumstances will have that safety net. But New Zealanders have an expectation that people on a benefit will do certain things towards getting off that benefit. I wonder what those expectations might be. Well they are expected to look for work and make serious applications for the vacancies that exist. 
About now there should be a chorus from the Opposition asking where the jobs are. But I get back to the point that the Future Focus initiative is aspirational. The member who has just resumed his seat—actually it was quite a while ago—would say that people should never aspire to be in a better situation. He would say that we should have unemployment at a slightly inflated rate as it was a few months ago. He would say we should not have any initiative that will kick in until the job market is flooded with jobs and there is a labour shortage. Well National has a few ideas. National campaigned on those ideas and here is a party that is in Government because the country wants to realise the aspirations that National has for this great country. As long as those members sit on that side of the House screaming out that sort of diatribe they will always be there—and long may it be. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to say that it is a sad day for this country when the Government chooses to bash beneficiaries while they are down as a way of diverting attention from the fact that it has not done its job in creating jobs for New Zealanders and creating opportunities for upskilling and training. That is exactly what that Government has failed to do so far. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is not the only person in this House who has been on a benefit. I want to say as a person who is a sole parent as a person has been on the domestic purposes benefit that it is not easy— 
Paul Quinn 
: She has lunch at the Wellington Club and gives us a lecture about welfare. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —I say to Mr Quinn—to be a solo mother. It is incredibly difficult and the last thing beneficiaries need is a Government that is putting out a stigma about them and making society turn against them as if they have done something wrong. 
I have worked with many sole parents in the jobs I have had. I have worked with students at the University of Auckland and I have been a sole parent myself. I know that the vast majority of women on the domestic purposes benefit are working hard whether it be in study or in a job. They do so because they have aspirations for their children. They want to do well for their children so that they are role models for their children. I take offence at MPs on the Government side of the House implying that children of beneficiaries will not have aspirations as they grow older. That is what was said on that side of the House and I say to that side of the House as a mother who had to be on the domestic purposes benefit at one point in my life that my having been on a benefit does not mean that my son will not have aspirations for his own life. 
Currently there are 168000 still out of work and these people are not “living the dream” as Paula Bennett the Minister for Social Development and Employment said. It is not a dream for them. It is not a dream for children for their parents to be unemployed and living on the bare minimum with regard to putting food on the table and everything else. 
Hekia Parata has said that it is not normal for kids to see their parents out of work. I have to say that for short periods of time sometimes that just is the case. She also discussed the fact that there are currently 7000 jobs available through Job Ops and 6000 jobs on the books of Work and Income. Those 13000 jobs do not do anything in the way of addressing the 168000 people who are unemployed. Having 13000 jobs available is like a postage stamp on Eden Park with regards to the 168000 people who are unemployed— 
Paul Quinn 
: Be original. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I know that Mr Quinn has no empathy for people who are unemployed; he keeps barracking and yelling over on the other side of the House. But it would be good if Mr Quinn could listen to what I am saying. 
I want to quote one of the MPs from the Government side of the House—in fact from the maiden speech of one of the MPs. This quote is about the fact that women should have a choice. It starts: “More women are in paid employment than ever before and their contribution is immeasurable. However when we hear of someone currently working who becomes pregnant one of our first questions is: ‘How long will she be taking off work?’ There is a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—push for women to return to the workforce as soon as possible. But I ask members not to misunderstand me. 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. Most men make wonderful fathers. We should let them have a choice about the role they play in raising their family. Most of all we should let parents have choices.” 
That maiden speech was given in 2005 and it was given by our current Minister for Social Development and Employment. Where is the choice now when she says that they need a kick up the pants—in other words they need a boot in the guts while they are down and they need to get out there and get a job despite the fact that that Minister for Social Development and Employment has done absolutely nothing to create jobs in this country? 
One thing that is quite disconcerting for me is that this Government has deliberately used beneficiary bashing as a strategy with which to turn one New Zealander against another as a way in which it can divert attention—as I said before—away from the fact that it has done absolutely nothing to address the economic downturn and the problems we are confronting as a country with regard to high levels of unemployment and low levels of opportunities for upskilling and training. The Government has attempted to turn the working taxpayer against the struggling person who is currently out of work. 
I read something in a  
Dominion Post  
column a few weeks back by a wonderful journalist called Karlo Mila-Schaaf who said: “The fastest way to create an underclass is for a leader to respond inadequately to rising unemployment and then divide society into taxpayers and those who are ‘poor’ investments (the recipients of social services not ‘showing the results that taxpayers have the right to expect’).” That is exactly what members on that side of the House have done so far. It is not the fault of beneficiaries that they do not have jobs; it is the Government’s fault for not providing those opportunities. 
What we have seen alongside this is cuts to the opportunities for training and upskilling. We have seen the training incentive allowance slashed which means that sole parents who would otherwise have been able to access funding for training and programmes to diploma and degree level can no longer get that. We have to look at our Minister for Social Development and Employment and question her motives her background and why someone who can say that she utilised these types of support would then turn round and pull up the ladder to deny other women access to those types of support. It makes absolutely no sense—no sense at all. 
We will not be agreeing with this bill. Even the Attorney-General has pointed out that this bill and what the Government is trying to do discriminates against different groups based on gender family status and also in terms of the type of benefit that they are on. And we cannot agree with that; there is absolutely no reason why we would agree with putting in the boot while these people are down. 
What will be the outcome of these changes introduced by this bill? The Government is saying that it wants to encourage beneficiaries into work. As I said before that is all about creating jobs and we cannot understand why the Government has not done that. Last week I was on  
Breakfast 
 with a Government member of the House—Mr Simon Bridges. He stated very clearly that this policy was good because it was popular. This Government makes decisions based on the fact that they are popular. Even Paul Henry who is not known to be a big Labour Party supporter actually turned round and said to him: “Yes that might be right. It probably is popular but that doesn’t make it right.” That does not make it right and that is what we are faced with. 
The Minister for Social Development and Employment has ignored the fact that this does not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that it discriminates against different groups of people and that most of all it discriminates against the children who are going to be affected by this type of policy. This Government forgets that when it cuts this funding when it cuts these benefits it is not just the adults who are affected: it is the children whom those parents are actually there to look after. This Minister has gone around saying that this legislation is all about the children; I have heard her say that on many occasions. But then why would we do that? Why would we take food off children’s tables by punishing their parents and then subsequently punishing them? 
Instead of focusing on solutions that will help people into work and increase opportunities for single mothers and for their children what has this Government given us? It has given us absolutely nothing. It has dragged different members of our society through the mud it has provided empty promises and frankly that is not enough. Labour will not vote for this bill; we will fight against it every step of the way. Thank you very much. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The most important part of the title is “Future Focus” and I congratulate the Minister for Social Development and Employment on her hard work over the last 15 months on this package of initiatives that will give every single New Zealander an opportunity—when he or she is able—to get out there and work. 
In this House we all know that work is the way we provide for our families make the lives of our children better and make society more productive. The debate has been interesting to listen to over the last hour and a half and it has been a fairly robust debate from all sides of the House. We have heard a lot of things from members opposite about why we should not make these changes but I have not heard a single member admit that New Zealand has a problem with long-term welfare dependency. 
I absolutely agree with members opposite that largely it is not the fault of individual members of our society who have found that they have been on welfare year upon year. It is the fault of the members opposite and the previous Government who told those people that welfare dependency was a lifestyle choice that it was acceptable to be on welfare and that the Government would keep supporting them even though each of them was able to go out and work for their families. 
This legislation recognises that every single member of society in New Zealand can do more and should be encouraged to do more than merely sit on a benefit. What I have heard from members opposite wholly has been concern over National delivering on another promise it made to the electorate 2 years ago to look at welfare and to reform welfare to help New Zealanders get back to work. I support the bill fully. I cannot wait for it to get to a select committee so we can hear from New Zealanders. 
I want to very very briefly touch on a couple of issues. Members opposite have said that this bill is very unfair. I want to ask them a question: how do they expect taxpayers in New Zealand to afford to keep paying a growing welfare bill? How do they expect the average household in New Zealand—a low-income household because of years of economic underachievement by the previous Government—to afford to keep propping up a welfare system that protects and promotes long-term welfare dependency? 
In my home city of Rotorua we currently have 7500 beneficiaries. I accept that as members opposite have said unemployment has increased because of the recession around the world and in New Zealand. If we take out the numbers of those extra people who have come on to the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit because of the recession there are still 6000 people on a benefit there. Let us break down that figure further and look at the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. There are almost 3500 people on the domestic purposes benefit in Rotorua. If we compare that figure with the figure for a city the size of Tauranga we see that it is much larger. It is a very excessive level. 
I have been out in my community talking to people and to mums about what they are concerned about and what assistance they need. I have spoken with a number of people some of whom whilst having young children at school or in day care have chosen to take a few hours’ work a week for no extra money. When asked why they would do that—because members opposite say that someone in that position will end up working for $1 an hour—they said they wanted to keep in touch and keep up their skills. 
I would expect some of those people of their own volition their own choice to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 6. I applaud them and support them in that. Of course for people out there who cannot find work do not have the skills and cannot get a job this legislation will be there to help them and work with them and their children will be better off. 
I conclude by giving members an example of what long-term welfare dependency does to New Zealand families. I want members to think back for a moment to a few years ago and to the horrific murder of young Nia Glassie in Rotorua. Her entire family and those around them were on benefits. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The House will be silent. I have a point of order from the Hon Parekura Horomia. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The member is going well outside the brief of this discussion. He is making a mockery of what happened in the past. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I know what the member is alluding to but it is a debating point. It is not a point of order. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I am not making a mockery of anybody—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am but 2 metres from the speaker and I cannot hear a word he is saying because of the barracking and screeching that is coming from the other side of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: This has been a robust debate. I can hear Mr McClay quite clearly from here. I have been able to hear other people and I have to say that the member’s own party has been engaged in a substantial amount of barracking across the House. I think it is about even. I say to members that the point has been made. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I pay great tribute to the young Nia Glassie and I have little or no regard for the people who murdered her. But I say to members that if we look at her family and those around them we see there was long-term welfare dependency. The people who murdered her were on benefits and did not have jobs. Largely long-term welfare dependency which was promoted by the previous Government did nothing to help that family. This Government will stand up and fight for those people. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5;United Future 1; Maori Party 1 (Turia). 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 4 (Flavell Harawira Katene Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 July 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Motion agreed to. 
Urgency 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill and the Regulatory Improvement Bill and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill; and the first readings of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill and the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill. 
The Government is moving to accord urgency for the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to empower Government-appointed commissioners to provide the governance and leadership necessary to rapidly address longstanding systemic institutional and governance issues within the Canterbury Regional Council Environment Canterbury. It is responsible of the Government to provide certainty for Environment Canterbury councillors and staff; consequently according urgency to this legislation is the most appropriate action. 
The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides certainty and clarity regarding future pricing methods to be applied to regulated raw milk that Fonterra is obliged to provide to independent processors prior to the beginning of the 2010-11 dairy production season. 
The Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill corrects errors in the drafting of the Immigration Act 2009 and it needs to be passed as soon as possible to allow necessary implementation work to be undertaken and to ensure that the will of this House is not frustrated. 
The Government’s intention is that a bill to improve the regulatory framework will be an annual occurrence and as the current bill was not able to be passed last year the Government would like to move to advance it so that the progress of regulatory reform becomes continuous. 
The Unit Titles Bill should progress under urgency as the review of the 38-year-old Unit Titles Act has been ongoing for the last 5 years and this bill is a small but integral part of the package of solutions the Government is looking at for people who are living in leaky apartment bills. The Act is outdated and is inadequate to deal with the creation and management of developments such as apartment blocks in today’s housing market. 
Noting the Regulations Review Committee’s finding regarding the undesirability of the deferred commencement of the new section 92A that was part of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 the Government would like to refer the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill to a select committee as soon as possible. 
Finally advancing the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation and Fees) Bill is another step towards the fulfilment of a single economic market with Australia as enunciated by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament at the beginning of the year. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday 31 March and 2 p.m. on Thursday 1 April 2010 and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner pursuant to Standing Order 372. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being none that is agreed to. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
First 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 first time. 
 New Zealand’s most important strategic natural resource is its fresh water. At nearly 80000 cubic metres per person we are to water what the Saudis are to oil. Better still if wisely managed our natural freshwater resources are infinitely renewable. The problem is that water has been so plentiful that we have not had to be too sophisticated historically in terms of how we have allocated or managed that resource. 
Nowhere is this debate as hot as it has been in Canterbury where over 50 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation and 50 percent of our electricity storage water exists. People are flexing their muscles over water while the weakened referee—Environment Canterbury—is struggling to maintain order. Allocation decisions are ad hoc water quality is deteriorating and storage opportunities are being lost in the muddle. 
Longstanding systemic issues relating to the performance of Environment Canterbury have reached a critical stage. Evidence of the failure has been apparent for over a decade and has been acknowledged by the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard. Concerns around Environment Canterbury were included in the Ministry for the Environment’s briefing to the incoming Government. 
Based on these concerns and on Environment Canterbury’s performance in the 2007-08 Resource Management Act survey of local authorities—which found that Environment Canterbury’s performance was 84th out of 84 and was complying with statutory timetables in only 29 percent of cases—I decided to fully investigate its performance. I also note the critical decisions that have been made by the Environment Court and by independent environment commissioners. 
The review was undertaken after consultation with my colleague the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide by an independent review group chaired by Wyatt Creech and including Doug Martin Doug Low and Greg Hill. I acknowledge the hard work they put into their report. The review unanimously found that Environment Canterbury— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Dirty-dairying convictions. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I notice Mr Norman and I give him some advice. In Jeanette Fitzsimon’s 12 years in this Parliament she tackled the issue and not the person. Mr Norman is taking his party’s integrity backwards by not focusing on the real issues and those real issues concern the management of water in Canterbury. 
The Canterbury community has lost faith in the ability of Environment Canterbury to deliver on its statutory responsibilities. Over the last couple of months I and the Minister of Local Government have met with Environment Canterbury Canterbury mayors chief executives councils stakeholders and Ngai Tahu. The views of the people of Canterbury are very clear to me—that is it is patently obvious that for a number of years something has needed to be done that the report by those independent reviewers is comprehensive and accurate that Environment Canterbury is dysfunctional and is holding back the region both economically and environmentally and that the report included sound recommendations for a way forward to deliver a step change in management of water in Canterbury. 
Environment Canterbury’s relationships with freshwater stakeholders and Canterbury’s territorial authorities as well as Ngai Tahu are compromised to a degree that undermines Environment Canterbury’s efforts to remedy those water management issues in Canterbury that are so critical. It is my take that there is a broad consensus in support of the review group’s finding in relation to the institutional governance of Environment Canterbury and almost unanimous support for strong central government leadership on this issue. 
The review group recommends that the Government establish a stand-alone Canterbury water authority. The Government believes that further consideration is required before such structural arrangements are put in place and I note that there is nothing in this bill to advance that proposal. The threshold for intervention in the affairs of local government is high. Intervention is considered only where there is serious failure. In respect of Environment Canterbury the Government’s intervention is required because of three things— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: They said no to irrigators. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: First the council has failed to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water. What surprises me about the intervention from the co-leader of the Green Party is that there is no question that water quality in Canterbury over the last decade has deteriorated and if we are serious about taking some action about that then we should move. 
Secondly Canterbury does not have a fully operative regional plan and policy framework for resource management. I find it extraordinary that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have an operative plan in Canterbury to manage its water and this has resulted in ad hoc and unsatisfactory arrangements for managing fresh water. Third in the view of the review group there is an enormous and unprecedented gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage water in Canterbury and the council’s ability to do so. 
These problems straddle the roles of Environment Canterbury under both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. The existing powers provided under those statutes are not sufficient to address these problems. There is a compelling case for immediate and direct action by the Government. Intervention is required to address a failure of governance on the part of the elected council particularly in relation to freshwater management. If we do not act then the economic social and cultural well-being of Canterbury—and in my view New Zealand—will continue to suffer. 
This bill provides the power to appoint and empower Government-appointed commissioners. These commissioners will provide the strong governance and leadership that is necessary to rapidly bring the region’s resource management framework into line and to solve these serious problems within Environment Canterbury. The appointment of commissioners is a transitional measure and they will be empowered to rapidly address the institutional and planning problems that are preventing effective resource management governance and decision-making in Canterbury. The planned Environment Canterbury election in October 2010 will be deferred until such time as the commissioners have completed their task but whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systematic issues are resolved. 
