Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9975] 
Tuesday 30 March 2010 
( 
continued on Wednesday 31 March 2010 
) 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 When the debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night we were dealing under urgency with the current bill whereby the Government the ACT Party and the Maori Party will vote to abolish democratically elected regional councillors. We were considering Part 1 of that bill which includes the purpose clause clause 3. The purpose of this bill is very clear and the Prime Minister stated it in his opening speech to Parliament in February. The Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year. That was the first step. 
The second step was that Wyatt Creech was appointed to conduct a review of Environment Canterbury. At the time he was a director of Open Country Cheese a dairy company with multiple convictions for dirty dairying. Someone from the dairy industry was appointed to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry—that is of Environment Canterbury. That was step two. Step two was to appoint the industry to do a review of the regulator of the industry. Unsurprisingly the Creech report came out saying that we should get rid of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors. One of the criticisms of course was that Environment Canterbury’s councillors were paying too much attention to science and that was why they needed to go. The report said that they were “science-led” rather than “science-informed”. 
The third step is this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil the final stage in the Government’s grand plan which is to get rid of the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury because they are getting in the way of irrigation in the Canterbury region. After years of inaction by the regional council it was finally starting to stand up to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies and that is why they got into trouble with the National Government. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 What is interesting about this bill is the outrage in respect of it and how some people have changed their minds about democracy. When the previous Labour Government was accused of changing things for Rodney there was a real uproar about democracy. Where did this uproar come from? It was ACT—ACT Party members were the ones who were upset and they were the ones who were making the noise. But now those members have changed their minds. They change their minds about all sorts of things. We have a Minister who picks on a mayor because he happens to water a tree at night during a drought. We have a situation where people change their minds. 
Almost 400000 people will lose their right to vote at the October elections of Environment Canterbury councillors. They will have to wait until perhaps 2013. So we see that there are double standards all over the place. One can be against one thing and for another thing in the blink of an eye. One can take one’s partner overseas to travel the world for a family wedding and at the same time one can take away the rights of people to elect their local regional council. I think the public will see this quite clearly. We have a Government that has lost its way when it said it would keep in touch with people. It has not kept in touch with people. It has got rid of an elected council which was elected by the people of Canterbury and replaced it with commissioners. I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for Dame Margaret Bazley. I think she will do a wonderful job in that role but that role should never have been needed. Canterbury has had its pollution problems. The regional council has got on top of that and sorted it out. 
Nicky Wagner 
: No they haven’t. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Oh it has not sorted it out? It has made great steps. 
Nicky Wagner 
: No they haven’t. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well that member might not be cooperating. Maybe she has a smoky home; maybe she has a place so that she cannot see the facts. It has been making progress and I think that is what the people of Canterbury want. You see 375000 people will lose a major right with this bill. Part 1 takes that right away. I say to members opposite that they cannot run roughshod over people. They have already done it to Auckland by not having a referendum at all but passing legislation under urgency like we are doing here today. It seems to be becoming a bit of a habit. Dr Nick Smith well knows that when Governments start ignoring the democratic rights of people they start that slippery slide. The tide is turning I say to Dr Smith it is slowly turning. It may be out now but all of a sudden he will see that the tide comes rushing in. And it will not take 9 years to come rushing in it will not take 6 years to come rushing in but in a mere 18 months or so he will see that people are sick of such arrogance by a Government that really does not care about people. It takes them for granted. 
Members opposite can just turn round and thumb their noses but they cannot do it to a third of the population in Auckland and 370-odd thousand people in Canterbury. Those people are wondering why they are losing their vote. We have not really heard— 
Nicky Wagner 
: They are not wondering; they know why. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: We hear some of the National members squawking on the other side. But they are the ones who will lose their seats. They will be so far down the list they will be gone. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Good morning Mr Chairman. A lot of the squawking from the Opposition has been comparing this legislation with the legislation that was passed by the Labour-led Government in 2000 in relation to the abolition of the Rodney District Council and its replacement with a commissioner. There are a large number of differences between that situation and the current situation that we find ourselves in. The first difference is that Rodney District Council asked to be replaced by a commissioner. It agreed with the outcome of the review. It said that it was the best outcome and the following year elections were held. This situation is completely different. The Minister for the Environment has ridden roughshod over not only the councillors but also the people of Canterbury and the Creech review itself. Nowhere in that review did it give this Minister the mandate to do what he is doing. 
Jacqui Dean the member for somewhere down south who I recall wrote to one of my colleagues earlier in her term in Parliament inquiring about the dangers of water has now become an expert in water management. Jacqui Dean forgets what her party said at that time. I can quote from the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who is now the Speaker. When Labour introduced the bill to abolish Rodney District Council he stated: “I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.” There was a bipartisan approach to that bill because the people of Rodney wanted it. Then he stated: “I must say though I am not sure whether we needed urgency to pass the bill through all stages”. National had some principles then. It was opposed to putting that bill through under urgency. 
Then Dr Lockwood Smith accused the Green Party of becoming voter fodder for the Labour Government. Kennedy Graham is rightly outraged and he was not in Parliament at the time. That situation may not have arisen had he been in the House. But that is exactly what people are saying about the ACT Party and the Maori Party now—that they are just acting as voting fodder for National. They are letting this happen to the people of Canterbury and there is no need for it. 
There is no need for our vote to be taken away from us. We have a right to vote for whoever we want in our region for our district health board our community boards our city council and our regional council. That right is being taken away by someone who does not even live in our region and who has the audacity to introduce this bill to this House under urgency and is ramming it through all its stages so that not a single member of the public can say: “This is good. This is bad. Why do you not think about that? There are some other options.” Not one single person has been able to do that because the Minister for the Environment knows it all. The combination of the Minister who knows everything and the Minister who tells everyone he knows everything—Rodney Hide—is just too scary to contemplate for too long. Last night their behaviour was extraordinary and I predict that it will get worse as the passage of this bill progresses. 
Passing a bill under urgency is not appropriate for a bill that takes away a fundamental right of so many New Zealanders. It is not needed; there are many alternatives. Russel Norman from the Green Party quite correctly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of this bill—which is not spelt out clearly in Part 1—is just as John Key outlined in his address at the opening of Parliament. He committed his Government to taking action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. Who cares about the environment? Who cares about the people’s voice? Who cares about the ability of private profit-making companies to compulsorily acquire land? 
Nicky Wagner 
: Only half the story Ruth. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not the Minister for the Environment and it certainly not Nicky Wagner. There is no consideration of the fact that we should have a say when our environment our surroundings our land our aquifers our rivers and our estuary are all at stake. 
I ask what it is about Canterbury that the Minister thinks should disentitle us from having a fundamental say in the purpose of this bill. It is not just the fact that the entire elected representation of the regional council is being removed; it is also the fact that we will not have an opportunity to replace them at the next election. We are due to have an election in October of this year and we have to go past that election time and wait for an entire new term before the Minister may deem it fit to allow us—how generous of him—to vote for our regional council. 
But I have to be very frank. I know that the people of Canterbury have no faith in this Minister not to sneak through another dirty devious little bill that would take away our right for a longer period of time. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister is not lining himself up with the mayors of the region—who have had no discussion at all not one single discussion with their councils but have made an entirely unilateral contribution on our so-called behalf—to propose the equivalent of the Auckland super-city. This may well be the start of the disestablishment of our regional council structure altogether. 
I challenge the Minister to be up front about his behaviour for a change and to be honest and open with the people of Canterbury. We elected our regional council. Some of the people I would not have voted for; that is one of the parts of democracy we should cherish. There is a large number of members in this Parliament whom I would not vote for either. What is proposed in this bill is not the way that a democracy works. A democracy works when people have a vote and sometimes the people whom they want to be elected are elected and sometimes they are not. We have had taken away from us that fundamental right to elect people or to vote for people who do not in the end get elected. 
Not only is this a major breach of our fundamental right to vote for our regional representation but also it is unnecessary. Those writing the Creech report made that very clear. They said that widespread concerns had been expressed to them and they said quite categorically in their report that their investigation did not back up those concerns. It is about politics actually; this is a political game and the Minister has now thrown in his toys and started playing. It is a political game and it is being played at the expense of our water management and our entitlement to have our voice be heard throughout the process of consideration whether it is irrigation projects water storage projects or any other requirement to take water from our rivers. 
I urge the Minister even at this late stage when he has so much of his reputation at stake to reconsider. There are other options. He knows that members on this side of the Chamber would support the legislative requirements of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He knows that; we have said so in the House. The problem with doing it this way is that it is divisive undemocratic and unnecessary. There is no need to cause such division in our community or to cause such frustration. Because of the Minister’s majority in Parliament and because he has had the privilege of taking up a ministerial portfolio he can use those powers to batter the people of Canterbury out of their right to vote. It is a huge breach of both the privilege and the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio. 
If it was necessary as Sandra Lee thought it was in 2000 and as the National Party thought it was in 2000 then we would go for it. We would vote for it. The National Party had the courage to say that then. I have quoted the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who said that he welcomed the introduction of the legislation appointing the commissioner to replace the Rodney District Council because the district council had asked for it. The Rodney District Council knew that that move would put their district council into the position where very soon after—just a year later—the people would once again be able to vote for their elected representatives. The Rodney District Council knew there was such dysfunction within the district council that it had no other option. That is not the case in this situation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 We are debating the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because there is a serious problem which everybody in this House should acknowledge around water management issues in Canterbury. The fact is that last month Trevor Mallard said that everyone knew there was a problem there and I challenge Labour members to stop their denials. They were entrusted with the Government of New Zealand for 9 years and I ask members whether in that 9-year period they did anything about improving water management. My own ministry’s chief executive Dr Paul Reynolds a respected public servant described the previous Government’s water programme of action as a programme of inaction such was the lack of any leadership or direction around water management issues. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When did he say that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He said that about 3 years ago when he was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
I will challenge Ruth Dyson about a number of claims she has made. Firstly I will deal with her claim that not one single discussion had taken place with the 10 councils. That is what Ruth Dyson has just claimed. But I tell her that I attended a meeting with the mayors of every single council from Waitaki to Kaikoura. Every single one of those territorial councils supports the responsive action that this Government is taking. 
The member also said that the mayors did not have a democratic mandate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I did not say that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is interesting; her colleague did. Last night her colleague said that the mayors had no right to speak for the people of Canterbury. 
The member attacked the Maori Party for its support of this bill. I note that Ngai Tahu with whom I thought Labour would have some relationship has said that it reluctantly agrees that the appointment of commissioners is necessary in Canterbury. 
I will deal with the rhetoric we have heard from Ruth Dyson and others about whether it is appropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities. Where was Ruth Dyson when the previous Minister of Health David Cunliffe sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Where was Ruth Dyson when Helen Clark sacked the entire Auckland District Health Board? The member said that it was not appropriate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You weren’t even here in Parliament. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So because I was not in Parliament it is not relevant? But it is OK for Helen Clark to sack a democratically elected district health board. In fact members opposite are playing silly politics in this regard. 
It is interesting to note that a former Labour Government in one Act of Parliament abolished 460 democratically elected bodies in one go—460 democratically elected councils in one go. So for Labour members to stand in this Parliament today and say that it is inappropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities is really an extraordinary claim for them to make. It really shows how shallow their arguments are in the Chamber this morning. 
I have a simple challenge for Labour members. All New Zealanders appreciate that we have a major problem with water management in Canterbury. This Government has responded with real leadership with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about how to fix that. My challenge to members in Labour is to ask what their response is. Their response in 9 years in Government was absolutely zip. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Have an election. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Darren Hughes says to have an election. Well he should look at this own comments. I will take Marian Hobbs for an example. Why was it that the previous Labour Government required special legislation to put in a water plan in the Waitaki? It was because Marian Hobbs told this Parliament—this was way back in 2003—that Environment Canterbury had failed to put in place the proper plans. If members opposite want to talk about democratic rights I ask them why it was appropriate in 2003 to pass a special bill through this Parliament to take away from the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury the right to do a Waitaki water plan. Why was that OK? If those members really believed in the absoluteness of democracy around regional councils why would that Government have ridden roughshod over those councillors? Do members know who wrote the regional plan? It was actually written by commissioners appointed by the then Minister for the Environment. 