The commissioners will be tasked with making institutional adjustments to ensure that Environment Canterbury is able to manage its duties effectively. They will additionally be tasked with fixing the water problem. This requires an effective operational water plan. It is only through such a plan that Environment Canterbury can make strategic decisions about resources and lay the ground rules against which future decisions can be assessed. 
The commissioners will be experienced and today we have announced that Dame Margaret Bazley one of New Zealand’s most respected public servants will act as commission chair designate. The commissioners will have the power to appoint and delegate appropriate people with the necessary status and experience in resource management to decide on resource management matters. The commissioners will be required to draw on the wisdom and opinions of the mayors of Canterbury and the bill makes specific reference for the key linkage between them and the other councils within Canterbury. Additionally commissioners will be given unique powers and will operate under an altered decision-making framework for the duration of their appointments. 
The Government wants to build on the collaborate work of the  
Canterbury Strategic Water Stud 
y which led to the strategy. This strategy has gained very broad support and this bill enables statutory recognition to be able to be given to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I firmly believe that the Government’s response to the recommendations of the review group should capitalise on the momentum that has been provided by that strategy. I also propose to achieve that by requiring the commissioners to have particular regard to the vision and principles of that strategy. 
In order to empower commissioners to expedite decisions on the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement I propose that there be appeals only to the High Court on points of law with no appeals on merit of the commissioners’ decisions. This differs from the current situation where appeals on merit to the Environment Court are available. In the absence of an operative planning framework for managing water in Canterbury the region’s water conservation orders have set the benchmark around which the natural resources regional plan has begun to be developed and consents have been granted. 
There is a stark contrast in Canterbury in the way water resources that are subject to water conservation orders are managed versus the way that those that are not subject to water conservation orders are managed. I am concerned at the sustainability of the overall resource management outcomes. I consider that the attributes of the Canterbury region justify a move to ensure that the region’s water resources are managed in a more integrated way. I ask that this bill be considered by the House as it is a fair and bold response to the challenges facing Environment Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Urgency Motion—Leave to Correct Votes 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct the votes of Labour and Progressive on the urgency motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There was not actually a party vote; the vote was on voices. So there is no record to correct and I think we could say that the seeking of leave is out of order. 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Labour is opposing this bill. It is a constitutional outrage on a whole number of levels. This bill replaces Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors with Government-appointed commissioners. 
Amy Adams 
: As you did in 2000. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I will come back to the issue of Rodney District Council. The member for Selwyn had better take note that this measure will not have universal appeal in her electorate and that it would have been useful if that member’s office had been able to advise people who called this afternoon about what her position would be. But I put that to one side. 
This bill will absolutely disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury for the next 3½ years. It is not a quick fix; it is a long-term assault on the democratic model which we on this side of the House happen to believe is quite important constitutionally. This bill follows on from the Creech report which took place in a time frame of just under a month. The reviewers consulted fewer than 20 stakeholders—20 stakeholders. It talked to the mayors but not to the councils and the councils had not been consulted by their mayors. One has to say that mayors may have a different view about what is important for territorial authorities in Canterbury from what their councils might actually have. 
Environment Canterbury is a democratically elected body. Its history has included having members of this House as members. But this bill without any chance for public submissions will disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury. This point of relevance was already raised in terms of contrast with what happened at Rodney but we will come to that in a minute. This bill will see the National and ACT coalition appointing from four to seven commissioners who will make all of the decisions for Environment Canterbury. That is going further than the recommendations of the Creech report which said in fact that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job in respect of all of its other functions and— 
Colin King 
: What about its coastal plan? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it was saying that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job. Not only that but I went to the briefing held by Wyatt Creech and the commissioners where it was said that some of the issues about water were the responsibility of this Parliament of Government and of the Environment Court and that not even on the issue of water alone could all of the responsibility for its management and any question marks about the track record of that management be sheeted home to Environment Canterbury. 
So I ask why we are not seeing a bill that actually embodies those thoughts from the review of Environment Canterbury conducted in rapid fashion by Wyatt Creech and his review team. Why are we not seeing a bill that embodies the issues around the politics of water and this Government’s determination to get quick runs on the board in the next year without environmental checks and balances being put in place? I put that issue to the Minister for the Environment this morning. I asked whether there would be accompanying legislation to this bill to ensure that new rounds for the allocation of water as envisaged under this bill—at the centre and core of this bill and with environmental checks and balances in place—are allocated in a better way. Anybody in Canterbury will accept that at this point in time there is not the best water quality in Canterbury. There is not the level of water quality that there should be and remedies for that should be in place. But the Minister agreed that there was no accompanying legislation. 
We are seeing National and ACT remove a democratically elected council so that Nick Smith and his colleagues can run the decisions in Canterbury in terms of water. That is what it is about. Cantabrians people in my province will not get the chance to have a say on who manages their water their public transport their clean air provisions and the coastal environment for the next 3½ long years—3½ long years—because this Government wants to abrogate that fundamental democratic right. I would have thought that a party on the opposite side of the Chamber a party from the right would uphold the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. But that principle has been fundamentally violated by this bill. That is a fundamental principle of the right but it has been discarded for convenience’s sake. It has been discarded by this Government because it does not fit what the Government wants to do in terms of rapid allocation of new water without any checks and balances being put in place. That is what this bill is about. It is about a rapid allocation of new water to industries across Canterbury. 
Labour supports sustainable growth. We want to see growth in Canterbury. We want to see the greening of the plains but we will not tolerate more browning of the waters. This bill puts that at risk. The function of Environment Canterbury is being taken out. Whatever Environment Canterbury’s faults it has in recent months and years matched the environmental record in terms of Resource Management Act processes of other councils. It has absolutely matched the record of other councils in terms of those processes. Environment Canterbury has also been the instigator and driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which I note is included in the bill as a schedule. There are references in the bill to taking account of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy but where is reference to that strategy in terms of any decision-making process? The Canterbury Water Management Strategy has to be consulted it has to be taken account of but where is the requirement that the strategy be embodied by this legislation? It is not there—it is not there. 
I tell members that I think the people who have been involved in bringing that once-in-a-lifetime strategy together for Canterbury will be very nervous at the appointment of these commissioners. They know that ultimately those commissioners will be answerable to Nick Smith to Cabinet to the Government and to the ACT Party and not to the ratepayers of Canterbury the people of Canterbury or the people who should be deciding how our water is allocated. The commissioners will be answerable to a Cabinet agenda that is on the record and explicit—new allocation and new water in Canterbury from next year—without commensurate appropriate environmental checks being put in place. We all know that Parliament and Government had not put in place a sufficiently rigorous system to do that but this bill does absolutely nothing to deliver it. Where are those new environmental standards? They are simply not there. 
The Minister talked in his introduction about a step change in water management. It is a step change in water management towards allocating water more rapidly but it is not the step change that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy envisaged where the environmental outcomes were put first—not second but first. A requirement to improve existing water quality should be put in place before the allocation of new water is gone into because we have no lowland streams left in Canterbury where we can still safely swim and take our kids. A birthright has been lost. The requirement to improve existing water must be the first priority for Canterbury not the rapid new allocation of water. 
I come to the issue of how Rodney Hide has won the day on this matter. It is just a repetition of what happened in Auckland. I think Nick Smith has been rolled. I think Nick Smith probably would like to put in place some new environmental frameworks to support better water quality but Rodney Hide has again won the day. That is a surprise because he managed to get those changes through in Auckland and absolutely abrogated the rights of Aucklanders to have a say in the change of their super-city legislation. He absolutely put those rights to one side. We now have a similar situation except it is worse. At least Aucklanders had a select committee process. This bill is being rammed through under urgency and there is not a single chance for a single voice from Canterbury to be heard on decisions that will affect their rights under democratic process which are being absolutely abrogated by this bill. They have no right to have any say. We will see this bill go through the House under urgency in the next 24 hours. That is a fundamental breach of democratic rights and representation. 
The Rodney District Council approached the Government for a review. There was a hearing process whereby local people were able to have an input. This bill does not have even a ritual bow towards the democratic process. It is a blitzkrieg of democracy and it is a blitzkrieg of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is forcing through a fundamental change against the supposed principles that the party opposite is here to represent in terms of no taxation without representation. The bill is being forced through in extraordinary fashion by this Government. There is no chance for anyone to be heard. 
Who will be next? Which council will be next to face this kind of assault on its democratic rights? It is outrageous legislation it is an outrageous move by this Government and it is being foisted upon us without any reference to the people of Canterbury and without any reference to the select committee process. It is a fundamental breach of democratic rights which the party opposite has in the past been prepared to uphold on behalf of the people of Canterbury. The Government has refused to take even a token bow towards the fundamental precepts of democracy that National used to proudly represent. I say shame upon National and shame upon members of the Government for introducing legislation as abominable as this. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Brendon Burns and Labour know in their heart of hearts that we are doing the right thing. Do members know why? It is because they voted for the urgency motion. I thank Labour members for their early support of this bill. 
This Government is not afraid to confront problems and move to fix them. I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Rodney Hide who recognised that Environment Canterbury was failing and who have resolved to do something about it. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill seeks to address the very real problems identified in the review of the performance of Environment Canterbury. 
The review confirmed the worst fear of many people living in the area—the fear that Environment Canterbury was failing. It is politically technically and woefully deficient in policy areas and most important to me it is failing miserably in respect of water management. To say that local water users have been dismayed at the performance of Environment Canterbury in respect of its water management is to understate the case. Dealing with Environment Canterbury whether by recreational users fishermen or irrigators has been uncertain and adversarial and dealings can stretch on for years and years leading to enormous costs. This bill will address those issues. 
Canterbury urgently needs a regional water plan and this bill has given top priority to its development. Labour had 9 years of complete mismanagement of water issues and produced nothing except its Water Programme of Action or I should say its water programme of inaction. This Government plans to build on the excellent work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study which enjoys wide support amongst the ten Canterbury mayors and all water interest groups. 
Already the National Government has achieved more in the development of water policy than Labour did in its entire term of office. Shame on Labour! By appointing commissioners with additional powers under this legislation the Government will address these urgent problems with the management of water. The people of Canterbury deserve better from their regional council and with the passing of this bill they will get it. 
I will leave members with a quote from former environment Minister Trevor Mallard who said on 27 February: “everyone knew there was a problem there. But it was quite late in the term and in a time where there was not the ability to put in the group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done and then deal with the results.” I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I see that the way in which the National Government wants to make progress on issues like water—and we can put social welfare accident compensation and everything else in with it—is to pull the plug on the whole system. What we have here is the end of democracy in one of Canterbury’s most important local government agencies. 
I would like to know where the National members who represent Canterbury were during the election. If there was ever a time when Environment Canterbury was not meeting its responsibilities I know that it was then and immediately before. The Government that I represented had to pay Environment Canterbury half a million dollars to get a water plan. If the National members who represent Canterbury were so dead keen on ending democracy in Canterbury why did they not tell the people of Canterbury that that was what they stood for. Why did they not stand up at the election and say: “We’ve got a plan to solve the water problem. We’re going to dismiss all the Environment Canterbury elected representatives.”? That would have been as popular as a cold cup of water on a freezing-cold day in the Antarctic. It would not have gone down and no National Party member had either the foresight or the gumption to do it. They did not do it. 
What they have done is have a meeting with a cabal of mayors. Those mayors did not consult anybody. Did the mayors consult the elected representatives of Parliament for the Canterbury region? They may have consulted the National members but they did not consult the Labour Party members and the Progressive party member for Canterbury. There was no consultation with us. Did they just go to where they thought they could get some direct action like this? The answer is yes. 
Here is the incredible thing. The ACT Party which stands for non-intervention all over the place—we cannot intervene in the economy we cannot intervene in social welfare and we cannot intervene in accident compensation; it has to be privatised and run by people—now wants to intervene in democracy in the most dramatic way that it could which is to cancel it. Not only are we not going to have it but we are not going to have it between now and the election. 
I have heard National members mention the Rodney District Council. Talk about comparing apples with oranges! Sandra Lee the then Minister of Local Government appointed a commissioner 10 months out from the election. She determined that an election would be held within 10 months and it was. It was a one-off election and it was held outside of time but she made sure that there was an election of the representatives of Rodney within 10 months of the appointment of a commissioner. 
What we have here is a cancellation of democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years; not 10 months but 3½ years. Where was the public announcement of this to the people of Canterbury before the election? We did not hear a word of it. My colleagues know and National members know the irony of this because National members and Labour and Progressive members were at a special briefing held by Environment Canterbury about 4 or 5 months ago. I have a fair idea of what Environment Canterbury’s failings were in terms of water policy and for the first time Environment Canterbury had got its act together and was forming a water policy that had some coherence and some credibility. It had done that and just when it was about to implement it it got abolished. What sort of democracy is that? Are you frightened of democracy? Are you frightened of it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not include the Speaker by his use of pronouns. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise. 
The incredible thing about this is to do with poor old Alec Neill. Alec Neill was a member who could not eventually get elected. He entered Parliament about two or three times as tail-end Charlie— 
Hon Member 
: Three. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: —three was it—and he decided that he would give it up and go into local government. He even stood against me which was a desperate measure for National. Finally he was elected to Environment Canterbury. He found his place. He worked his way through with a little bit of argy-bargy and he got to be the chairman. Then his own party dismissed him. The poor guy! He could not make it in Parliament so he made it at the local government level and then National cuts him off at the knees. 
But more important than Alec Neill is the fact that the people of Canterbury will not have any choices. They will have people coming in from outside. Where is the principle of no taxation without representation? I ask where that principle is. Environment Canterbury has rating responsibilities and each year it will strike a rate. I ask where the input from the people of Canterbury is in that. Where are their elected members to implement the policies that they vote for? They do not have any policies to vote for because the people who are being appointed were not voted in. They are being appointed by Rodney Hide the great anti-interventionist and Nick Smith the Minister for the Environment. Those are the two who are appointing them. They have sacked the elected representatives—the people whom we all voted for in Canterbury—and they will put in another eight people to run it for 3½ years. There will be no election and no responsibility to the people in terms of taxation and rating. This has to be one of the most Draconian anti-democratic events that I have seen in my time in this House and that is quite a long time now. I have never seen anything like this. It is a rateable authority that has no elected representatives and no accountability to the people. There was no consultation with the people before it was done none whatever—not with their elected representatives in Parliament and not with their elected representatives or the people of Canterbury. A cabal of mayors and a couple of Ministers will decide. 
The thing that I know about people like Rodney Hide is that they will ask why Wellington should tell them what to do. Well at the very time when what I heard Rodney say is ringing in my mind he is actually forcing a gargantuan amalgamation mistake on Auckland. There will be complete chaos in the economic and social environment of that city—and I know it pretty well; I lived there for 46 years. I guarantee that National members will regret until the day that they lose office which will be at the next election what they have done in Auckland. National members should wait until the people of Auckland take retribution in about 16 or 17 months’ time because Aucklanders will. If National members think Aucklanders will blame Rodney Hide then they should get a life because those people will blame National. 
In effect the Canterbury Regional Council has been abolished. It has been excluded from the pending local government elections. We have to remember that the elections will be held in October which is only a few months away and the Government has cancelled them. I ask why the Government did not have the foresight to allow the people of Canterbury to determine this matter. We have a democratic election coming up in a few months. If we are so worried about Environment Canterbury and about the water situation and everything else the people of Canterbury could decide the future of their regional council at the local elections instead of the decision being made by Rodney Hide and Nick Smith. If I put it to the people of Canterbury that I have a good idea and tell them that they have a choice which would be to let them choose between having Rodney Hide and Nick Smith decide the future of how Environment Canterbury works for the next 3 years and having the people of Canterbury decide it in a free election in a few months’ time I will guarantee to the House that overwhelmingly over 95 percent of the people in Canterbury would vote for having the election and for having a say in that election. They would not be voting for Rodney Hide—I will tell members that now—and they would not be voting for Nick Smith to decide the future of Environment Canterbury not in a million years. 
The Government has intervened in the democratic process. It has intervened for up to 3½ years. The people of Canterbury will not have any representation. There has been no consultation. It is taxation without representation. Just at the very time when Environment Canterbury has got together a coherent water policy—and most of us who were there know that is absolutely true including National members like David Carter who was there and knows what the reality is—the National Government has canned democracy in Canterbury. It is a most unbelievable act. The people of Canterbury will not forget it in a long time. Following the local body elections there is a general election next year and the people of Canterbury will not forget the National Party at that point either. That is the indictment on National. It is anti-democracy anti-representation and anti-consultation. It is abrogating the rights of people to participate in a free election for the people who represent them in their own region. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Government’s bill to abolish the elected councillors from Environment Canterbury a bill that we are debating under urgency and which will be pushed through in the middle of the night without proper democratic process. 