So why was it OK for Labour when it was in Government to dismiss health boards and to go into urgency to pass special legislation about elections and commissioners in Rodney District? Why was it OK for Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Supported by National. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. National did support that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Except for it being in urgency. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Labour voted for the urgency motion. I noted before that I think it is somewhat contradictory and it shows the mess in the Labour Party that Labour voted for the urgency motion. But when National was in Opposition and was confronted with the problems— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I know that Part 1 is a wide-ranging debate and there is a lot of opportunity for Opposition calls but the Minister persists in this myth that the Labour Opposition voted for an urgency motion. That is simply not correct and it will lead to disorder if the Minister misrepresents the Opposition’s position on procedural matters. He is not helping the passage of his own legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I understand the member’s point. I think that it really falls into the realm of debate. There are some technical issues around how that vote was taken that make it a little bit difficult to exactly and precisely determine what the intention was because there was no party vote. But it is a matter of debate. OK? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have finished with that point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to make it a debating matter. It is a matter of record that at the time when the urgency motion was taken there was no vote. There was a consensus that the House moved into urgency. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: But that’s not voting “for”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I see. So we have this new rewriting of the rules which is so common with Labour— 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. If I understood the Minister he said that the vote was taken entirely by consensus on voices. That is incorrect. The Green Party registered “No” verbally. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I was in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I was sitting right up front and I listened very carefully. I heard that no voices were registered in opposition to the urgency motion. No party vote was sought. It has long been established in the practice of Parliament that if parties wish to register a vote against the motion they seek a party vote. That did not occur. The record shows that Parliament moved into urgency by consensus. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We now have two issues. One is the substantive point raised by Mr Graham. The second point is that the Minister in his response to the point of order has now accused the member of misleading the House and has not taken his word. Mr Graham said that on voices the Green Party voted a certain way. If the Minister persists in that accusation he is accusing the member of misleading the House. Both of those separate points lead to the point that if the Minister wants to get his legislation through in a rational logical calm and orderly way he would be best to focus on the debate of the substance in the bill rather than on the avenue that he is going down which will delay his own legislation. I hope he understands that very simple point I am trying to make to him. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise the point that Mr Hughes has said which is that by me pointing out exactly the events that occurred around the urgency motion the Labour Party approach is one of “Well we’re going to throw our toys out of the cot and not allow his legislation to be passed.” I do not think that that is an appropriate threat. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is a debating point. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a point of order Mr Chairman and we are having interjections. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Sorry I am actually trying to just sort my way through this process so I was probably a little bit inattentive. But members should not interject and should not make any contribution while we are hearing points of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My point of order was that the Opposition’s “junior leader of the House” Mr Darren Hughes has made the claim that my pointing out the events that occurred around the vote on the urgency motion will somehow stop the passage of the legislation through Parliament. I do not think that those sorts of threats are at all helpful to the orderly running of the Committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Minister’s contribution there is an exact example of what I am talking about. There are no threats being made; the Labour Opposition wants to debate the substance of the clauses in Part 1 of this bill. It is a pretty serious bill. It takes away the right of people to have an election for 3½ years so all parties think it is pretty serious. The point I am making to the Minister is that by his continual misrepresentation of what members have said including those as recently as in my last point of order just 45 seconds ago we have now stopped debating the legislation and we are heading down into a procedural wrangle because of the style and behaviour that he is undertaking. Labour wants to debate Part 1 of the bill. We want to engage with the Minister on that. We are glad that he is taking calls. I think we should be able to return to a debate on substance rather than have this sort of sideshow that seems to be going on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Let me just try to clarify the issue around the vote. If members look at Standing Order 136 they will see that it quite clearly outlines what happens. The Speaker at the time asked for the Ayes and for the Noes and it will be recorded in the  
Hansard 
 that the resolution was “The Ayes have it.” Any member at any stage can call for a party vote. That never happened. So what we simply have is a record which states that a resolution was passed by the Government. The record is not recorded as to which parties voted whichever way because no party vote was called for. So it is simply just a matter that the resolution was passed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a matter of debate; that is what the record actually shows. We will return to Part 1. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Forgive me I cannot recall whether it concerned Mr Graham or Mr Hughes but that was not the point of order that was being made. What you have said is not in dispute. The point of order that was being made—and the member has an absolute right to be taken at his word—was that the member said that his party indicated “No” by voice. I am not objecting to the record. The point of order is simply that there is an absolute and cast-iron rule as you would know Mr Assistant Chairperson in this Chamber that a member’s word cannot be questioned. But there is an absolute case that Dr Smith questioned the member’s word and in effect called him a liar— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No he questioned his word Mr Assistant Chairman and by questioning his word in effect without using the term he—and I understand the English language—implied that this member was not telling the truth. I invite you to rule on that; he questioned his word. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Righto I will rule. I did not take that inference whatsoever. That is why I have cleared up the matter of how the vote was taken. I say also that the point of order raised by Dr Kennedy Graham was not actually a point of order. But I have clarified the matter as to how the vote was taken and we will now return to the debate on Part 1. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I will speak shortly to some amendments I have proposed to Part 1 but first I will pick up on some of the comments that Dr Smith has made in the last little while. The idea is that there has been wide consultation on this issue including the councils of Canterbury. However last night a press statement from councillor Chrissie Williams of the Christchurch City Council said that the Mayor of Christchurch may have expressed his personal view but the Christchurch City Council has not discussed the Environment Canterbury review nor formed a view nor made any resolution or announcement on this issue. She acknowledges that Dr Smith went to see the council but there was no report no discussion or any decision made by the council on that matter. To suggest that there is some kind of support for this from the councils of Canterbury is as much a nonsense as saying that the councillors of Environment Canterbury themselves were consulted on this matter and agreed to the proposal to put them up against a wall and shoot them as this bill provides for. 
I will turn to the issue of precedent on this and the message that this has not been the first time that constitutionally elected democratically elected bodies have been overturned by Government announcement. There was also the reference to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board having been disenfranchised. I would like to report the comments from the MP for Napier Chris Tremain when that happened. He said on 4 March 2008: “people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. … Regardless of who is right or wrong I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people.” I hope Mr Tremain will stand up and take a call in respect of this bill doing the same thing to Environment Canterbury. 
Of course the member for Tukituki also had some concerns on the issue and commented that the people of Hawke’s Bay believed that their democratic process had been thrown out of the window; so I hope Mr Foss will stand up and take a call and express his outrage at this happening to the people of Canterbury because that would be appropriate and in line with what is required. 