In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury. This Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is the fulfilment of that promise because the Government believes that democracy is an obstacle to irrigation in Canterbury. The Government believes that Agribusiness and the irrigation companies have become aggrieved at the regional council for stopping some of their projects. It has got in the way. So the Government is getting rid of democracy in Canterbury by getting rid of the elected regional council. 
What does one do when one cannot get one’s own way? What one does is to get rid of the obstacle. When the irrigation companies and Agribusiness got annoyed with the regional council they went to the Government and asked it to get rid of the regional council. The Government tonight—forcing this bill through under urgency—is to sack the regional council. 
It is interesting that we have had a debate over the last few weeks over whether we should have one person one vote. Well the Government tonight is moving towards one person no vote in Canterbury. Tonight it is abolishing democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years. It sounds like something that Commodore Frank Bainimarama would do in Fiji when he said “We are just going to abolish democracy for a little while but we will bring it back again later.” 
Mr Anderton said earlier that there should be no taxation without representation. The people of Canterbury will now be taxed through their rates and will have absolutely no say about how their taxes will be spent. The people of Canterbury—500000 people roughly—are about to have their democratic rights taken away from them. There is no royal commission as there was in Auckland if we want to compare it with the Auckland example. There are no select committee hearings as there were during the Auckland super-city process with all the aspects of the Auckland problem. It will be forced through on the 500000 people of Canterbury overnight under urgency in this House. 
The thing that justifies it—the fig leaf that is used—is the so-called Creech report. The Creech report was the result of a review headed up by a director from a dairy company with multiple convictions for water pollution and it worked for about 3½ weeks I think. It interviewed about 20 stakeholders. Among other things the Creech report concluded that there was “no fundamental dysfunction” which was an interesting conclusion for the Creech report on which all of this was based. It said that there was no fundamental dysfunction. One of the interesting things about the Creech report was that it criticised the regional council for being too pro-science. It said that the regional council was basing too many decisions on science. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What an outrage! 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: That was the outrage. That was the criticism. It was science-led rather than science-informed. That is what the Creech report criticised the regional council for: paying too much heed to science and not enough heed to the irrigation companies. It also criticised the regional council for being an obstacle to economic growth. This is one of the regions that has grown fastest in New Zealand as a result of the dramatic increase in irrigation in the Canterbury region. 
In fact if members look at the Resource Management Act which is obviously something this Government very seldom does—they will see that it talks about sustainable management. It is not supposed to be there for endless unlimited economic growth with no constraints whatsoever. For the Creech report to criticise the regional council for taking the environment into account means that the Creech report does not understand the Resource Management Act which is supposed to take the environment into account. That is the whole purpose of sustainable development. Responsible management of the environment is to take the environment into account. That is what Environment Canterbury was being criticised for in the Creech report. 
It is also notable that within the last 12 months Environment Canterbury processed nearly 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time lines. Of course they are being criticised because during one period they processed only 29 percent. Yet now just as they are about to be abolished they are processing about 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time frames. That is the right time to abolish them! What a brilliant time to abolish them—just as they are doing well! 
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls this bill the fast track to dams and that is what this bill is. It is an attack on the water conservation order process around the Hurunui River. Currently that process is on its way to the Environment Court. It was supposed to be there in May to hear the appeals. This bill will cut the water conservation order on the Hurunui off at the knees because the water conservation order might have got in the way of the irrigators and that is unacceptable. As John Key told us he will remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury so we cannot possibly have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River that would stop us building a big dam across it. 
The other problem with this bill is that the people of Christchurch aside from having their democratic rights taken away from them will have their clean water taken away. Currently Christchurch is fortunate to have very good potable water supplies which are untreated. Already there are small amounts of nitrogen appearing in that water and as irrigation expands—because as John Key says we have to get rid of regulatory roadblocks to irrigation—and pollution expands it is goodbye to Christchurch’s clean water supply. Also the water conservation order on the Rakaia River is also a target of this Government. It wants to break the water conservation order on the Rakaia River so that it can access that water for irrigation as well. 
This bill aside from being an attack on democratic oversight of executive Government is also an attack on judicial oversight of democratic government. The water conservation order which would normally go to the Environment Court so that the judiciary could have a say on this process has been cut off. It will no longer go to the Environment Court for judicial oversight. The natural resource regional plan will no longer have access on points of content as opposed to points of law to the Environment Court so that particular aspect of judicial oversight of regional government and the regional executive will be removed. 
It is not very well known that water conservation orders are the national parks for rivers. Just as the Government wants to mine national parks—it wants to mine the conservation estate and the schedule 4 lands within the estate—it also wants to mine the national parks for rivers which are the water conservation orders. The Government wants to get rid of the water conservation orders so that it can take the water that is currently protected in the Rakaia and put it into irrigation schemes so that it can give lots of money to the big dairy companies and the irrigators and add lots of pollution to the groundwater and the surface water in Canterbury. 
These water conservation orders are a problem for the Government the irrigators and the dairy corporations. But if we want to protect the environment they are very important. So when the Government intervenes as it will under urgency tonight and tomorrow it will interrupt the water conservation order process and that will fundamentally threaten the national parks for rivers in our country. Water conservation orders are national parks for rivers in our country. The orders are put there to be an absolute protection for rivers and this Government is tonight moving in to overturn water conservation orders because it sees them as an obstacle to irrigation. 
In respect of the moratorium on new water-takes in at-risk catchments giving the power to implement a moratorium is a good idea but why was it not given to the regional councillors and to Environment Canterbury? They have been begging for that power for years. Brian Jenkins has been begging to have that power but time and again Governments of both flavours have refused to give it to him. It has become a real problem. It is of course one of the great paradoxes that at the same time that they are giving Environment Canterbury a moratorium to suspend resource consent processing in particular catchments the main reason given for sacking it is that it took too long to process resource consents which is one of the great paradoxes of the matter. If the Government really wanted to give the moratorium power and I support that then it should have given it to the regional council which was finally getting its act together. 
Finally I shall say a word about the Ministry for the Environment. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as big a failure as Environment Canterbury because for 19 years it has not produced national policy statements or national environmental standards. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as bad and just as responsible. We are moving from an era of malign neglect of rivers under the previous Government and the one before that to malign attention. Under the previous Government rivers were left to get dirtier; now this Government will accelerate the process. We are ramming it through in the middle of the night so that the Prime Minister can do just as he said in his opening statement to Parliament and take action to remove regulatory roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is what this bill is for. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I rise to support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. Local government plays a vital role in advancing the well-being of New Zealanders and New Zealand communities. Effective local government provides communities with a say about their resources and the decisions that affect their well-being now and in the future. A central tenet of our system of local government is the autonomy of local authorities from central government. Locally elected representatives who are accountable to their communities rather than the Government make decisions in the interests of local citizens and their ratepayers. As the Minister of Local Government I have an important role to play in promoting an effective efficient and democratic system of local government. This includes taking leadership on issues where central government’s engagement and action is needed to achieve local outcomes. Central government’s ability to intervene in the decisions and workings of individual councils should be and indeed is very limited. Such powers may be used only in specific and extraordinary circumstances where the risk to the well-being of local citizens justifies overriding local accountability. 
It has come to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and myself that such extraordinary circumstances now exist in Environment Canterbury. Let me explain these circumstances. In September 2009 all the mayors in the Canterbury region wrote to me outlining serious concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. That was unprecedented and denoted a serious breakdown in the region’s local governance relationships. That evidence along with that of Environment Canterbury’s poor performance in undertaking its responsibilities under the Resource Management Act provided compelling reasons for the Minister for the Environment and me to commission a formal review into Environment Canterbury’s performance. As the Minister for the Environment has outlined the report of that review’s findings identified major capacity issues with regard to Environment Canterbury including its inability to deliver a robust clear and effective framework for the management of Canterbury’s natural resources. Most striking was the review’s conclusion that there is an “enormous and unprecedented” gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water and what Environment Canterbury has actually been doing. The recommendation of the review was that the existing council should be replaced by a temporary commission as soon as possible. 
The Minister for the Environment and I met with the Canterbury mayors and the chief executives of Ngai Tahu and other key stakeholders to listen to their views about the report’s findings. We also considered a number of written submissions from interested parties. We found that the region’s stakeholders were generally united in their opinion that central government intervention is temporarily necessary in order to improve the performance of Environment Canterbury. We also met not just the mayors but every council in the region and they were unanimous in their view. 
Drawing particularly on the report’s recommendations and the views of Canterbury stakeholders the Government has concluded that immediate action is needed to address the failure of Environment Canterbury’s elected council particularly in relation to freshwater management. The Government has considered a range of options for responding to this issue. We have decided that the replacement of Environment Canterbury’s councillors with commissioners is the best course of action to ensure that firstly Canterbury’s natural resources are managed in a comprehensive and holistic manner; secondly the framework for managing natural resources in Canterbury is integrated effective transparent and supports robust decision-making; and thirdly the institutional arrangements are in place to support effectively Environment Canterbury’s planning framework. This is a drastic move but it is necessary to replace Environment Canterbury’s democratically elected council so that the well-being of the Canterbury region is ensured. As Canterbury’s natural resources particularly of fresh water are nationally significant this decision is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. I can assure the House that this decision has not been taken lightly as I am naturally reluctant to intervene in the affairs of local government. 
As the governing body of Environment Canterbury the commissioners will exercise all the functions responsibilities duties and powers provided for under the Local Government Act the Resource Management Act and any other legislation. The commissioners will be accountable to the people of Canterbury and will be expected to engage with the community on significant issues. The existing public consultation and participation requirements will remain in place. Getting an effective relationship re-established with the region’s mayors and local authorities is essential to instil confidence in Environment Canterbury. The commissioners will therefore be tasked with improving Environment Canterbury’s working relationships with Canterbury’s territorial authorities as the bill requires the commissioners to seek advice from Canterbury mayors on local issues that affect Environment Canterbury. 
The commissioners will step in to provide the necessary and temporary governance and leadership needed to get Environment Canterbury working effectively. This is important so that it can deliver effective services for the people of Canterbury. The commissioners will be tasked with finalising and implementing an operative natural resources regional plan solving issues with freshwater management and making institutional adjustments to ensure Environment Canterbury can better manage its responsibilities. As outlined by the Minister for the Environment the bill provides the commissioners with additional powers to help them to address the region’s issues with speed and with expediency. 
The appointment of the commissioners is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and me. We are aware that the commissioner’s task will not be easy. That is why we will be considering only people of the highest calibre for this challenging and nationally significant role. Naturally one of the key criteria for the selection of commissioners is knowledge of and expertise in local authority governance and management. 
I wish to highlight the fact that this bill provides for the necessary but temporary replacement of Environment Canterbury’s elected council in order to get the organisation back on track. That is in the interests of everyone in this House of all the people of Canterbury and of all the people of New Zealand. The planned local government elections in October will be deferred until the commissioners have carried out their task which will be no later than the next local authority elections in October 2013. At that time new councillors will be elected to govern a far more effective organisation. That remains a priority for the Government and we are committed to Environment Canterbury operating in the usual democratic manner. 
I commend this bill to the House. I say to members opposite who want to attack this Government for political reasons that yes they should by all means hold us robustly to account but that they need to consider the mess that is Environment Canterbury and the difficulty that Environment Canterbury has confronted. They need to consider what it means to have 10 mayors and 10 councils saying they have a dysfunctional local government structure in Canterbury. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. Whenever this House goes into urgency—and it has been happening a lot lately—we sacrifice the principle of democracy. It is not democracy defined as the control of a group by the majority of its members—that is majority rules—but rather the form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power typically through elected representatives. Legislation in this House should properly reflect the process of negotiation discussion debate and consultation. But taking bills through urgency from go to whoa is by its very nature a denial of genuine democracy. It prevents people from having a voice and that stage is not far removed from the totalitarian and communist States that we are always critical of in this House. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: A communist Government. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I say to Mr Horomia that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is hugely important because it proposes a sea change in the way in which water will be viewed and how it will be managed. 
I understand that this bill is specifically about Canterbury designed to respond to concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury and the urgent management of water within Environment Canterbury’s catchment area. But I have no doubt that what is being proposed will become the basis for a template on how our Government manages water everywhere else. That template will impact on how Maori everywhere are involved in terms of their rivers their lakes their harbours and their seas. That is where the Maori Party comes in. We are the party that carries the interest of ensuring that issues about water management—including mana whenua Treaty claims in respect of water ownership the management of water water rights and privatisation—are properly considered in any statement on water just as we know that all of those matters also need to be considered in the review of the Resource Management Act. 
There are also wider more comprehensive issues about the way in which we protect our streams our lakes our rivers and our waterways from agricultural industrial and domestic waste as well as the adjoining land rights and the overall policy in respect of the way water is viewed in Aotearoa. All those matters demand greater debate and participation from Maori across the country which will not be possible for this bill given that it is being rushed through the House under urgency. 
We are also concerned that this bill will effectively totally replace the Resource Management Act 1991. It will place absolute administrative power in the hands of the unelected commissioners and the Minister for the Environment and effectively take over the role and purpose of the Environment Court as well. Indeed comments from Wyatt Creech that Environment Canterbury when making decisions on water allocation was placing too much emphasis on the environment basically sum up the actual purpose of the bill which would seem to be to support pro-business interests at all costs. 
The bill highlights a flawed belief in the myth that the environment must be balanced against the economy. That is the standard line from business interests on all environmental issues. The reality is that the economy is not a separate function but a critical element of society itself. Society is utterly dependent on the environment and we ignore the reality of nature at our peril. The bill also states it will provide the commissioners with the powers to enable them to rapidly progress the development of the Canterbury region’s resource management framework fresh water in particular. But there will be no elected representatives. There has been no consultation. Maori will not have a proper role in how things are being run and we will end up with an entity answerable only to the Ministers of a Government dedicated to maximising commercial return from a resource that everyone should have a say in. 
We have heard all the horror stories about Environment Canterbury: it was last in the 2007-08 survey on resource consents it is always in court over its decisions it is under fire for institutional failure from the review group and it was without the support of local iwi Ngai Tahu. 
We will be supporting this bill at first reading but we signal our grave concerns at the way in which water is being considered without due concern for the Treaty rights of Ngai Tahu and the wider Maori interest in water across Aotearoa. Tena tatou katoa. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am very happy to be taking a call tonight on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I am very happy to do it because I think everyone in this House would agree that Canterbury is a tremendously important region to New Zealand. It is tremendously important economically and it is tremendously important environmentally. The regional council is a key body in the success of our region. The regional council is charged with administrating not only the management of our environmental assets but also our economic development. 
The issue is that there have been longstanding and widely held concerns about Environment Canterbury’s ability to carry out those functions. That is what this debate is about and where this need has come from. The Creech report is merely the last in a long line of criticisms levelled at Environment Canterbury’s ability to do its job. That report found that the capability gap between what Environment Canterbury could do and what was needed was enormous and unprecedented. The regional council has failed to properly look after water management in our area. It has failed to control water-quality deterioration it has certainly failed to have a plan for strategic economic development and it has failed after nearly 19 years of the Resource Management Act to even come up with a natural resources plan that is operative in our district. This has happened while other councils are on to their second generation plans. 
The Canterbury Strategic Water Management Study that we have heard talked about so much—and I support it; I think it is a wonderful initiative—is a response from the mayoral forum not from Environment Canterbury— 
Brendon Burns 
: Oh rubbish. It’s an Environment Canterbury initiative. 
AMY ADAMS 
: It is a response from the mayoral forum to Environment Canterbury’s failures I say to Mr Burns which he is closing his eyes to and not dealing with in any way. 
One of the wonderful things that this legislation will do is give the Canterbury Water Management Strategy at least a chance of success. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
AMY ADAMS 
: I will take up a little more of the House’s time although I will not use anything like the 8 minutes I have left. 
I make one final point. When the dinner break came I was referring to the Canterbury Strategic Water Study and the strategy that has come from it. That is a very important document and this bill is the only way that strategy will be given some legislative status. I think that is a very good step in this process. It is good news and I go so far as to say that anyone who votes against this bill is voting against the Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Through this bill we will see that strategy given some teeth and some power and we will be able to work together. 
That strategy has been the work of a number of stakeholders representing the players in this field. Those same stakeholders from across the divide have all been calling for a change in Environment Canterbury saying that there is a problem and it has to be dealt with quickly. This Government is getting up and doing it. This is not the previous Labour Government which knew there was a problem but did nothing for 9 years. We will step in we will step up and we will sort out water in Canterbury. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 “Stepping in” is one way of putting the Government’s intervention in our democratically elected regional authority; some people might say “stomping all over democracy”. That is what Amy Adams—who is getting more and more like Jacqui Dean by the day—Nicky Wagner and David Carter are doing to our fundamental rights in Canterbury. The Canterbury members on this side of the House and members of the public in Canterbury are not at all impressed with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an absolute outrage and a breach of our democratic rights. We have the right to elect good or bad councillors. We have that vote. That vote is being taken away from us and our water is being taken away from us because Nick Smith has decided in a purely political ideological move to snuggle up with Rodney Hide—if members can picture that briefly; that will probably be more than long enough—so that they can have total control of our water management and all the other regional council functions through an undemocratic politically appointed bunch of commissioners. 
It is absolutely gobsmacking. I have had so many emails texts and phone calls and I want to share one with members. A woman I know who lives in Rolleston texted me at 2.49 saying that she had rung Amy Adams’ office in the Selwyn electorate and her office in Wellington only to be told that her staff had been given no idea at all about the removal of the regional council and had no idea at all whether Mrs Adams would be voting for it. Listeners have just heard her speech which was written by Aaron Gilmore and they will have no doubt at all that Amy Adams supports a bill being rammed through this House under urgency to take away the democratic right of people in Canterbury to elect our own regional council. 
People have watched amazed at what Rodney Hide has done in Auckland—the fact that he can just ride roughshod over the views of so many good Aucklanders—yet the Government did not give us a chance to even have a say on this bill. It is being rammed through under urgency without one single moment of select committee consideration. It is a done deal. We only know the name of one of the councillors replacing the council Dame Margaret Bazley who will be the chief commissioner. None of the others are even known. In fact the Minister for the Environment was so desperate to get this bill into the House that he was still scrambling around with the details before he gave us a briefing at 11.30 this morning. The copy of the bill we got this morning still had “Draft” written on it. It is shonky work in this House to ram through a bill under urgency to take away our democratically elected representatives. 
The bill takes away that right but it also takes away the right of the public to have a say. If it had been put to the test a lot of people might have said the same sort of nonsense that Amy Adams said—who knows? They would have been entitled to do that at a select committee. That is what democracy submissions and hearings are all about. But people have not had a chance to even talk nonsense. They are allowed no contribution at all. 
I was at a meeting recently where another Canterbury member of the National Party the Hon David Carter was present. He described the Creech report as coming to the conclusion—and these are his very words—that there was terminal dysfunction at Environment Canterbury and therefore it had to go. I quote from the Creech report— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What page? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Page 51. “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that councillors are polarised at times”—good heavens that is gobsmacking news to those of us in Parliament—“that they are quite dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership and the council is too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to … the Region.” That is what the 20 external parties reported to Wyatt Creech and his report team. He says: “Our investigation did not bear this out.” He could not have been clearer in his rejection of the politically motivated criticism of Environment Canterbury. I heard one Environment Canterbury councillor say quite recently that it was very difficult to operate in an environment where there was often either a 7:8 vote or an 8:7 vote. Well that is politics. People disagree with each other. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Not in local government 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I say to Mrs Wagner that it is not party politics; it was exactly the same when she was a councillor. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh she forgot that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: She has absolutely wiped the history books clean. Mrs Wagner who was an elected representative—as I told the House we have the right to vote for whoever we want—has forgotten that she was elected to the very same council she is now allowing to be completely gutted. 
Wyatt Creech’s review team went on to say: “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 the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. Mostly the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” That is the organisation that was described by David Carter in a statement that can only be described as a lie and a complete misrepresentation of the Creech report as are the comments that are being propagated by the National Party this afternoon and this evening. Wyatt Creech’s report said that there were political differences and there was bad behaviour but the council had fundamental ability to carry out its statutory functions. The Minister’s response to that report is to say that at last he has his opportunity to get rid of his former colleague Alec Neill—he is gone yet again. The temptation for Nick Smith to do that must be pretty strong. What Nick Smith has done is entirely politically motivated. It is to get rid of locally elected democratically elected councillors and have appointed commissioners who will then be able to take over the total control of our water allocation. 
One issue above all others inspires passion anger and parochialism more than the Crusaders and that is our right to care for our water. [ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite have no understanding of what has been developed through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The member from Selwyn could not even refer to it by its correct name. We have been involved in that strategy as representatives for that area and every single party on a very broad perspective—a very broad spectrum of those interested in water management and water rights—has signed up to the strategy. 
This is the opportunity to put it into legislation. The Government could have taken up the offer that I made in front of National members of Parliament and in front of the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce for there to be no party politics when it came to legislating for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But what devious behaviour does the Minister resort to? He is sliding it into legislation that does not give the public any opportunity to contribute. It does not even give Cantabrians the opportunity to come and say that they are proud of their water management strategy. There will be no select committee process at all. 
At the front of this legislation is the abolition of our democratically elected councils. That was a bad thing to do and I use that word advisedly. The Minister knows that he would have had cross-party support for legislation to ensure the smooth transition to a statutory basis for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Government should not be replacing democratically elected regional councillors with appointed commissioners. It is a breach of process and it is a breach of our democracy. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a privilege to be speaking on the Environment Canterbury(Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I speak from the point of view of the Kaikoura District Council and the Hurunui District Council and we applaud greatly the actions of the Minister Nick Smith. We are sick and tired of seeing the procrastination that has occurred over the last 20 years with no traction ever being gained. Canterbury should be thankful that the best people in this country are prepared to put their hands up and sort out the problems that Canterbury could not fix. In actual fact as a person who lived originally in North Canterbury and now dwells in Marlborough I can say that Canterbury could not organise a party in AMI Stadium. It has behaved like a dysfunctional family and the time wasting that has gone on is appalling. All the evidence points towards a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury and action needs to be taken. 
When we talk about Environment Canterbury we are talking about a massive amount of land from the Waitaki to the Takahanga straight up in Marlborough and it affects an enormous amount of water. It has an ability to contribute to the economy in a way that one cannot even imagine. It has been likened as we saw on television tonight to having the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand every year. New Zealand cannot afford to miss out on the opportunity. We hear the Opposition members on the other side of the House ranting and raving about their democratic rights being taken away. That happened only because of the dysfunctionality that has occurred. We need only look at the blog sites to see the conduct of some of the councillors on Environment Canterbury and the way they leak like a sieve—their collective responsibility did not happen. This bill will take us forward. It sits comfortably inside the theme of a brighter future for all New Zealanders. It is a leadership style that has been lacking under the previous Government and it has taken the Creech report to bring that to the fore. It is great to see the Minister for the Environment taking the appropriate action. 
The bill itself certainly puts in some structures. This correction which is long overdue has to be implemented speedily so that elections can take place by 2013. That is not an easy task to address but when we think of the candidates who have been put forward like Dame Margaret Bazley I think we are going for the very very top of ability and that should be wonderful. 
I conclude what I want to say by noting that the Hurunui district has for a long time had its long-term council community plan and in that it had a vision for the way it would manage the water in its region. That was completely stymied by the present system and it is good to see in the explanatory note of the bill that the bill “ensures that appropriate regard is given to the most recently expressed aspirations of the local community as reflected in the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy”. 
This bill is long overdue. We can appreciate why Labour never achieved anything; it never had the passion and the will and it has become very clear that to get anything over the line especially when we are looking at water and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy it takes 90 percent of the effort to get that last 10 percent. I am delighted that we have this bill. It is long overdue. There is so much we could say about it but it is important that we get it into law. So from that point of view I have great pleasure in supporting this bill at its first reading. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The previous speaker Colin King did not last very long. None of the National members have. When the National members are dealing with legislation that takes away democracy they do not want to talk about it very much. That is what that Government is all about. Here we are pushing through—bulldozing—under urgency the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about which the public will not have a say. There will not be any select committee hearing where the people of Canterbury can have their say. That opportunity has been taken away from them by a Government that is rushing this legislation through. Of course what it is doing is taking away the democratically elected people and it is doing that in such a fashion that we begin to think that this Government sees this as an easy step. 
I think back to the process that was used in Auckland. Back in May 2009 the Auckland reorganisation legislation was foisted upon us. The Government did that under urgency and the House sat until the weekend to pass the legislation through all stages. This is the Government that said it would listen to people; this is the Government that was going to take notice of people. But all of a sudden the National members have become an arrogant lot. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Nah. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There is a member who does not think they are an arrogant lot. She says: “Nah.” I do not know anyone who says “Nah.” when it comes to democracy. 
Rodney Hide came into the House this afternoon and for the first time that I can remember he did not get up and speak from the heart. What did he do? He read a speech prepared for him by officials in local government in the Department of Internal Affairs. He read it and of course when he does that we know there is trouble around. Here we have good old Alec Neill getting the sack. Alec Neill is used to getting the sack. He was elected to this Parliament three times—almost a record—and he is getting the kick again. Alec Neill helped to run induction courses for new MPs which he says was good for his rehabilitation from politics. But the National Government finds that rehabilitation for Alec Neill and Environment Canterbury is to shut them up boot them out and have no election until 2013. National cannot tell the people of Canterbury that that is a good thing. 
As an Aucklander I can say there is not always a lot of love lost between Canterbury and Auckland but we all know that what we are seeing this Government push through is a process that it should be ashamed of. It is a process that no decent New Zealander likes to see. Having one’s vote every 3 years is really important. We had the royal commission tell us about what it saw the future local government structure being for Auckland and the Government took no notice of it. It knew better than Aucklanders did and here under urgency it pushed through that legislation. 
The legislation that is to be passed by National over the next day or two enables the commissioners who are taking over Environment Canterbury to modify water conservation orders and to apply protections —probably weaker. 
Simon Bridges 
: Take us through it George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member is saying “Take us through it”. I imagine the National members did not even know about this bill in their caucus meeting. Dr Nick Smith at 11 o’clock this morning arranged to brief people and we appreciate that. But did he tell the member for Tauranga about this bill on Tuesday? Probably not. The member for Tauranga has a mighty mouth with a great big north and south but when it comes to knowing about the bill he does not. He is a slick smooth lawyer who does not worry about the rule of law. He does not worry about the rule of law— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Get it to the select committee and find out. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes this bill should be going to a select committee. 
What is the Government afraid of? Is it afraid that Nick Smith may be told a few home truths by his mate Alec Neill? They came into Parliament in the intake of 1990 and somehow Nick Smith remains. But of course poor old Alec Neill was elected from 27 October 1990 to 6 September 1996—that was his first time. He must be thinking that he supported National but now it is taking away what he stood for: democracy. National is taking democracy away; it is not giving people a chance. The Minister of Internal Affairs is shaking his head in agreement and he knows whom people blame when they lose their right to vote. The people in Auckland have turned against ACT and Rodney Hide and they will turn against John Key. With this bill Dr Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will go further away from their support base. They will lose it. You see we have a situation where Parliament stands for democracy; we are all here because people voted for us. Even party list members are voted into this Parliament. But this Government wants to take that right away from the people of Canterbury when it comes to their regional council. 
I ask people who are listening to their transistor radios tonight to think about why people are having their rights taken away. This Government said it stood for people’s rights— 
Simon Bridges 
: Some of them will even be watching this on TV George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They will. I should smile more like the assassin over there who does not care about democracy. That member is more worried about animals. Animals are more important to that member than people and I think that member needs to look at that very carefully. 
We heard members of the Maori Party say this afternoon that they are going to vote for the bill at the first reading. What is going to happen? Are they going to change their mind about it at the select committee? No. Why not? Because there is to be no consideration of the bill by a select committee. So what will the Maori Party members do? Will they vote with the Government for the bill through all its stages or will they stand up for the rights of individuals and for the Maori people they came here to represent? We have had a Green Party member make a very impassioned speech today. I sat here next to Brendon Burns when he spoke and I was really very proud of the leadership role that he has been given in this area. I think that is very very important. He is a person who is prepared to stand up for people from Canterbury. In Auckland we do not see many people standing up to support Canterbury but here it is extremely important. 
Of course people like Amy Adams and Colin King turned their backs on Canterbury. Neither of them could speak for 10 minutes to tell people why this bill is good. The reason why they could not do that is that it is a rubbish bill. It is completely anti-democratic. When Government members do not use their 10 minutes to speak in support of a bill we know that the Government is trying to sneak the bill through. We know that it is not very good. When a person like Amy Adams speaks for 3 minutes about why she wants to take away the vote of people in Canterbury until—[ 
Interruption 
]—yes 2013 I have to say that is just not good enough. It is a disgrace. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I support this bill because there is no doubt that the management of water in Canterbury is a significant issue where we need to do better. I support this bill because Environment Canterbury has been unable to manage water effectively and efficiently for the past decade. Everybody—even Trevor Mallard—knows that there is a real problem here. 
I would just like to respond to Ruth Dyson’s cherry-picked quotes from the review group’s report. Let us look at its conclusion: “the Review Group has concluded that ECan’s performance on water policy and management issues (allocation and quality) falls well short of what is essential.” Here I differ from some of the others as I have an insider’s point of view to Environment Canterbury because I was a councillor there until I came to Parliament and I know how hard everyone there works to do their jobs effectively and how much they want to manage water well. But I also know the frustrations and the difficulties that they have had over many years to try to get a water plan in place and I know how incredibly difficult the task of managing water is without the legislative tools needed to do a good job. 
I support this bill because it gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy formal legal status. It requires the commissioners to give formal recognition to it in their decisions. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is a grassroots collaborative catchment-based community process that I believe is the way forward for Canterbury. It is the best tool for managing competing interests and for getting the best use of water both for the environment and for the economy and this bill recognises that tool. 
Environment Canterbury was crucial in bringing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy together and has therefore helped to set the framework for future work. I support the introduction of temporary commissioners chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley because I believe that it is the only way to break the deadlock over water in Canterbury and to move forward positively. It is now up to all the stakeholders and those interested in water to be part of the process and to ensure that we the people of Canterbury manage the resource wisely and well. 
The aims of this bill are firstly to protect the environment that sustains our future and secondly to use the resource intelligently to underpin the social and economic well-being of the people of Canterbury. I would just like to ask members on the other side of the House how anyone can argue against that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a first time.  
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. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second 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 second time 
. This bill is about the Government taking leadership on the critical issue of water management in Canterbury. Firstly it provides for the appointment of commissioners led by Dame Margaret Bazley to take over the functions of the governance of Environment Canterbury. It also provides for legal recognition of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and gives additional powers to the new commission to really get on top of water management issues in Canterbury. I want to talk in some detail about those additional powers. 
Firstly I thank members of the Opposition for supporting the urgency motion. I know they in their heart of hearts know that there are real problems with Environment Canterbury and that the steps the Government is taking are the responsible approach not just for Canterbury but for New Zealand. I draw the attention of the House to the quite proper statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard who said “Everyone knew there was a problem there.” What has been lacking in the contributions of members of the Opposition is their answer to the problems of water management in Canterbury. What Labour did during the 9 years it was in office is well documented in the reports that were provided by the Ministry for the Environment in the commentary of declining water quality and in the problems within Environment Canterbury which go back at least a decade. My simple challenge for members opposite is to ask what they did when they were entrusted with the governance of New Zealand. 
I also have to confront the perspective that was put forward that this is an outrageous affront to democracy. That is what the Labour Party has said. My question for Labour members is whether it was an outrageous affront to democracy when on 4 May 2000 the previous Government passed special legislation under urgency and through all stages to replace the Rodney District Council with a commission and to make changes to the elections. I ask members opposite whether it was an affront to democracy when Helen Clark dismissed the democratically elected Auckland District Health Board. Was that an affront to democracy? Was it an affront to democracy when the previous Government sacked the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? An honest answer is that there are times when this Parliament needs to step into elected bodies so that we can lift the standard of management. 
A fair question that I and the Minister of Local Government have applied our minds to is whether the threshold for Government intervention has been reached on the issue of water management in Canterbury. I point out these key facts to members opposite. It is a matter of record that in the 2007-08 biennial report on resource management Environment Canterbury ranked No. 84 of 84 councils. That report commissioned during the time of the previous Government showed that Environment Canterbury was breaking the law a lot more often than it was complying with it under the Resource Management Act. 
I also challenge members of the Greens because 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have an operative water plan for Canterbury. I am interested to learn from a member of the Greens how that helps. How does it help the environment in a region that has more pressures on water than anywhere else in New Zealand that we have no plan? I repeat that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have a set of rules. I make no apologies as a member of this Government to say that it is time we had a water plan in place in Canterbury. I am pleased to be working with Rodney Hide and with my colleagues in Canterbury to ensure that we get that plan. 