I have proposed an amendment to clause 6 around changes in the bill to the rights of appeal on water conservation orders. We say in that amendment that the abrogation of appeal rights should end when Environment Canterbury is reinstalled. At the moment those issues of appeal are still in place beyond the time frame that this bill envisages. That is important because those are important democratic rights and they should not simply be left with the bill once Environment Canterbury is reinstated. 
That of course in itself is a moot point. I note the ministerial statements yesterday of Mr Hide and Dr Smith. Mr Hide said: “I am confident that by then”—by 2013—“Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.” That is all well and good even though it will be 3½ years before we start to see a return to democracy in terms of Environment Canterbury. Unfortunately that is not the line that Dr Smith is taking. He said in a press conference yesterday that no decisions had been made in terms of the new Canterbury water authority which was envisaged by the Creech report and that the Government wants to consider the conclusions of the Land and Water Forum which is due to report in July and then the work by the Environmental Protection Authority as well as further advice from the commission and officials around the whole issue of the governance of the region’s water. 
We do not have any clarity. We have one Minister saying in a press statement that he is looking forward to the return of Environment Canterbury by the time the 2013 local body elections are due to take place which means 3½ years without democratic function yet the other Minister is saying that that is not a certainty at all. That point highlights the fact that this bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is an abrogation of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is throwing away the democratically elected body that was put in place by the people of Canterbury to make decisions around the future of water. That is just not acceptable. 
I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than is provided for. We deserve to have this bill go to a select committee process for decision making not simply be put through the House under an urgency motion in order to do away with the chance for anybody to have any input into and any say on this legislation which I think will not be good legislation in terms of the long-term results for Canterbury or for New Zealand. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to speak on Part 1 because I am very concerned about comments that the Minister has made in response to some of the matters that have been raised. One of the things that is so frustrating about the process we are going through is that we were to get a briefing at 11 a.m.—the Minister was late so it was about 11.45 I think by the time he arrived—on a draft bill. Then the bill was introduced yesterday afternoon and of course today’s debate will show in  
Hansard 
 as being 30 March because of the rather quaint rules that we have around urgency even though everywhere else in the country it is 31 March. This bill will go through all of its stages on 30 March; that is how it will be recorded in  
Hansard 
. 
The problem I have with this process is that there has not been an opportunity for the broader engagement that one would expect. Even in the Rodney District Council case 80 submissions were heard. There were hearings there was public input and actually there was a good deal of consensus. We have already heard about that from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson in respect of both sides of the Chamber recognising what was in the best interests of the council and knowing that the council was only 18 months away from a local body election. In this case 6 months before an election we are told that another 3½ years have to go by where the democratic deficit is applied to the people of Canterbury. All I am saying to the Minister is that if he had actually met with the other parties in the House—and I know that he has preferred to meet with those that might have a support agreement with the Government—and if he had talked right across the board we could have worked through what was the best way to resolve this issue. 
The thing that will not get enough consideration and debate in this Committee unless we really go through it with a fine-tooth comb is the Wyatt Creech report. I was attacked by the Minister for the Environment for daring to suggest that the former Minister Wyatt Creech had a conflict of interest. He did have a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. Whether or not the conflict of interest is perceived or real it is still a conflict of interest. The Minister well knows that a conflict of interest whether or not it is perceived or real has to be notified. It has to be. A Minister even with a perceived conflict of interest has to withdraw from decision making to be on the safe side as the Minister well knows. 
What I want to say about the quality of this report is that it is not a robust report and I certainly would not want to have anyone in this country think for one minute that this is a sufficient quality of reporting for the kind of decision that this Parliament is being forced to make today. The reason that it is poor quality is that it is based so much on anecdote. There are several aspects of this report that I want to go through. The first is in relation to the complaints around the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury’s governance. 
Let me just read into the record the actual statement from the report: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that the councillors are so polarised at times that they are dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership and the council was too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to leading the Region. Our investigation did not bear this out.” Did anyone miss that? It stated: “Our investigation did not bear this out.” 
The report further states: “ECan is meeting its legal obligations under the LGA but has been unable to establish a firm planning environment which flows through to poor relationships and decisions under the RMA.” So it is the planning function. Who is responsible for the planning function—for employing the people who work in planning and consent? Let us go through that because that is the chief executive’s job not the job of the council. 
I will look at the section on the question of capability within Environment Canterbury itself in respect of staff. It is an entire section titled 3.1.3 “Staffing and use of resources. Leadership/Direction.” It states: “There is a lack of overall resource management content leadership within the Consenting Section. Senior management are not RMA experts and have backgrounds from outside the sector. Senior management are not able to provide leadership and direction on the RMA and the consenting functions—other than process components. This understanding of the RMA has been left to the third tier managers and team leaders some of whom have been in ECan for a long time and ‘do it how they have always done it’ (according to some internal staff and external people interviewed). This issue of leadership of the consenting function is significant and has had implications in terms of timeframe management as well as the quality of the consenting process.” 
Then the report goes on to talk about the nature of the consenting process as it was over 2 years ago. It completely fails to look at the rates of consenting that have been adopted since the time this report was referring to. Over and over again within this report it states “(according to some internal staff and external people interviewed)”. Those people are unnamed. Then there is a statement that in fact the comments are anecdotal and there is no evidence to back them up. Here is a really good one on “Relationships with applicants and submitters”. It states: “There is clearly a major perception gap between internal and external views of ECan. All external applicants spoken to raise concerns around perceived intransigence of staff to accept that decisions made by Hearings Commissioners/the Environment Court have set precedent. Concern was also expressed that processes are extremely slow and that if ECan ‘lose’ a case staff actively slow processes down and impose unworkable or impractical conditions (NB: this is anecdotal and we have not been provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion).” 
Then the report goes on to list common themes raised by external parties and what do we have? The report refers to “Intransigence when confronted with challenging situations ‘ECan not getting its own way and deliberately slowing processes down or reacting publicly’. Science led rather than science informed … Large numbers of staff are ‘green’ in orientation … A vacuum of economic social or cultural consideration …”. 
This report is outrageous. It would never ever withstand judicial review because the quality of the advice it gives is based almost entirely on anecdote. Let us go through a scenario. Let us say a National Party member of Parliament who is living in Timaru approaches the local Timaru mayor and says that the Government’s two Ministers would quite like to get stuck into Environment Canterbury and asks whether the mayor could arrange for the mayors to write a letter. So a letter is written to the Ministers but what is interesting about the letter that is written to the Ministers is that it completely breaches the process that has been agreed to between the mayoral forum and Environment Canterbury which is a heads-up no-surprises approach. Even that is mentioned in the report. The mayors did not bother to even consult with their own councils—not one. Environment Canterbury councillor Jo Kane did an Official Information Act request to all of the mayors and councils in the region and what did she find out? Not one of them had had it debated in their local councils. 
So we have the mayors making these decisions on their own behalf and not consulting with other elected people and what happens? The entire elected democratic function of our environmental regulator goes completely out the window. A lot of concerns have been raised about this. Jo Kane was interesting in the  
Timaru Herald 
 this morning. She said: “I feel like I have been on The Apprentice and Donald Trump has told me that I’m fired. Except this time it’s not Donald Trump it’s Rodney Hide and Nick Smith—or Jekyll and Hide as I like to call them.” 
The problem is that we saw this report coming to this Parliament by way of a letter from the Minister for the Environment just a couple of months ago. There was no engagement with the broader stakeholders. I think that 20 groups were consulted in the development of the Creech report. We certainly have not been consulted about our way forward. I do not know how long the Minister has spent with each individual council. I know that he visited the individual councils but it was not sufficient to be doing this. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First I agree entirely with Brendon Burns who said earlier that the regional council Environment Canterbury will not be reinstated. It is an open secret that this Government is trying to get rid of the regional councils in New Zealand; we know that. Getting rid of the regional council in Canterbury is just its first foray. I predict that that council will never be reinstated. This is the end of regional councils in Canterbury. We will never see a regional council in Canterbury again. 
All over the world it is common for dictatorships—it is their hallmark—that do not like what democratically elected representatives are trying to do to get rid of them. That is what happened in Fiji. Bainimarama did not like what some of his democratically elected representatives were doing so he got rid of them. That is exactly what has happened here. We have a coup d’état in Canterbury. I took the trouble to look up what the definition of a coup d’état is. It is the sudden unconstitutional getting rid of a Government usually by a small group within the existing Government. That is exactly what has happened here. It is a bloodless coup d’état. It has happened in a completely unconstitutional way through the actions of a small group within the existing Government using time-worn techniques. 
What are the time-worn techniques? First of all one goes about discrediting the democratically elected council. First the Minister for the Environment got the Creech report from Mr Creech who is one of the Minister’s mates. He is a former deputy leader of the National Party. Mr Creech dashed around Canterbury over a period of 3 weeks and interviewed 20 people. He came up with a report that seeks to discredit the regional council a democratically elected council; the report says it is so inefficient that we must get rid of it. Mr Creech tried desperately hard to say there was a statutory basis for dismissing the elected councillors but sadly for Mr Creech despite his very best efforts he was unable to find any statutory basis for dismissing them. In fact he was forced to conclude—poor man—despite his mission to utterly discredit Environment Canterbury that it was meeting its legal obligations under the Local Government Act. The report states that “the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.” So there was absolutely no statutory basis for getting rid of the council whatsoever. The Minister acknowledged when briefing us yesterday that he was not able to use the provisions of the Local Government Act to get rid of Environment Canterbury so he has had to have recourse to this legislation. 
The other point is that Cantabrians need to be aware of the bigger picture here. What we see is not just the hand of Nick Smith and the National Government but also the hand of Rodney Hide. What is ACT’s agenda? ACT’s agenda is quite explicit. Like all new-right Governments ACT members want to shrink democracy. They want to privatise and corporatise as many aspects of democracy as they can. They have done that with the governance of Auckland. They have produced a coup d’état in Auckland. They have corporatised Auckland. The situation in Canterbury is eerily similar. There is a pattern and now they have done it to Canterbury. It is the same sorts of time-worn techniques: discredit the council by saying there is a huge problem then summarily dismiss it without any statutory basis for doing so and replace it with hand-picked political appointees—and I can imagine who the rest of them might be. 
Cantabrians need to be aware that this move is part of ”Rogernomics Part 2”—and it is good to have Roger Douglas here listening to this because that is what it is all about. ACT realises that it is thwarted in this particular electoral cycle in its ambition to sell off the State-owned enterprises to privatise them at the governmental level. It is not able to do it in this term of Government. It will be done in the next term of Government if National is re-elected. So ACT has turned its attention to local government and that is where it is focusing “Rogernomics Part 2”. Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government is quietly going around New Zealand and getting rid of as much local government as possible. ACT has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland; now it is getting rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. What will be next? Where is the next excuse to get rid of yet another layer of democratically elected councillors and replace them— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh come on! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: This is exactly what the National Government has done. It is an indisputable fact. The Government has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland. Now it has got rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is an indisputable fact. And it has got rid of it by unconstitutional means. 
What really surprises me is that it has managed to fool many people in Canterbury just as it initially fooled many people in Auckland. Many of the mayors in Canterbury have gone along with it. All sorts of personal agendas are at stake. They have gone along with it in a cavalier fashion saying: “Oh who cares? We have just wiped out another layer of democracy. Who cares? It is just democracy.” Democracy is what our ancestors fought for and women fought for the vote. People all around the world are fighting for democracy but we have just cavalierly dismissed eight democratically elected councils in Auckland and now we are dismissing this council and the people of Canterbury are saying: “Oh well what does it matter? We’ll just replace them with some political appointees with some political hacks that will do the Government’s agenda. We’ll just get rid of the council—no problem.” But we will never get back that layer of democracy. 
The regional councillors were proving a bit inconvenient for the Government. They were not ramming through its agenda of getting hold of the water in Canterbury and building large irrigation dams. Because they were inconvenient they are to be wiped out and replaced by politically appointed commissioners so that the Government will be able to implement its agenda very explicitly without any obstacles. The Government goes around the world saying how terrible what has happened in Fiji is when exactly what has happened in Fiji is happening in Canterbury. It is happening with the passage of this bill. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Not true! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is exactly true. I guarantee that the people of Fiji will get to vote before the people of Canterbury ever get to vote for a regional council again. The people of Canterbury will not get to vote because the regional council will never be reinstated. The people of Canterbury need to wake up. This is the agenda. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. It is an agenda to wipe out layers of local democracy to privatise and corporatise the remainder of local government and to enable this Government to impose its will on the people of Canterbury. It is as I have said a coup d’état—an unconstitutional getting rid of a Government by a small group of people. That is the definition of a coup d’état. That is what this is. 