I will address quite specifically the additional powers that are provided in this bill to try to improve water management in Canterbury. The first of those is to specifically address the issue of getting to a workable plan. I am advised that on the current legislative framework it will be another 2 or 3 years before it will be possible to conclude a plan for water in Canterbury. Are members on this side of the House happy to sit back for the next 2 or 3 years and watch an ad hoc approach to water management? No we are not and that is why this bill provides for powers to fast track the completion of the Canterbury regional strategy and very importantly the natural resources plan that will provide for the completion of that plan. 
A further extra provision in this bill is for targeted moratoria to be able to be introduced by the commissioners in areas where water either has been fully allocated or is near to that point. Where we have a resource that is under the sort of pressure that water is in Canterbury exactly that sort of short-term intervention is required. The honest answer to farmers applying for water in Canterbury in some areas is to say: “No there is no water left. The resource has been completely allocated.” In my view that is a responsible and proper thing for the commission to do in parts of Canterbury where additional drawing from the aquifer system is not sustainable and not in the long-term interests of Canterbury or New Zealand. 
There are further provisions in this bill in respect of water conservation orders. It is important to put to the House what those provisions are and why the Government has included them in this bill. The first point about water conservation orders is that they have been quite deliberately used in frustration in Canterbury because there has not been a water plan. Groups have been so frustrated at being unable to get some constraint on the development of water that they have wanted to get a water conservation order put in place. The challenge I have for members opposite is how it makes sense for us to appoint commissioners to take charge of water management in Canterbury and to write a regional plan and to then have a separate process somewhere else to decide where there will be water conservation orders that will have a big impact in terms of those plans. This bill says that water conservation orders that are received during the period of the commission will be referred to it. Members opposite are saying this is some great power grab. I remind members that the decision to refer a water conservation order comes to the Minister for the Environment. Yes it comes to a politician. The final decision under the existing law is that water conservation orders are decided by the Minister for the Environment. The change is that rather than having it going off to an independent commission or the Environment Court we are saying that it is proper that decisions on those water conservation orders be made by those commissioners so that it can be done in an integrated way. No member of this House who truly believes in integrated decision-making making decisions over whole catchments in a proper way could object to that sensible approach for the commission in the management of water in Canterbury. 
The last point I make is in respect of the contribution made by Brendon Burns. His answer was that we need national policy statements and national environment standards. My challenge to Mr Burns is this: his colleagues were in Government for 9 years but how many national policy statements did Labour advance during its 9 years? The answer is zip zero none. There was not one national policy statement or one national environment standard. There was not one in those 9 years. Labour members have the gall to come to this Chamber and say that the answer to Canterbury’s water problems is a national environment standard or a national water standard. I say to them that they had 9 years they failed they did not deliver the goods and they did nothing. Thank goodness we have a Government that is committed to addressing these critical issues. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 First I respond to one of many inaccuracies spoken by Dr Smith. He just told the House that the last Labour Government did not produce any national policy statements or national environment standards. He is wrong. In fact I think I was responsible for bringing forward one on electricity transmission. We also advanced a national environment standard on telecommunications. We substantially advanced the national policy statement on water quality which now languishes because Minister Dr Nick Smith has put it in the too-hard basket thrown it to the water forum and said “I’m not going to implement that.” Just watch it will never see the light of day even though that is the instrument that the National Government could use next Cabinet day next Monday if it wanted to and have a national policy statement implementing improvements to water quality through the whole of New Zealand inserting rules in every regional plan through section 55. 
Where is that national policy statement on water quality now? It is sitting in the Minister’s office gathering dust because he does not have the courage—I am sorry I withdraw and apologise for that—he does not have the gumption to implement what everyone in this House knows is necessary which is a policy instrument between the Resource Management Act and regional plans which gives effect and improves water quality. That would be a meaningful step to improve water quality from next week and it would do what we all know is necessary when we have increased intensity of agriculture therefore more fertiliser and more animal effluent flowing into waterways. With every increase in intensity we have to have more care taken by the landowner. That is what that national policy statement would do and that could be implemented by Cabinet on Monday. There would be no need for this outrageous legislation in respect of water quality. 
I shall deal with the issue that he also raised of water conservation orders because in my opinion that is one of the most egregious parts of this legislation being passed under urgency with no opportunity for people to submit upon it. Dr Smith says that water conservation orders ought to be under the jurisdiction of this commissioner. He needs to look at history. Why did this Parliament legislate for water conservation orders back in 1981? A quarter of a century ago our predecessors legislated in this House for the introduction of water conservation orders because the effect of each little slice being taken of more water being taken from rivers is very hard for regional councils to oppose and the effect is that there is just a little bit more another slice of the little bit left in the river taken out for every new application. 
So the prior Parliament said there are some rivers in New Zealand that are too important for that to happen to and the Water and Soil Conservation Act was amended. That was way previous to the Resource Management Act and water conservation orders were put in there. They have stood the test of time for 25 years and they are not overused and they are not abused. There is a very powerful gatekeeper both in terms of the board that the Minister appoints plus appeal rights for the Environment Court to ensure that they are not overused. In Canterbury they have not been overused but it is true that most rivers in Canterbury are far too low in their flows in summer. Some rivers like the Ashburton River just about dry up. Indeed some of the rivers go to ground; they have so little water in them because they are sucked dry by irrigators. The rivers that are the exception to that in Canterbury are the Rakaia and the Rangitata and the only reason that they are the exceptions to over-abstraction is that they have water conservation orders. Those water conservation orders were fought for through many many years of effort by interested groups and those cases went all the way from the original tribunal to the planning tribunal—now the Environment Court—to the High Court and to the Court of Appeal before those issues were settled. People took those issues to the Court of Appeal and what is Dr Smith doing in this legislation? Without any submission process for New Zealanders to object he is saying that those water conservation orders can now be varied by the commissioners. There is no political accountability of the Minister which there is under the current legislation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes there is. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I take that back I accept the member’s word on that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You can’t do that. He’s the last person you would take the word of. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will check that. The decision maker stops being the Environment Court essentially that makes a recommendation to the Minister and it now becomes the commissioner. That is wrong. Conservation orders sit in a separate part of the Resource Management Act. They have their own code in Part 9. Regional councils are bound by them. This new entity that the Minister is setting up today as a replacement for the regional council but slipped in the legislation means that rather than that replacement being bound by water conservation orders that body has the ability to vary them. That is wrong. 
I say something also about what is going on here. Underneath this we actually have demand from farmers for unreasonable amounts of water from some of our rivers. The Minister said he is worried about that and he thinks they have to be curbed. He says that but then he does the opposite. What he is doing is allowing farmers to get more water out of these rivers. There are already provisions in the Resource Management Act that allow water conservation orders to be changed. Anyone can apply to have them varied and if the Minister thinks that that ought to be looked at it can be; it goes to a board and eventually the Environment Court and a recommendation comes back to the Minister. They can be changed. So why then this change? It is not necessary. The only reason can be because Federated Farmers who have always been opposed to water conservation orders were the protagonists. Right up to the Court of Appeal they fought these things and now they are having a win through their buddies in the National Party. 
I want to read out the Court of Appeal judgment made in 1987  
Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v Federated Farmers Inc. 
 because they were the two protagonists in the Court of Appeal. The decision states: “The basic contest was one between conservationists who wished the flow and characteristics of the Rakaia to be conserved and farmers who wished to take water for irrigation.” That is what is happening again. Farmers want more water for irrigation. Dr Smith is pretending this is for the protection of the environment when actually the opposite is what he intends and the opposite is what will occur. 
I say one final thing and it is about the habit of this Minister and this Government to use loaded names in the titles of bills. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill—it really does sound like the Operation Enduring Freedom of George Bush. These loaded names in legislation do not fool anyone. I say to describe what it is—“Temporary Commissioners” they are not even very temporary. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 3½ years. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: They outlast an election cycle which is disgraceful but this loaded term “Improved Water Management” really smacks of the sort of propaganda that we had from George Bush in Operation Enduring Freedom and it does not fool anybody. 
The other thing that is happening here is that Dr Smith has said this will be a precedent for change in other areas. I am told that someone attended a press conference that the Minister held and asked whether the changes being made in respect of water conservation orders effectively falling under the regional plan rather than sitting above it were likely to be applied in other areas in New Zealand and I am told that at the press conference the Minister confirmed that it may well be a model for other areas. He is shaking his head to say that that is not so. I hope he is correct I tell the Minister because I was not there. 
But this policy really is terrible. I think that it is very sad that after 25 years of battles in trying to assert reasonable minimum flows for at least some of our outstanding rivers in Canterbury—the only ones that are not severely abstracted as a consequence of excessive irrigation pressure—we have this Government undermining the conservation orders that are on the few rivers that are already protected in Canterbury. That is on top of the Government’s inability to advance the national policy statement on water quality—high-quality work from Judge Sheppard a former Principal Environment Court Judge—which is sitting on the Minister’s desk waiting to be implemented. He could do that through Cabinet on Monday but he will not. 
This is all wrong. There are problems in Environment Canterbury; I do not deny that. We do not deny that. But there were less drastic solutions to those problems which are no excuse for the inaction on water quality or the draconian steps that have been taken in respect of water conservation orders. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I start this brief call by bringing us back to a little sense of history. The previous speaker David Parker spoke repeatedly about this bill’s being passed under urgency and the like. On 2 May 2000 the Labour Government kicked out the Rodney District Council’s elected councillors with a bill that went through all stages under urgency with no select committee deliberation so it is a bit rich for that party to sit there now and cry crocodile tears about using urgency to pass a bill to take out a council that is not performing and replace it with a group of commissioners until the council is back on track. It is a bit rich. I remind those listening to this debate that those Labour members were more than happy to use urgency when it suited them to achieve the same end. The difference is that National members did not play politics. 
Colin King 
: We support it. 
AMY ADAMS 
: We supported them on that. The Labour Party and the Green Party are now far more interested in playing politics with Canterbury’s water than accepting what all the stakeholders are telling them which is that Environment Canterbury does not have the capabilities to do what it needs to do. It does not have the capabilities. 
This debate is about getting the regional council of Canterbury right in order to manage our economic development and our environmental management. I quite happily stand here and say that we have not done either of those things well in Canterbury. We have failed to make the most of our economic growth potential and we have failed to do the right thing by our environment. I would be the first one to say that the path we have been on with water take and water management has not served our environment well in Canterbury. We can do an awful lot better. 
I touch on the moratoria aspect of this bill which will allow the commissioners to come in and put a hold on new water applications while this issue is sorted. So although members on the other side of the House play up the issues about making more water available—and if that happens I will welcome it—I say that the bigger part is ensuring that that is done only in a way that better protects our water management. That has not happened in Canterbury for a long time. It needs to happen. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society the Environmental Defence Society and the Water Rights Trust are all telling us that that needs to happen. 
This is not coming just from one side of the debate. Anyone who is actually listening to stakeholders knows that everyone is telling us this. I have had a constant stream of people through my office telling me of issues with Environment Canterbury. They are not all farmers; they are not all irrigators. A number of them have nothing to do with those fields. But they have one thing in common which is frustration with a regional council that has become disconnected from its obligations to Canterbury and that has failed us environmentally and in economic growth. 
This bill is an important step to getting that council back on track so that we can return to a proper functioning regional council. I look forward to that happening. It will not happen without this bill and that is why I am very pleased to support it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I believe that it is a very sorry day for Parliament today. I believe that the Minister for the Environment is overseeing one of the most anti-democratic processes that one could imagine. I heard Amy Adams the member who has just resumed her seat and Minister Nick Smith say that this was OK because of what happened in Rodney. So I will go back over what actually happened in Rodney. In April 2000 the local government Minister of the day announced that she had accepted a ministerial review authority recommendation to appoint a commission to replace the elected representatives of the Rodney District Council. But that example differs significantly from the current Environment Canterbury situation in the following ways. 
In October 1999—which was before the election in 1999—the Rodney District Council requested a review of the council following the unanimous decision of that council. I would ask Amy Adams and this Minister where the unanimous decision was for this council in asking the Government to intervene. No there is no feedback from those members who have resumed their seats. Therefore they are accepting that there was no request from Environment Canterbury for the review that has occurred. 
In this case rather than the unanimous decision of the Rodney District Council to ask for a review the Minister appointed—who? Wyatt Creech. Wyatt Creech has an association not only with the Government which is pretty obvious but also with the industry that demands so much of our water resources in Canterbury. Do members not think— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Play the man. Play the man; you can’t win the debate. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not playing the man. I think that the Minister is being unfair. I am talking about a conflict of interest. 
Jenny Shipley was prepared to step aside on the basis that she could identify what was a clear conflict of interest in terms of being asked to be the lead commissioner in the new world order that this Minister has imposed on Canterbury. But Wyatt Creech was not prepared to do the same when he has been held to account by the regional council in his area for what he has done in terms of the particular company he is responsible for. I am trying to say—and I think the Minister should take some notice of this—that when there is a conflict of interest it does not have to be real; the perception is enough. In this case the perception is more than real. That former member a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand should have stood aside. He was conflicted in every way shape and form. I am not surprised that he recommended that there should be a separate water authority for Canterbury. I bet he wishes that there was a separate water authority that was taking no notice of what his company was doing up in the Waikato. 
The second thing that happened in this case was that the Minister set the terms of reference for the review. The third thing was that the Minister discounted the possibility of a protracted inquiry which meant that there was not enough time for this inquiry to engage in the process in any meaningful way. 
The actions of the Labour Government back in 1999 when we had just assumed office were in response to a unique situation and at the insistence of the local authority concerned. On 17 November—and I think we took our warrants in December 1999—the council wrote to the then Minister commenting on the need for a review and saying that it wanted the Government to intervene. That was before we had even taken office. 
The Creech review was initiated as part of a Government agenda. Nick Smith stated at the time that these reports were initiated as part of the Government’s broader agenda of taking a more active role in the performance of local government on resource management issues. The two councils performed poorly in the 2007-08 survey of resource consenting processes but no notice was taken of the fact that they had actually improved their resource consenting processes in the subsequent financial year. 
On 8 December 1999 the then Minister of Local Government appointed a review authority to undertake a review in accordance with the request and within the terms outlined by the council and as I have alluded to that was the first time a commission was appointed since the ministerial review provision in the Local Government Act 1974 was enacted in 1992. The review authority received more than 80 submissions in the case of the Rodney District Council in response to public notices because it was a publicly notified process. The Creech review talked to fewer than 20 groups and no submissions from the general public were invited. 
One of the points I will make is that the local authority mayors were consulted as a result of an Official Information Act request—we know that this is the case—and not one of them consulted their elected colleagues on their councils; not one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not true. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Name one. Jo Kane was the regional councillor who made the Official Information Act request. The response was that not one of the mayors or indeed the chief executives who were consulted consulted their elected councils to know their response. Every single one of those mayors originally wrote to the two Ministers at the request of the two Ministers. We know that the request went through Jo Goodhew to the Mayor of Timaru and then up to the two local body Ministers the Minister who is taking this bill through the Hon Nick Smith and also the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. They were requested to get this information through to them from the mayors. The mayors were asked to do this for them so that they could achieve the end that they have achieved on this occasion. 
In the 1999-2000 situation the review authority that was appointed by the Government of the day to review Rodney at the request of the Rodney District Council held a 6-day hearing in the month before they reported to the Minister. I do not recall there being a hearing in the Creech review. I was not even invited to make a submission as a local member of Parliament and in fact none of the local members of Parliament were invited to make any submissions on the matter. 
The review authority was scheduled to report to the Minister by the end of December 1999 but that date was extended to 3 March 2000 after requests from the review authority for a time extension. The Creech review on the other hand was a very slapdash job. The reason it was such a slapdash job was that it had been set its terms of reference to produce the result that it produced. 
In the wake of the review authority’s findings the mayor and five elected councillors resigned on 21 March 2000. The mayor’s resignation triggered a by-election and we all know the history of that time. No such situation has arisen in this case. 
At that time the Minister announced the appointment of a commission on 10 April 2000 18 months away from the next local body election. How long is it this time? The local body elections are only 6 months away now so what are we talking about? It is 3½ years. I want to know something. Will we stop collecting rates from ratepayers in the Environment Canterbury catchment area over the next 3½ years? Will we stop collecting rates? A fundamental principle of constitutional law talks about there being no taxation without representation. I think that is exactly what this Minister is foisting upon— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think it is hilarious that this Government would talk about district health boards. The previous National Government sacked every area health board in this country in 1991. Does the member not remember that? He was the one who was there at the time; I was there at the time. That Government sacked the lot because that lot do not believe in elected representation in district health boards. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We believe that it will come to mark an historic occasion; it will live on in infamy in the annals of this Parliament. 
Last week in the general debate I advanced a critique of the Creech report and its recommendations. I do not wish to repeat those criticisms; suffice it to say tonight that this report was politically driven and not politically informed. It failed the basic standards of organisational and managerial professionalism. In particular the statutory arrangements in this country impose five functions on regional councils. They are resource management biosecurity control river management land transport and civil defence. The Creech report focused excessively almost exclusively on one part of one of those functions and condemned the council to death. But that is already history. 
What we are addressing tonight is the response of the Government to that report and to the Canterbury water situation. In a more fundamental manner what we face here is the relationship between central government and local government and what that means for democracy in this country. This is not a light matter. It is concerned with two fundamental issues—economic growth on the one hand and good governance on the other. The stated problem as advanced by the Minister when introducing the bill is “the longstanding systemic issue in regional governance.” “Intervention”—said the Minister—“can only occur if there is serious failure” and he said that that had occurred. 
So what does the bill do? It abolishes the elected council establishes a new appointed commission and gives that unelected body extra powers. That is the classic example of shifting the goalposts. We condemn a democratic body for alleged ineptitude that derives from weakness in the powers granted to it and then we set up an undemocratic body and grant it the powers its democratic predecessor had always needed. That is not only devious; it is dangerous to this nation’s constitutional health. 
We need to be careful in this country because our constitutional integrity is quite fragile compared to most other countries. We have no codified constitution. We have no Upper House. We do not have a clear separation of national powers. We have no federal division of authority; rather we have a strong centralised Government. It does not take much in these circumstances to generate a momentum whereby power becomes excessively concentrated. We can all remember the New Zealand Government not so long ago that was described as an elected dictatorship. Jim Anderton said in this debate that he has never in all his time in this House—over a quarter of a century—seen anything like this. 
Stamping out the tender plant that is local democracy can be done even with the best of intentions. This Government believes that it is doing the right thing as Jacqui Dean said earlier today. So believed Tony Blair when he invaded Iraq. That was on the principle of humanitarian intervention but grotesquely misconstrued. So believed Bainimarama when he took out the elected Government of Fiji at the end of a gun. That was on the doctrine of necessity but grotesquely misconstrued. What is to be the doctrine on which the leader of this nation with his two lieutenants Ministers Smith and Hide will rest their intervention? What grotesque misconstruction will eventuate? Will it be the doctrine of frustration—frustration over the obstacles that democracy sustainability and the precautionary principle place in front of economic growth? Or will it be the doctrine of corporate efficiency—a truth that will not be denied either in Auckland or in Canterbury? If it is the latter how many regional councils will go under the guillotine for alleged inefficiency before this Government and its supporters are satiated? 
Environment Canterbury came in last out of an alleged 84 in the most recent regional survey. In fact that is misleading. There are only 12 regional councils so it is a sleight of hand to trumpet 84 councils—Rodney District Council incidentally is not a regional council and it was not for 5 years. Of the 12 regional councils I tell the Minister one had to come last. There is a reason why the council was Canterbury. It is because water is the most sensitive issue in New Zealand right now and Canterbury is the most sensitive region for water. One does not need to be a rocket scientist or even an Environment Canterbury reviewer to recognise these truths. So which is the next regional council to get the eagle eye turned upon it in the name of corporate efficiency? That which came in 11th? 
How are we to judge the nature of this intrusion into the nation’s democracy? Let us turn to the regulatory impact statement and see what it says: “Elections are a right and privilege of any citizen in New Zealand. The suspension of such a right should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Such a decision is correct to sit with Parliament.” The regulatory impact statement continues: “Targeted consultation”—members should note the word “targeted”—“was undertaken during the statutory investigation of ECan … However there has been no public consultation on the proposals … The short timeframe available … has not allowed for a comprehensive assessment of risks and alternatives. This increases the risk that intervention could be incorrectly targeted and/or could require subsequent amendment to address unforeseen circumstances.” 
This is an extraordinary impact statement. It was prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. That was a brave action for clearly the ministry is not happy with what is going on. Will the ministry too be disbanded? And on what principle—a lack of loyalty to the leader? 
Yet that is not all because the Minister proposes to proceed under urgency. The impact statement states: “This alongside the proposal to limit appeal rights on decisions/recommendations made by commissioners … potentially alienates Canterbury rate payers and the general public from decisions made on natural resources in the Canterbury region. This raises equity and access to justice issues.” This situation is perhaps as Jim Anderton has said unprecedented. Here we have a situation in which a Government department is fighting to defend the principles of democracy and natural justice that are historically and constitutionally the responsibility of central government to defend but it is central government that is stamping them out. The ratepayers and the general public of my province are being alienated from decisions being made over their natural resources thus raising issues of equity and justice. 
This is the kind of thing that citizens tend to rebel against. Well there is news for the Ministers and also for their leader Mr Key who appears to be losing his footing: the ratepayers and the general public of Canterbury have taken roughly 2 hours to get their act together in the face of this threat to their natural rights. A group of Canterbury citizens is organising already to picket tomorrow the offices of four National MPs in Canterbury—MPs Brownlee David Carter Wagner and Adams—and they will leave a letter at their doors. 
That letter reads as follows: “No taxation without representation: an open letter to Canterbury National MPs. We the undersigned are writing to utterly condemn the National Party Government’s decision to abolish the democratically elected and accountable regional council in Canterbury and replace it by unelected commissioners responsible only to central government. Moreover this has been done without the slightest consultation with the Canterbury public. This is an outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy and also a sorry degradation of democracy for New Zealand as a whole. It seems to signal the determination to favour sector interests over the welfare of the public at large. We pledge never to vote for a party which has such a flagrant disregard for our sovereign rights as citizens to elect and recall our democratic representatives at the local level. From May 1 councillors we elected in 2007 will no longer be working for us; we expect to find in our next ECan rates bills that the portion of our rates which went towards their salaries has been rebated accordingly from 1 May. 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. We look forward to hearing the National Party’s assurance that this will be the case before 1 May.” Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 When I listen to the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill it seems to me that we are addressing two issues. We are addressing the issue of democracy—the democracy of the people of Canterbury in particular—and the issue of water. I will speak to those two issues this evening. 
We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government has intervened in the democratic process. We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government is getting rid of democracy and that it is trying to get rid of obstacles. Labour members talk about an assault on the democratic model. I always enjoy listening to debates on democracy in this House and this evening the Opposition has focused on democracy in Canterbury. But what concerns me is the much bigger issue of democracy in New Zealand. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What of the EFA? He got into Parliament on the EFA. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: That is right—the Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s so worried about the EFA he forgets about Canterbury. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Well is it not interesting that Mr Hughes wants to talk about the Electoral Finance Act? I actually want to go back before the Electoral Finance Act and talk about the Electoral Finance Bill. The reason I want to talk about the Electoral Finance Bill is that less than 3 years ago when the current Opposition members were in Government—we have heard for hour after hour this afternoon about democracy about the rights of the people of New Zealand being usurped and about those democratic rights being taken away—the previous Government brought into this House a bill that would have required every single New Zealander— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Although the member can refer to other bills that might have been before the House this bill is specifically about issues in Canterbury. The member is quite entitled to refer to other bills in terms of the points that he is making but he cannot spend his contribution to the debate solely on those matters. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We fully respect your decision of course but consistency with the rulings of Assistant Speaker Barker who was in the Chair previously concerns me. We have had entire speeches dedicated to legislation that has earlier been passed and now an ACT member gets a chance to speak and the rules appear to have adjusted. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I will just deal with this. I thank the member for that point of order. This is a second reading speech. First reading speeches are pretty wide but this is a second reading speech and I would like the member to focus on the issues. Referring to other legislation that has been passed is fine but we must come in towards the substance of the debate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a slightly different point of order from the one that Mr Hide raised. As you know the House is in urgency considering this legislation which was not seen until it was presented and introduced by way of urgency. The Speakers’ rulings make provision for members to speak under urgency slightly wider than they ordinarily would on a normal second reading for a bill that has come back from a select committee in which situation there has been a narrowing down of the bill by the committee issues have been considered and members can refer to a report. I think that being under urgency slightly alters the ambience of members. I think that some leeway must be given to Mr Boscawen particularly in respect of his personal position as someone who came to Parliament worried about democratic issues— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have made it very clear. I have said to the member that he can refer to other bills and other Acts but he cannot concentrate his whole speech on them. This is a second reading speech. The first reading is much wider; this is much narrower. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to devote my entire speech to the issue of the Electoral Finance Bill; I also want to focus on the issue of water. But I make just one comment on the Electoral Finance Bill. I remind this House that less than 3 years ago a bill was introduced into this House that required anyone—any single New Zealander—who wanted to speak out against the Government to sign a declaration. Before people spent a single dollar they had to sign a declaration. They had to go to a justice of the peace and sign a declaration such as: “I John Boscawen promise not to spend a single dollar opposing the Labour Government.” For any member of that party to lecture this Government on democracy is a total contradiction. 
Let us talk about participation. We have heard that already the forces of opposition to this bill are mounting in Canterbury. We have heard that there will be a protest outside four electorate offices in Christchurch and I think that is fantastic. I think it is fantastic that the people of Canterbury want to rise up and express a view on democracy because the last time there was such a protest in Christchurch it was led by me. I led it and 300 people walked through the streets of Christchurch—through the centre of Christchurch. It was not the only protest that I led; 5000 people walked down Queen Street on 1 December. 
Let us talk about participation. Let us talk about the right of the people of Canterbury to participate in their local government. It is interesting that the Human Rights Commission has spoken on the issue of participation. In referring to the Electoral Finance Bill the Human Rights Commission said that “A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation in turn requires an informed electorate.” We do not have an informed electorate when we try to create complex electoral law. 
It is also interesting that Mr Burns talked about an “assault on the democratic model”. He is not the only person who spoke about assault. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner talked about the Electoral Finance Bill being “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights”. Democracy is important. It is extremely important. No one has done more than this side of the House to stand up for the rights of democracy. I do not know how those four previous Labour Government Ministers have the gall to stand up and preach to the National and ACT Parties about democracy. 
We are talking about the management of water and the water resource. Water is a very valuable resource and it is very important for the future wealth of this country that we develop and preserve that resource. That water is about to get a whole lot more valuable not just because it will be better monitored and better managed but because from 1 July that water will have a much much higher value. Members might ask themselves what is happening on 1 July. Well on 1 July the Government is introducing the emissions trading scheme. It is a tax on the people of New Zealand and every single New Zealander will pay it. 
Why is it relevant to water? We heard from the Minister for the Environment this afternoon that over 50 percent of New Zealand’s water resource is contained in the Canterbury region. That water flows down the Waitaki River. The reason the emissions trading scheme has significance for the value of that water is that on 1 July a tax will be applied to electricity that is generated from thermal sources like oil and gas. Any generator who generates electricity from thermal sources will have to pay a tax. They will recover that tax and the price of electricity will rise. Treasury advised Parliament last year that electricity would rise by 5 percent. I realise it is a tight debate but let me explain the impact on the value of those water resources that the Government is trying to manage for the scheme. With an emissions trading scheme the price of all electricity will rise but those who generate electricity from renewable sources from water will not pay that tax; they will have the benefit of a higher price of electricity and they will make super-profits. 
The emissions trading scheme will be a massive tax on the people of New Zealand. It will generate windfall profits to Meridian Energy and it will significantly increase the value of that water. The increase in the value of the water in the Canterbury region will result in windfall gains. All of the electricity that is generated from the water in the Canterbury region—in the Environment Canterbury catchment—from 1 July will be able to get an extra 5 percent estimated value by Treasury. The generator will not have to pay the tax which will result in windfall profits to the State generator and to private generators. I remind the House that on 1 July this country is conducting an experiment unlike any other in New Zealand. 
On those notes I say that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak and I say again that if anyone from Labour has any concerns about democracy I suggest that they look at the submission of the Human Rights Commission on the Electoral Finance Bill dated 7 December 2007. Who can forget the words in that submission? The commission stated that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.” Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This is a short call during the second reading of this important bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I will start off by taking the House through an event that happened within the last month when the Kaikoura and Hurunui District Councils sat down with the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment. It was very interesting to take in the flavour that came out of the meetings with those councils. I heard the member opposite say that the mayors never discussed with their fellow councillor colleagues their response to the Minister of Local Government. Well I can testify that that is not the case. In actual fact there was a good canvassing of the views of the councillors and I would have to say that in the Hurunui and Kaikoura District Councils those views were canvassed to a person; everyone wanted something to be done that was quick and final. They did not see a future in Environment Canterbury because it was mucking around and wasting opportunity. 
Talking about opportunity I will refer to the Amuri irrigation scheme that in the late 1980s transformed a desolate wasteland which would have been blown away by the north-westerly into an oasis. The amount of game that was around at duck-shooting and times like that was just unbelievable and the win-win situation was outstanding. That is what those on the other 42000 hectares have been hoping for for the last 20 years but nothing has happened. So when we get to the second reading of this very important bill it is good to see that we have enshrined in it the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is very very important. 
I will touch on a couple of important aspects because what we are hearing from the other side of the House and what is being very poorly represented by the Greens is the suggestion that environmental standards will go out the window. I want to draw the House’s attention to the primary principles of that water management strategy’s regional approach. It says that planning for natural water use is guided by the following first order priorities: consideration of the environment customary uses community supplies and stock water. Second order priority considerations are irrigation renewable electricity generation recreation tourism and other amenities. 
The point I am making here is that a high priority is put on the environment and with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy the environment had to be No. 1. The Government was very concerned that that strategy was very very fragile; I make the point again that if one person had felt that he or she had not had adequate provision consideration within that strategy and had pulled out it would all have been lost. It would all have been lost. So I make the point again that I made in my first reading speech that it takes 90 percent of the effort to get the last 10 percent. 
This Government did not come into power to sit down here purely to get its pay as we saw the previous Labour Government do over the last 9 years. It is with great pride and passion that I live with a vision that potentially one day we will have 42000 hectares of beautiful country in the Hurunui irrigated and I say “Thank goodness it will come from a National Government.” 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have sat through a lot of this debate and have listened to members speak. Like Ms Adams I am a Canterbury member. Ms Adams represents a mostly rural electorate; in my case it is semi-rural. To some extent this debate has degenerated into some sort of name-calling or labelling exercise and it is interesting to note that there are people in the community who love to live off the back of our rural constituents and who love to live off the back of the revenue that our rural constituents create but when it suits them they put the boot into rural people and bag them. 
It is very interesting that the Minister of Conservation a Cabinet Minister who nominally resides somewhere in my seat—we are not quite sure where—has not taken a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. 
Colin King 
: Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Kate Wilkinson someone says. She has not taken a call on this bill. Maybe she is dropping acid—folic acid that is—somewhere in this place. But it is interesting that that Minister has not come down and has decided not to take a call on this bill because that member does not like to front up on the hard issues. That member has been rolled so many times in this House that—and I sympathise with her—she has probably decided to raise the white flag! “I’m out of here. I’m not speaking on the bill.” But I could be wrong. 
The Opposition has talked about process. I acknowledge that there were and are problems with Environment Canterbury—I acknowledge that. If members talk to farming communities or to urban communities they will hear that there were difficulties and problems particularly around water—I acknowledge that. But the question is how we fix or attempt to fix those difficulties. 
A lot of the members on the Canterbury Regional Council did an outstanding job over many years and they will no longer be there once this bill is enacted. The question is one of process: how to deal as a Government with those difficulties. One option that was suggested by a number of the regional councillors was to have a commissioner sit alongside the regional council to deal surgically with some of the difficulties in the bureaucracy. 
It is interesting to look at the process and what we are hearing tonight. I listened with interest to Mr Boscawen’s contribution. He is a man who holds himself up as the bastion of democracy who then stands in the stalls beside his leader Rodney Hide a man who for many years celebrated being Parliament’s independent man a man who believes that minorities should be represented a man who believes in the democratic approach and a man who has said repeatedly that the people know best how to deal with their money that we should empower the people that we should give the people the right to deal with Parliament that we should give them respect—empower them. Tonight with this piece of legislation just as on other nights in relation to the super-city legislation he has been led by the nose through the stalls and into the Ayes lobby. What Mr Hide and Mr Boscawen are really saying is that they believe in democracy as long as it suits them. 