It was very interesting to see the letter from the people of Canterbury. It points out that there should be no taxation without representation. The letter refers to the “outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy”. In respect of replacing the councillors the writers of the letter say that if they are not going to have a voice in local government then they will not pay for it—they will not pay their rates. The letter states: “If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision makers then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision makers it chooses to put in their place.” That is what those people are intending to do. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to take my first call in respect of Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so very very happily because the people of my electorate have been asking for an improvement in Environment Canterbury for a hang of a long time—since before I was elected as the MP for Aoraki. I rise to my feet a little heavy in heart because the quality of this debate appals me. The absolute scaremongering with the talk of a coup d’état and the removal of democracy is a load of hogwash. This bill allows a return to elected councillors. 
Sue Kedgley 
: It’ll never happen. 
JO GOODHEW 
: We say it will and this bill allows for it either in 2013 or before 2013. It would be helpful to stick to the facts I say to Ms Kedgley—it would be helpful to stick to the facts. Let me give members some more facts. You see the people of my electorate have been complaining about Environment Canterbury’s inability to manage water from an environmental perspective a recreational perspective a cultural perspective and an economic perspective for far too long—far too long. Yet we have had consensus with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We have had groups getting together with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy yet there was no end in sight—none whatsoever—and no progress in sight. It was the inability of Environment Canterbury to perform its statutory duties in terms of managing the water of the region that has brought this bill about. 
I will pay tribute to some people. I pay tribute to Alec Neill because he has tried his damnedest to get things turned round and I feel we need to acknowledge that. It has not been enough; he has found himself unable to achieve the progress he wanted to. There has been improvement in respect of consenting but what the Opposition forgets to tell us is that the number of consents issued is hugely less anyway. Environment Canterbury has been dealing with about half the workload. Hello—90 percent for half the workload is still bad. I pay tribute to the regional councillors from my electorate Mark Oldfield and Angus McKay. Those guys have also tried their damnedest to address the concerns of their constituents within the region. But still tens of thousands of dollars later—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars later—people have got nowhere when it comes to the management of water in the region. 
Actually this bill is about making progress. It is a temporary measure—it even says that in the title. It is a temporary measure and it is here not before time. I will quickly read some of the reaction from around the region. One of the mayors in my former electorate Mackenzie District Mayor John O’Neill said it was: “a bold move which would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers.” So much for no consultation guys; it has happened. Those mayors have been out asking their people for years and years what they want to happen in a timelier and better way and they have said that Environment Canterbury should be made to do its job. A former Waitaki constituency councillor Dr June Slee said: “The community knew ECan wasn’t doing its job and this push for change was community-driven.” It is a shame that that same community appears to have been completely ignored by Opposition members in the House—completely and utterly ignored. It believes that its only community of interest is a small cohort that is anti the development of water and that does not seem to realise that the environmental standards of the water are also currently not being looked after well enough. 
So this bill is a way forward—a light into the future. We are very very positive that this is the best way to go. From my perspective a return to democracy in 2013—or before if at all possible—is certainly within the scope of this bill and I am sick of hearing that it is not. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I would also like to quote the  
Timaru Herald 
 this morning. A certain “Commodore Nick Smith” appears in this morning’s  
Timaru Herald 
 and I think there is a wonderful quote that needs to go into the record. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member opposite made a derogatory comment about the Minister in charge of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point of order is well made. Members are to use a respectful address. Members might have all sorts of titles but I do not see that one listed as Nick Smith’s title. The member will use a person’s correct form of address. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thought “Commodore” was very respectful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is very clear in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this House that members are not to comment on Speakers’ or Chairpersons’ rulings. Once the ruling has been made that is the end of it. If the member wishes to continue he can continue but if he makes a further reference to the ruling that has been made I will terminate his presentation. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The quote states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” That says it all. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment does not trust the people of Canterbury. He sacks the democratically elected members of the regional council because he is wary of the results of the elections. What does that tell members? He does not trust democracy and he does not trust the people of Canterbury. That says it all. 
I will talk about Part 1 and I will put forward an amendment but I will first touch on one of the aspects that I think is perhaps the most corrosive part of this Government’s affection for oligarchy and its distaste for democracy. When Wyatt Creech was appointed to do the report on Environment Canterbury it rang alarm bells immediately for the reasons that my colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined. The public of Canterbury and the public of New Zealand know well that National is hand in glove with the interests that are pushing and going hard out to free up irrigation and water storage in the interests of dairy farming. The Government knows that Ruth Richardson and Don Brash are directors of dairy companies in Canterbury and that they will be watching very very carefully to see who else is appointed as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. They know that this Government has form when it comes to abrogating democratic structures and undermining our democratic institutions and they know its preference for running our democratic institutions by putting its mates around the table so that it can run our country our cities and our resources in its own commercial interests. 
I have listened last night and this morning to member after member on the Government benches say that Labour members are getting hysterical and emotional about democracy. I make no apologies for being emotional about our country’s democratic institutions. They are the most precious asset we have in our political traditions and for this Government to ride roughshod over those democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its own way and run its own agenda is disgraceful. Colin King said last night that we were ranting and raving about the loss of democratic rights and that the only reason the Government is passing this bill today is because of dysfunction in the Canterbury Regional Council. Well where have we heard that before? Every tinpot dictator from Fiji to the Central African Republic has blamed dysfunctional institutions and squabbling politicians as they do away with democracy at the point of a gun. 
Nicky Wagner said: “I support this bill because water is a significant issue and we can do better.” Hello? The member should hold up the front page. That Canterbury MP is a disgrace for selling out the democratic rights of her electors in the community that she is supposed to be representing. 
There is something wrong with our democracy. There is something wrong with our democratic institutions when members of the governing party think it is OK to shelve our democracy and to shelve our democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its agenda through because “we can do better.” and because Environment Canterbury is “dysfunctional”. Well what will be next? What institution or part of the State will be next replaced by hand-picked commissioners? Which council will be next like the one in Auckland to be corporatised and have its assets and resources handed over to the hand-picked mates of the Government? I have put forward an amendment to Part 1 that I am calling the “second chance” amendment. It is a second chance for the Government to redeem its democratic credentials and step back from the precipice. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 The temperature forecast in Canterbury is 27 degrees and things are really starting to heat up. I noted that the member for Rangitata Jo Goodhew did not choose to deny comments from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about the fact that the criticism of Environment Canterbury from the mayors of Canterbury emerged following a conversation between that member and the Mayor of Timaru. Nothing was said in response to those points raised. Jo Goodhew went on to say that the bill allows for the return of Environment Canterbury by 2013 or before. She was very pointed on that issue when in fact as was made clear before the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment is saying that he is not sure that that will happen. He is still leaving open the idea of installing a regional water authority. 
Sue Kedgley is absolutely correct: this is the death knell of Environment Canterbury. There is no prospect of it ever being reinstated certainly not under this Government—not a chance. The member for Rangitata went on to say that Alec Neill had done a darn good job in trying to turn round Environment Canterbury. Alec Neill was actually the chairman of the consents committee for some years—the years in fact that the Government says that Environment Canterbury failed to deliver on the time frames necessary for meeting resource consents. I am sure Alec Neill tried to do his best in that job but he was stuck with the same problem that Environment Canterbury has had throughout and that is that it needed supporting legislation which this Government has failed to bring through and—I acknowledge—the previous Government failed to bring through in order to provide it with a better framework. I agree with that but this Minister has had nearly 18 months in office; he could have brought that forward or he could have brought forward the option that Alec Neill himself suggested which is that the commissioners work alongside the elected democratic representatives and implement the changes that are necessary. So there we go. 
I noticed also that tribute was paid by the member for Rangitata to councillors Mackay and Oldfield. I note that they were two of the four councillors whom I took to the Auditor-General last year and had a complaint upheld about in respect of conflicts of interest over water. The Minister accused me last night of attacking Environment Canterbury. Far from it; I just say that processes need to be clear and transparent and when people have conflicts of interest those conflicts need to be managed appropriately. But I tell members of the Committee that I would still rather have those four councillors and the other 10 councillors back in front of me as an elector in Canterbury in October than an appointed panel of commissioners whom Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will choose and ram down the throats of voters in Canterbury. That is what we are getting. That is absolutely what we are getting with this bill. 
Another allegation was that Labour is opposed to development. That is absolutely untrue; we want to see development. There was huge development in Canterbury over the 9 years we were in Government in respect of the use of water resources. We say that from now on we should make sure that the balance is there and that the environmental protections are there because no member opposite can pretend—and I challenge the Minister or another MP opposite to take a call on this issue—that the existing water quality in Canterbury is acceptable. Where in this bill is there anything about improving water quality? It is about new allocation of water in rapid fashion; it is not about improving water quality. 
I turn to clause 3 of the bill and note that the Minister could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions powers and duties of councillors in relation to water and have them work alongside the council certainly in respect of its other statutory responsibilities. But no the Minister—really Mr Hide—has chosen to go for the doctor and absolutely disestablish Environment Canterbury and we will not see it again. This is the end of Environment Canterbury. 
I note further also as Dr Bryan Jenkins said on  
Morning Report 
 this morning that Environment Canterbury has been asking for additional powers for the last 4 years. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I acknowledge that we could have done it; we should have done it. I acknowledge that point but where is this Government—the Government of action supposedly? Where has its response been on that? Where has its delivery been on that point? It has not happened. 
The other point I would like to make is that the commitment of the Government in this bill to the  
Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework 
 is shallow rather than substantive. It does not take regard of the vision and principles of the strategy a very good document and an agreed document from my region of Canterbury. It is not being enshrined in this bill; it is simply referred to in terms of the vision and principles. There is no requirement in this bill to put the terms of the document into practice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith I just want to say that I did not pay anybody. When members are interjecting they should interject in the third person. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There have been many quite hysterical claims of conspiracies and the like and I think it would be worthwhile simply to put on the record a few of the basic facts that give a background to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. 
You see both Labour and Green members have established that this bill is a very sophisticated conspiracy; that the Government has engineered a whole lot of groups to be anti - Environment Canterbury to enable this bill to be passed. Well the first thing I would like to ask those members is whether they really believe that National members in Opposition were able to manipulate the respected staff of the Ministry for the Environment so that when they wrote their briefing to the incoming Government they raised very serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. That is an extraordinary claim and I ask members to respond to it.  
Secondly I point to the Environment Court decisions and the decisions of independent commissioners who have raised serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. Are members opposite really claiming that somehow through this Roger Douglas - driven conspiracy we have been able to manipulate the decisions of independent commissioners and the Environment Court to make critical comments about Environment Canterbury? So great is the conspiracy that somehow we have got Trevor Mallard into it as well because Trevor Mallard is on the public record as saying very clearly that Environment Canterbury was in serious trouble. He knew that when he was Minister. He went— 
Hon Member 
: Has anything changed since then? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What he said was: “I went to the Prime Minister suggested we take action and the Prime Minister said it would be politically difficult.” The fact that Mr Mallard went to the Prime Minister says that in his conscience he knew he had a genuine problem but he did not for political reasons have the courage to address the significant issues in Canterbury. 
I also challenge members of the Opposition particularly Mr Brendon Burns who say that absolutely nothing in this bill deals with issues of water quality or some of the other very real issues in Canterbury. I refer the member to the many pages of schedule 1 of the bill that state what the commissioners are required to have regard to in their decision making. They make absolute reference to issues of water quality to drinking-water standards to the very essence of indigenous biodiversity and to a whole range of other key environmental factors that we are putting into law today to make progress on water management. 
I was amused by the contribution from Mr Phil Twyford. He says that the changes that are occurring in Auckland are all part of a right-wing conspiracy. Well that is interesting. I thought that they came from a royal commission report. I ask Mr Twyford whether he knows who commissioned the royal commission report. It was the previous Labour Government. These conspiracy theories that somehow National had control of the previous Labour Cabinet and somehow National organised a royal commission to write a report to provide for the introduction of the super-city in Auckland expose the lightweight contributions that we have had from Labour members. They are hiding behind shadows and trying to find conspiracies. 