Mr Colin King talked about principle. The commissioners remain till around October 2013 not up until the next election when the people would have their say and could either blow the regional councillors away or re-elect them. No the process of people having their say is gone—and Mr Colin King talks about principle. 
When we look at the Creech report we have to say that its recommendations looked preordained. There were 80 submissions—none from the public of course—and 20 groups were spoken to. It was a 3-week process and then we had the political massaging effort of the roadshow with Mr Hide and Dr Nick Smith wandering around the countryside for a couple of weeks having a chat to the local authorities. That is the alibi for putting this measure through the House. 
Another interesting point is that Dr Smith told Labour members and Green members this morning that this bill would not be implemented till roughly some time in May—possibly the end of May. He himself did not know at that point when it would be enacted because it is required to commence on a  
Gazette 
 notice—there has to be a transitional period. Well I am reliably informed that the Local Government and Environment Committee has an extremely light agenda—feather light. It could have been called together tonight it could have been called together tomorrow and people and groups could have had their say. Why would the Government abrogate its responsibility and guillotine that? I suspect—and I will adhere to your ruling Mr Deputy Speaker and I will not elaborate—that it is exactly the same mentality as this Government exhibited over the “three strikes” bill which was to kill off any opposition to not allow anyone to have a say and to ram the bill through as quickly as possible and then hope that all is well. 
I am one who acknowledges the economic benefit of irrigation. It has given massive benefits to my electorate and other parts of Canterbury—massive benefits and massive economic growth. I am balanced enough in my views to say that publicly without fear or favour. But I also acknowledge that there have been problems. 
One of the biggest problems as David Parker pointed out was Dr Nick Smith sitting on his hands for 18 months in respect of the National Policy Statement For Freshwater Management. Dr Smith got up and asked what Labour did for 9 years. That is a fair call. But the question also goes back the other way. Dr Smith as David Parker said could have called Cabinet together on Monday or last Monday or a month ago or 18 months ago when he became Minister and he could have activated the statement through a Cabinet decision. But for whatever reason he chose not to. So I say to those like Mr Hide the bastion of democracy the man who says we should empower New Zealanders and we should put the power back into the communities that he says that when it suits him and when it suits his means. 
I see Mr Gilmore writing frantically. I am reliably advised that there will be a picket of four National Party electorate offices. I assume that it will be the offices of Mr Brownlee Mr Carter Ms Wagner and Ms Wilkinson. Forget that there is another National member called Mr Gilmore. He ain’t even worth picketing! There is the old saying about why seagulls fly upside down but I will leave it there because it would not be appropriate. Mr Gilmore ain’t even worth picketing. He is a legend in his own lifetime. The punters know that it ain’t worth going near his electorate office because it ain’t worth picketing. It ain’t worth throwing a tomato or a rotten egg because it would just bounce off. 
I say very seriously that I think this House should acknowledge the difficulties of Environment Canterbury but should acknowledge also that it made great strides in the months before this report concluded as it did in respect of consent processing times reaching 90 percent of the rolling time frame compliance rate to the end of January 2010. But oh no there was not a word of that from across the aisle. This decision will not go through the select committee process. The public has not been consulted on the Creech report and every vestige of public input has been cut off apart from debates in this House. Those members talk about the Rodney District situation but Ms Dalziel has outlined the difference there: the difference was that the council wanted some action wanted the Government to move in and take action. The difference here is that no process is being embarked upon. If it is so principled— 
John Hayes 
: For good reason. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And if it is for good reason well let us hear one I ask “Les Patterson” in the front row. I ask him to give us a reason because we have not heard one tonight. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot refer to another member by a nickname or a surname. 
John Hayes 
: It’s not my nickname with respect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not his nickname. The member cannot refer to another member by a name that is not his. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise. It is actually “Sir Les Patterson”. I should have used it— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. I have ruled. The member cannot use those references. I ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. 
The member said “For good reason.” Well no good reason has been outlined or articulated tonight. There is no good reason to justify not having a select committee process. There is no good reason to justify not asking the community—except that for the Government there is one good reason: people may rise up and oppose this measure. Yes the public of Canterbury want action. Yes I think they want decisions through the regional council but they also guard their democracy. These commissioners will have the power to rate but unlike elected folk the commissioners will not be voted in or booted out by the public. The commissioners are at the behest of the Minister until October 2013. They will rate and they will require money from the Canterbury constituencies to empower them to do their work but they will not be accountable to those constituencies in the same way as elected members. I wait to hear from that member the good reasons why democracy has been cut asunder tonight. I wait for those reasons as do the people of Canterbury. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Here is one good reason for the Government to intervene in this positive way with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and that is that the review group found a significant gap characterised as “enormous and unprecedented” between what needs to be done in Canterbury to appropriately manage water and Environment Canterbury’s ability to do so. That came directly from the Creech report. 
I also want to thank—and I know this has been said before but it think it bears saying again—the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard who had these wise words in support of what the current Government is doing. He said “Everyone knew there was a problem here.” I shall say that again for the benefit of members opposite who seem to be in denial except for their colleague Trevor Mallard when he was the Minister for the Environment. He said: “Everyone knew there was a problem here.” It was quite late in the term and at a time when there was not the ability to put a group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done. I thank Mr Mallard for his endorsement of that. We will deal with the results and this is a Government that is dealing with the results. 
The failure of Environment Canterbury is also Labour’s failure. Let us not make any bones about that. In the 9 years of the previous Labour Government I ask members how many national policy statements and national environmental standards it produced. It was none—a big fat zero. There were absolutely none. I say to Mr Burns and Mr Parker that New Zealand needs national policy statements but we should not look to Labour to develop them. Labour will not do that. It had 9 years to release a national policy statement on water quality and I ask where it is. It is up to the National Government to face up to the problems and deal with them. 
This bill gives the development of a water plan for Canterbury the very highest priority. Environment Canterbury has been making decisions on water consents in a policy vacuum and that has resulted in policy development on the hoof and at the expense of applicants. I can say from experience and from talking to many applicants for water consents that they have been expensive litigious and extremely difficult. Many applicants have said to me that they lodge a consent with Environment Canterbury then go back home to the farm and wait for the bills to come in. They do not necessarily see any action but they certainly see the paperwork. 
There has been a total lack of determination by Environment Canterbury to tackle the allocation issues in the Waitaki catchment. There is a huge backlog of consent applications and renewals going right back to the time of Project Aqua. I take my hat off to former councillor June Slee who was practically a lone voice in Environment Canterbury when she was calling for it to come to grips with its responsibilities. 
This is a bill that looks to fix the problems we have now and set a good policy framework for water management for Canterbury in the future. This is something the National Government has faced up to which Labour failed utterly at. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 This time last year by ramming legislation through the House under urgency this National Government staged a coup against democracy in Auckland. This National Government bypassed Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act and that Minister sitting over there Rodney Hide embarked on the most cynical undermining of democracy this country has seen in many a year. Aucklanders thought that that was bad and they were right. People all around the country have been wondering who is next for the chop. 
Today the people of Canterbury have experienced an even more barefaced outrage: the abrogation of their district council and the sacking of their elected representatives. I want to read a quote: “Elections are central to democracy but they are not always on their own a magic or quick-fix solution.” I invite members of this House to guess who said those words. Could it be Nick Smith maybe? Wyatt Creech? Nicky Wagner? Amy Adams? Could it even be Rodney Hide? Actually it was Frank Bainimarama in 2008. Elections will not be held for Environment Canterbury until 2013 perhaps slightly before Commodore Bainimarama plans to hold elections in Fiji but not much before. I say welcome to Fiji on the Rakaia. 
This Government has form when it comes to riding roughshod over our nation’s democratic traditions. That is what is happening here tonight in this House as the elected representatives of the people of Canterbury are sacked by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide. They have done it before in Auckland. They bypassed Aucklanders’ right to a referendum on forced amalgamation they stole the democratic rights of local communities in Auckland they rammed through changes in this House under urgency and there has been a rushed and inadequate consultation process. In all of that process over the last year at least they made a pathetic attempt to listen to Aucklanders even though it was mostly a fake listening campaign. It is no wonder Aucklanders feel ignored and 56 percent of them told the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the other day that they do not want to be part of a super-city. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did they have a select committee in Auckland? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: They had a select committee in Auckland but they are not having a select committee for this bill. They do not even think the people of Canterbury deserve the courtesy of a select committee process. This outrage shows a total disdain for the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury. For this National Government and its cronies democracy is an inconvenience. It is an irritation. When democracy gets in the way of National’s objectives and agenda it is given the chop. 
Environment Canterbury has had a very difficult time dealing with the tensions associated with water allocations. No one has come down to the House tonight and suggested that Environment Canterbury has done a good job. No one is suggesting that. It has had problems but the response of this Government is to take it out to the back of the wood shed and dispatch it with a blow to the head. Fourteen councillors are getting the chop and with them go the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury. 
For the next 3½ years the people of Canterbury will have no say and no input and there will be no accountability for the actions that Rodney Hide and Nick Smith’s appointees will make on their behalf. That is the way Nick Smith and Rodney Hide like it. This National Government is so divorced from our country’s traditions and democratic institutions and cares so little that it is not even embarrassed in the slightest by what it is doing tonight. It has no conscience and no embarrassment about abrogating the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury simply because Environment Canterbury is not doing its bidding and is struggling to come to terms with one of the most difficult environment and development issues this country faces. For this National Government that is enough justification to take Environment Canterbury out the back and knock it on the head. 
One would think that this Government would have thought twice before doing this given the bath it is taking in Auckland. Anger resentment mistrust and anxiety about our democratic institutions are being expressed from Pukekohe to Wellsford by Aucklanders of all political persuasions. They do not like what this Government is doing. They do not like the fact that Rodney Hide whose party earned 3.65 percent of the vote in the last election is running local government policy and undertaking one of the most damaging initiatives that local government has seen in this country’s history. People understand what is going on. They are not silly. They understand that this Government is taking away the rights of local communities to have a say and is handing those rights and that power to Nick Smith’s and Rodney Hide’s hand-picked appointees. They do not like it. 
This National Government has a very retro approach to democracy. It is taking us back to the future. This is not democracy in the 21st century. The National Government is taking us back to oligarchy and the days of the 19th century. That is the kind of politics it is comfortable with. It is so much more efficient to have the great and the good sitting around the boardroom table making decisions on behalf of everybody else. It is so much more efficient. It is so much tidier to have the boardroom in control instead of the ballot box. That is the way Rodney Hide likes it. It is not a lot different from Rodney Hide’s and Steven Joyce’s so-called council-controlled organisations which will be in charge of 75 percent of the assets income and expenditure of the Auckland Council if they have their way and continue with their agenda of corporatising Auckland local government and handing over that city’s resources and assets to their hand-picked mates. I ask members to consider the cavalier disregard for our democratic institutions the speed with which this Government is willing to throw them out the window and install its own hand-picked appointees to run our institutions and the whiff of oligarchy that hangs over this disgraceful legislation. Members should make no mistake: this Government is a threat to our democracy. 
For 3½ years the people of Canterbury will have no representation. They will continue to pay rates but they will have no say and no input into how the commissioners deal with their resources and their environment. Rodney Hide and Nick Smith are going to take over because they think they know better. They will hand-pick the decision makers and try to get them to ram through their agenda. National does not trust the people. It is only a few months until the local elections. This Government does not trust the people of Canterbury to look at the situation make an informed judgment and democratically elect their representatives to take office and sort the situation out. The people know there is a problem. They know things need to change but this Government does not trust them. 
Oligarchy and cronyism go together. We have seen it in Auckland. We saw the former National Party president Michelle Boag advising John Banks’ mayoral campaign and hired by Rodney Hide’s Auckland Transition Agency to recruit senior executives for the super-city. For an entire week Rodney Hide Mark Ford Michelle Boag and John Banks all denied that there was a conflict of interest. They do not really see things that way. They do not see that it is a conflict of interest to have their cronies making decisions on their behalf. Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are appointing the directors of the council-controlled organisations. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We would not know we were talking about Canterbury after hearing the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Twyford talk about what is going on in Auckland. For the people listening tonight I will read what the review group unanimously concluded which is that the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury “requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being. Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.” 
The review panel which undertook a series of consultations with councillors and various review groups up and down Canterbury came to that conclusion. It got to the situation where it found that Environment Canterbury was broken. It found that the situation was the tyranny of democracy. People came into people’s offices and said that Environment Canterbury was not delivering what they want that it was not delivering the needs of the people that it was broken and that we needed to bring in some commissioners to put in place a fundamental change in the nature of Environment Canterbury. 
When we look at the review report we see a series of recommendations. Tonight the focus has been on water. But there have been many other recommendations and they include the need for a review of public transport. No member on that side has spoken about those recommendations. All they care about is the threat to democracy. They fear that there might not be an election in 3½ years. Well there might be a miracle. The situation in 6 months or 8 months may be that the commissioners have fixed Environment Canterbury although I doubt it. We have allowed enough time to fix the problem and not have some half-cut solution. 
Environment Canterbury does not have issues just around the water strategy. We are very happy to include the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in schedule 1 of this bill and I think that is a good step forward. There has been fear on the other side of the House that that would not happen and that we would not abide by those principles. But they are in schedule 1 and I think that is a good thing. Many members of Parliament were involved in the consultation around that strategy and those rights and principles are enshrined in the bill. Another area where there is fault with Environment Canterbury concerns discussion with iwi in the local area. There have been major problems with that discussion and a need to bring in more resources for iwi liaison. The bill will allow more consultation to be put in place. 
The great fear I seem to hear from the other side of the House is the fear of success the fear that Environment Canterbury might change and actually be better for the people of Canterbury. I think there is a fear of giving Environment Canterbury a chance over the next 3½ years to be fixed and to give the people of Canterbury what they want. They want a council that delivers them the resources they want. It is not just across the councillors; it is across the entire council. The council is broken. 
I look forward during the debate on the remaining stages of this bill to hearing some sensible discussion from the raucous banshee on that side of House. Thank you very much. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your predecessor the Deputy Speaker asked me to withdraw a name I used for a colleague across the House which I did. In order to be consistent—as my remark was far more benign than the rudeness of the member Aaron Gilmore in his last comments—I invite you to take some action. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: As I recall the comment it was something about a “raucous banshee”. I would have thought it was not a particularly offensive term. It is very graphic and colourful; it is a term that is not often heard. But I would not say it is necessarily offensive. I often like to have a bit of colour so I will not take any offence. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take another call in the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. If ever there was a misnamed bill this is it. This bill is in the name of the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith who is on record time after time when he was in Opposition criticising water quality around New Zealand. It is rather like when he criticised noisy exhausts; he has done nothing about that either. Here we have a bill that rather inappropriately talks in its explanatory note about temporary commissioners and improved water management. There is nothing temporary in the fact that this bill will disestablish Environment Canterbury’s democratic rights for the next 3½ years and there is nothing in the bill in my view to improve water quality—quite the contrary. 
I also note that this bill is in effect an outrageous affront to democracy and to Canterbury voters. I suggest that it is actually giving the two-fingered salute to the voters of Canterbury. They will have to continue paying the bill for the commissioners at an undetermined rate I have to say—it is left up to the Minister’s discretion if my memory of the bill is correct—and they will have to pay the bill not just for the per diem rate that the commissioners are paid but also any transport and travel costs. So Government members should not talk about costs to ratepayers being reduced under this bill. It is absolutely the opposite. I think this bill is saying to the voters of Canterbury that they are simply not intelligent enough to make the decisions about who is best to make the choices for Canterbury on water issues. That is the subtext of this bill. It is saying that the voters of Canterbury do not have the intellect to be able to decide how their water rights and how Environment Canterbury should be run. I think that is a galling statement from National which supposedly prides itself on democratic principles. I absolutely believe that is the case. 
I note from announcements today that the Minister has decided that Dame Margaret Bazley will be the commission chair - designate. I have to ask who the other commissioners provided for in this bill will be. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Alec Neill. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: There is a name to conjure with. I noticed on the Television One news tonight that Dame Margaret is already in place in Christchurch and has been welcomed by a beaming soon-to-be-former chair of Environment Canterbury that little known former backbench MP Alec Neill. Maybe he will be given a job and that raises questions about who else will be given a job as the Government scrambles to put together a suite of commissioners to take over the running of Environment Canterbury. 
This bill is just an outrage; it will take away a democratically elected council. It is showing contempt for the democratic process as the Government has done previously in Auckland. It is a signal victory for the Minister of Local Government. He is managing to do to Canterbury what he is has done to Auckland by completely neglecting the democratic process the wishes of the people and the chance for them to have any input. Here is a bill coming through under urgency with not a skerrick of a chance for any input from anybody be they from Canterbury or anywhere else. It is violating the fundamental principle that people should not be taxed unless they are represented. I think from memory that that was the cause of the Boston Tea Party in America in the 1700s which led to the American Revolution. 
I hear there will be pickets outside the offices of four National MPs in Canterbury tomorrow. They seem not to have noticed that there is a fifth National MP in Christchurch Aaron Gilmore. It was unkind of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove to pick on Aaron Gilmore because maybe he is not aware that Aaron is shopping around in Southland looking for a seat down there. That is maybe why the voters of Canterbury will not miss him tomorrow. 
This bill is being forced through under urgency. There is no signal in it from the Government or from the Minister as to how there will be better balanced environmental outcomes. The bill makes reference to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I uphold the strategy. I think it is a very very good thing. It is a round-table locally driven initiative which brought together people from the environmental movement farmers and irrigators. It is a winner. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Canterbury. However I think it is being put at risk because on one page this bill says it upholds the principles of the water strategy but then on another it says it wants to see the rapid allocation of water. The fundamental tenet of that strategy brought together so patiently by so many good people in Canterbury is around environmental matters. It states that sustainable management is the first primary principle that water is a public resource and that first order priority consideration has to be the environment followed by customary uses by community supplies and by stock water. What is this bill going to do? Is that the sequence that will be applied or will it meet the Prime Minister’s stated agenda that he wants to see new projects on the blocks in Canterbury next year without—and the Minister for the Environment has confirmed this—any accompanying legislation to this bill to put in place any new environmental standards? 
The Minister can throw the borax back to this side of the House and say we did not put in place proper standards but he has been the Minister for nigh on 18 months and he has had the opportunity to take to Cabinet a whole range of proposals around water quality. He is waiting for the Land and Water Forum to deliver. I think that the forum will in effect emulate what has happened with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I think it will try to bring together a round-table consensus such as we had with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But if the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is effectively abrogated by the rapid allocation of water then the people who put that strategy together will walk from it and that will send the signal to the Land and Water Forum that it is going to have exactly the same issues. The forum will not hold those parties to it because it will see that the Government has an agenda on one side for rapid allocation. It is talking the talk about environmental balance but what party in Government does not talk the talk about environmental balance? It has to be delivered on and we are at the point with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy that it could start to be implemented given real support. It needs real support. The Government cannot undermine that by having a strategy or an agenda alongside it that says it wants quick runs on the board and that it wants to see new water in place next year. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We didn’t say that. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The Prime Minister is on the record on that as Dr Smith well knows. I think the Minister has lost the battle in Cabinet over this. Those who want to see quick runs on the board to make it look good in next year’s election will be ahead in terms of the decisions. 
That is the result of today and that is why I say that Dr Smith has lost out and Rodney Hide has effectively had a second victory in terms of local government at the expense of ratepayers first in Auckland and now in Canterbury. The people of Canterbury have lost their rights they have lost their democratic say and they have lost their chance for input. They have not been given a single chance to be heard other than through the Creech review which simply went to Canterbury talked to 20 different groups in 3 weeks and came back and wrote a rushed report which is now followed by rushed legislation. That is not the way to get it right for my province of Canterbury. 
The water strategy is in place it is a fundamentally good document and it has broad buy-in. It is a Canterbury document put together by Cantabrians. It was driven by Environment Canterbury—and that is part of the irony of all of this—and Environment Canterbury in fact was starting to deliver. It was meeting 90 percent of its resource consents in the approved time frames and that is as good as any other local authority. I should note of course that the person who was the chair of the resource consents committee for Environment Canterbury for most of the time that the Government identified as problematic is now the departing chair of Environment Canterbury. However that is putting a rather blunt point on things. The fact is that Environment Canterbury was starting to get its act together it was the driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and it deserves to have support. It deserves to have more than a ritual bow which this legislation attaches to it by putting it as schedule 1 to the Act and making a couple of references to it. It deserves to be enshrined in legislation and given a lot more support than is envisaged in this bill. This bill is doing away with the democratic right of Cantabrians to decide who is in charge of the big economic driver of their province. 
We on this side of the House want to see sustainable growth and we want to see new jobs but we do not want to see another generation of water quality going backwards. This is the first time we have had to get it right and this Government is ripping that asunder with this bill. It will put that water strategy under intense pressure and my belief is that we will see it fly apart in a very short time frame as the Government implements its agenda for the rapid allocation of water. That is a tragedy in the making because we will not have this opportunity again. We will not get that number of people in a round-table consensus fashion putting aside their own separate interests to try to do something for the benefit of our province. We will not get that again. If it falls apart in Canterbury it will not be able to fly on a national basis. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a second time.  
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. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary Provisions 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to really point out some of the contradictions in the purposes that have come from members of the Labour Opposition. Let me just go through a number of contradictions. 
First of all the Labour members say— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the advantages of the Committee stage is the chance to have a robust exchange with the Minister but how can it be in order for the Minister in the first call on Part 1 to immediately launch into an attack on the Opposition for its contradictions? There has been no debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member knows that the Minister has the first call if the Minister so chooses. We are on Part 1 and the Minister is making his opening statements. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the chief Labour Party whip is so defensive. Labour members have got on their feet and said they are opposed to this bill being debated under urgency. But can we guess what happened when the House had a vote on the urgency motion? The Labour Party and the Green Party supported the urgency motion. 
Then let us consider the impassioned speeches about this bill being an affront to democracy. I have some questions for members opposite. Was it an affront to democracy when Helen Clark fired every member of the Auckland District Health Board in 1989? Was it an affront to democracy when David Cunliffe in 2008 fired the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Was it an affront to democracy when under urgency on 2 May 2000 a bill was introduced to replace the Rodney District Council with commissioners a bill that was responsibly supported by the National members of the Opposition? You see the Labour members are unprincipled. They are playing politics; they do not care about the issues. 
I was particularly disappointed during the second reading— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is it in order for a Minister in the chair to refer to members of Parliament as being unprincipled? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This will be a robust debate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It is now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well it has been a robust debate during the earlier readings. The Committee stage is an opportunity to continue that debate and I will not stifle any debate so long as it is fair and equitable. We are on Part 1 and the purpose clause is in Part 1. Debate on the purpose clause can include a much wider range than the debates on other clauses can but I will be asking the Minister— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: We’re actually on Part 1 not clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The purpose clause is in Part 1. The Minister has had 2 minutes and he has 3 minutes to go. I will ask the Minister to now focus on what Part 1 is about. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Part 1 of this bill— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They don’t like it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a point of order and members should not interrupt. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Without wishing to challenge your ruling can I ask you a simple question? Are you now ruling it to be parliamentary language to call a member unprincipled? I simply ask that. Is that your ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I’m asking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled on that matter. If the member takes offence to that under Standing Order 116 he can say he does but I will ask members to be very mindful of the language that they use. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member has taken offence. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am dealing with a matter here. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Member 
: And apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any help. I have asked him to withdraw and he has done so. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Under the principle of someone taking offence it has to be to a slur on the person’s character. In relation to the suggestion that the Opposition is unprincipled if people are to take offence at that it will be a long night. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member took offence. The comment could have been seen to have wider implications. We have ruled on the matter. The Minister has withdrawn. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The purpose of this bill is to deal with the underlying— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Nick always loses control. It always goes wrong with Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chief Labour Party whip who is interjecting should just take a big deep breath. He is the chief whip who voted for urgency on this bill even though every Labour member who gets up says he or she is opposed to urgency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair in his capacity as the Minister in charge of this bill to a large extent determines how it is handled under urgency. There was no vote for urgency on this motion and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is a debating point. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What recourse does the Opposition have when procedural matters are continually misrepresented by the Minister in charge of the bill leading to disorder? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. A point of order must be something that I can have control over. This is a debating point. The Minister has been given the call. He is articulating crystallising those things that he thinks are important. I ask him to continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: All members know in their heart of hearts that this country has a substantial problem with regard to water management in Canterbury. In fact the greatest irony is that Brendon Burns spent the best part of last year attacking Environment Canterbury. At every moment Brendon Burns used the opportunity to do that and then the Government comes to the Chamber with a bill that will deal with the problems regarding water in Canterbury and the Opposition rolls out some of the most tired awful arguments. 
I was particularly disappointed in Lianne Dalziel. There has been a long tradition that although we might be pretty robust in this Chamber we treat former members with some respect. It was a comment on her desperation that Lianne Dalziel chose to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech. I point out that the conclusions of the report were unanimous by all four of the reviewers. And yes I could give a speech in this Chamber about Lianne Dalziel’s misdemeanours; I could do the same about Ruth Dyson and her convictions. What members opposite have chosen to do is to play the person and not the ball. What members like Lianne Dalziel chose to do in— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’re asking for it. You’re asking for what’s going to happen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us look at the threats. What the members are saying is that if someone tells some home truths they will bring disruption to the Chamber. I challenge Lianne Dalziel to focus on the issues in the review group report rather than attacking the integrity of Wyatt Creech. Members on all sides of the Chamber know in their heart of hearts that Wyatt Creech is a very diligent dedicated New Zealander and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am going to allow the Minister who is seeking the call to have the next call. But I just ask that we really focus on what the debate is about. I ask that we quieten down so we can get some substantive debate going and we can understand the issues. Is everyone including the Minister happy with that? That applies to everyone. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet; I am ruling. I ask the Minister to continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to really gun in on the key conclusions of the review group report about the very serious issues that this Parliament faces in respect of the issues in Canterbury. The first issue in the report which stands out overwhelmingly is that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we do not have a plan for managing Canterbury water. I challenge members in the Green Party and members of the Labour Party to explain why it is satisfactory in 2010 when we all accept that water issues in Canterbury are very critical that we have no resource management plan for water. I think every member in the Chamber knows that that is a key failing and knows that if a Government is going to provide leadership it needs to address that fundamental issue. 
It is equally a matter of fact—and a matter of record—that in the most recent biennial survey of resource management performance Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked 84th out of 84 councils. That report was commissioned by the previous Government. I also draw attention to the very honest and frank statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment the Hon Trevor Mallard who said everyone knew there was a problem there—referring to Canterbury. Everybody knew there was a problem there. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Our investigation did not rule out the question of governance. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would bring Lianne Dalziel’s attention to the briefing to the incoming Government. Again that briefing made it absolutely plain that issues in Environment Canterbury were critical and would need to be addressed. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The governance of Environment Canterbury is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Ms Dalziel is interjecting. If she wants to bring that to our attention I ask her what the report recommended. Let me read—I quote—what the report said: “This failure requires— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It says that the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is happy to quote; let me quote very directly: “This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being.”—and these are the key words—“Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.” That is a very key conclusion. 
I simply challenge members of the Labour Opposition to stop playing politics to focus on the real issues that are important to Canterbury and to stop attacking the reviewers. Let us make this Committee debate an intelligent and well-constructed debate about how we can really focus in on the water issues in Canterbury and how this Parliament can make a positive difference to addressing issues that really matter rather than having the sort of hysteria that we are seeing from members like Lianne Dalziel. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with the purposes of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill—the bill to get rid of democracy from the regional council in Canterbury. I think that if we are to understand the purpose of this bill we need to go back to the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of Parliament this year. He said “The Government will … take action this year to remove … roadblocks to … irrigation in Canterbury.” That is the purpose of this bill. 
It is important to note how this bill has evolved and the different steps that it has come through when looking at its purpose. The first purpose was outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister—that is to allow more irrigation in Canterbury. Hence there is to be more pollution of the aquifer in Canterbury more pollution of the rivers in Canterbury and the taking of more water from the rivers and aquifers in Canterbury. Those rivers will become even lower than they are now even more degraded than they are now and even fuller of pollution than they are now. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister gave for this bill when he made his statement to Parliament. He said he would take action to get rid of the roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That was the first step. 
The second step was the appointment of a review panel headed up by someone from the dairy industry. Let us remember that Environment Canterbury’s major role is to be a regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury. What did the Government do as its second step? It appointed someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry. What does that remind members of? Does George W Bush come to mind when we think about getting an industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry? Of course George Bush took it one more step: he appointed the industry itself to be the regulator—and we may yet come to that depending on who the Government appoints to be commissioners at Environment Canterbury. So the second step was to get someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury—that is Environment Canterbury the regional council. 
Surprise surprise the review came back from Mr Creech and it said the review panel did not like it that Environment Canterbury was slowing economic growth by saying no to some of the irrigators. The review panel thought that was outrageous and Environment Canterbury had to be abolished because it was saying no to some of the dairy corporations which was unreasonable. Of course the facts that Canterbury has had one of the fastest rates of economic growth in New Zealand and that there have been dramatic increases in irrigation and in approvals for irrigation across Canterbury do not matter. No no the review said things have not been going fast enough. We are going to put more ticks next to irrigation schemes and give more ticks to dairy corporations because the review conducted by a director of a dairy company of the regulator of the dairy industry has said we should do that. So the second step in understanding the purposes of this bill is to understand that someone from the dairy industry conducted the review of the regulator of that industry. Wyatt Creech came back and said things were not going fast enough. 
It is also important to remember the other things that the review said. It said Environment Canterbury paid too much attention to science. That is an outrage! The regulator of the dairy sector according to the dairy person who was put in to review it was paying too much attention to science. The review said Environment Canterbury was science-led. Imagine that. Imagine a regional council paying attention to science. That is an outrage; Environment Canterbury has to be abolished! So the Minister said the Government would abolish it and put in people who would not pay attention to science because it is wrong to do so. The Minister said Environment Canterbury should be paying attention to irrigators and dairy corporations not to scientists. Imagine employing scientists in a regional council to give us information about water quality. It is a shocking activity! That is why Wyatt Creech said the council had to go: because it was not employing enough people from the industry side and there were too many scientists. What a waste of time that review was. 
Of course the other thing that Wyatt Creech said was that Environment Canterbury does not process consents fast enough. Of course this is really the nub of the matter. In the last 12 months the regional council processed nearly 90 percent of consents within the statutory time frames—nearly 90 percent. So although the Government says it has to get rid of the council now actually the council is performing better than it has ever performed. The reason why the Government is trying to get rid of the council is that the council has improved its performance. The purpose of this bill which is the part we are dealing with at the moment is to speed up the process of converting more and more of Canterbury to irrigation. More and more we will see rivers drained of their water and more pollution of the aquifers and we are to have less science because that is not important. As Mr Creech said too much science was being done—what a waste of time! If we have less science there will be less evidence on the basis of which people can complain about what is going on in Canterbury. We will have less ability to challenge Synlait and all the different dairy corporations when we go to court because less science will have been done. 
Let us remember that the Linton dairy case was lost because the Canterbury Regional Council did not have enough scientific evidence to give around the aquifer. The regional council tried to get more scientific work done and for that reason it is being sacked. The council is being sacked because it is too much into science. The reason that the council lost the Linton dairy case was that it had not done enough science. The council did more scientific work and now it is being sacked. The Government thinks that if the council does too much scientific work it might say no to more irrigation and more intensification of agriculture across Canterbury. As we know from the Prime Minister’s speech when Parliament resumed in February this Government will take action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury; hence this bill to get rid of the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury. 
I think it is also important this afternoon that people may have seen that the Environmental Defence Society after originally cautiously welcoming this bill in its second press release has come out opposing it because the society has realised what is going on with regard to water conservation orders in this bill. One of the purposes of this bill is to overturn the water conservation orders on the Rakaia River and the proposed water conservation order that is coming through on the Hurunui River. The reason that the Government does not like those water conservation orders is that they will preserve too much water for the rivers and not give enough water to irrigation. The Government thinks it cannot possibly let the Hurunui River water conservation order go through. The Environmental Defence Society has now come out and raised serious concerns about what this bill does to the water conservation order process. This bill overturns the current process and takes the Environment Court which is where the Hurunui River water conservation order would have gone next out of the process. 
One of the purposes of this bill—and I am surprised it has not been written here in this part—is to overturn water conservation order processes. Rivers subject to water conservation orders are the national parks of rivers; that is what they are. People do not understand how important water conservation orders are. They are like giving national park status to our rivers. When this Government introduces a bill to dismantle the way that water conservation orders work in Canterbury it is because it wants to mine another kind of national park: it wants to mine the Rakaia River and the Hurunui River for irrigation. It is another kind of mining of national parks but this time our rivers are the national parks that are at stake. This Government in the purpose of this bill wants to overturn the way that water conservation orders work. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)