The issue is very simple: we have a problem with water management in Canterbury. It is a longstanding problem. It has required addressing for years. I acknowledge Mr Brendon Burns for at least acknowledging that the previous Labour Government failed to address these issues. It is time for leadership on water management in Canterbury and that is what is appropriately provided for in this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I think that the speech that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment has just given confirms that this is not about caring for Canterbury’s water. It is not about caring for our natural resources looking to the future or having a democratic base for our decision making in respect of our environmental concerns. It is all about politics. 
Mr Chair does a Minister not have to be in the chair during the Committee stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not going to be as difficult as that if the Minister wants to get a glass of water. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is all right; the Minister is able to resume his seat. I think it is a great tragedy— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: After all this is about water is it not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —and that is a tragedy too—when we have such an important issue as the future of Canterbury’s water management that the Minister has decided to play pure politics on the basis of this short period in his life—admittedly not as short as the period of his life when he served as deputy leader of his party—when he has the responsibility of being the Minister for the Environment. 
I was very interested in the contribution from the member of Parliament for Rangitata Jo Goodhew. She was deeply offensive before she took a call when making comments about Jo Kane an elected regional councillor. Frankly I do not think it is appropriate to make derogatory comments about elected members when they are not able to have a right of reply in this House. She talked about how hard Alec Neill had worked. Alec Neill used to be a National member of Parliament but he did not last very long in this House. He seemed to come and go as part of a revolving-door syndrome. He has just been elected as the chair of Environment Canterbury. I ask members what his own party has done to him. It has sacked him. He is a National Party member and a former member of this House and National has just sacked him. 
An article in today’s  
Timaru Herald 
 states: “Chairman Alec Neill said he was hugely disappointed with the Government’s decision.” Those are pretty strong words from Alec Neill. The article went on to state: “ ‘A council is elected for three years’ he said. ‘These changes will put through six or seven commissioners who are appointed by the Government and who have no democratic accountability.’ ” and that is the point. This is about a democratic right that we as residents in Canterbury have to elect our regional councillors who will manage the issues they are mandated to manage. 
In his contribution the Minister made a lot of play about how we are at last going to have the statutory ability to manage Canterbury’s water. In this very part we are debating Part 1 which includes the purpose clause of the bill the Minister makes a fantastic commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy by requiring in the law for commissioners to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is about as motherhood and apple pie as we can get. Where is the statutory base for the operationalising of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy? Where is it in the purpose clause of the bill? To have appointed commissioners who will have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will not progress that strategy forward one step yet the Minister says that that is what it is all about. He said Labour had years and years in Government but was not able to enact provisions. Now his big chance has come but he has stuffed it up big time. 
There is not one word in this law about a statutory requirement for the committees. There is not one word in the purpose clause clause 3 about there being a requirement to implement the strategy. Perhaps that is because the strategy is still out for public comment. If he chose to the Minister could make a reasonable excuse like that for this inability to deliver on a statutory provision for the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That would be a good one and I give the Minister the opportunity to use that as an excuse. He could say: “On completion of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy it will be implemented.” and he could outline the provisions. Nowhere in this bill are the people of Canterbury given any more security about the future of their water than we had last week. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I want to systematically address at least two clauses in Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and offer some comments. 
When I look at clause 3 of Part 1 of the bill I see that the purpose of the bill is to: “provide for the replacement of the elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners who will act as the Council’s governing body until new elected members come into office following the next election;”. The Minister for the Environment could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions powers and duties of councillors in relation to water if that was the Government’s main concern. That would have allowed democratic governance to continue in relation to the council’s other statutory responsibilities particularly public passenger transport and air quality where it has led New Zealand and also regional land transport coordination and planning and pest control and biosecurity. 
I mentioned yesterday in the second reading that the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils are far wider than the excessively narrow focus that was brought to bear in the Creech report upon the alleged imperfections of the Canterbury Regional Council. It could have been done another way. It could have been done in a way that met the stated concerns that are generally shared pertaining to water management. It is not perfect; it has not been perfect. But the overriding principle of local democracy in New Zealand could have been respected at the same time. The principle of democracy cannot be blithely calibrated according to other concerns including economic growth irrigation and the expansion of dairy. Democracy is a principle that has its own intrinsic merit. It is not calibrated or qualified in any way by anything but this Government has proceeded to do so. 
I look at clause 3(b) and see that the second purpose of the bill is to “provide the Council with certain powers … relevant to the … management of fresh water”. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins confirmed on  
Morning Report  
today Environment Canterbury first requested additional powers in relation to at-risk catchments and aquifers where the allocation is at or over sustainability limits. He did that 4 years ago yet the Ministry for the Environment has been deaf to requests for improvement of the Resource Management Act such as the provision for catchment-specific moratoria. The Government’s commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy as a way forward comes across as rather shallow and not substantive in this respect. Those provisions require the commissioner to have particular regard to “the vision and the principles” of the strategy; this is motherhood and apple pie. The substance of the strategy is in the targets. They have been revised with involvement from stakeholders since the strategy was released last November and it is now out for public comment. 
Simply having regard to the vision and principles is not what Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering committee have sought in terms of mandating legislation. They have sought that the Resource Management Act be amended so that decision makers give weight to the regional and zone implementation programmes to be developed by the stakeholder committees in each of the 10 water management zones across the region. These implementation programmes will put the strategy vision principles and targets into practice—it could have been done that way. 
Finally I look at clause 4 which is the interpretation. There is a so-called definition of “Environment Canterbury” in this clause. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill outlines the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of the bill is to empower the Government to rapidly address issues of the Canterbury Regional Council and to provide the commissioners with the necessary powers. It talks about giving the power to this Government and I have no doubt that what this Government is about to do is sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister but there are two Ministers responsible for driving this particular issue the Hon Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide. The ordinary citizen would be thinking that this is illegal. The removal of 14 officials who were elected by the 500000-plus people of Canterbury—and these councillors are significant citizens of Canterbury—would be illegal other than for this bill. Am I correct? This bill legalises the removal of 14 elected representatives of the 500000-plus people of Canterbury which under normal circumstances is an illegal act. But it has been made legal by the rushing through of this bill. 
National’s decision to replace Environment Canterbury with Government-appointed commissioners for the next 3 ½ years is an outrageous affront to democracy. Any way you cut it it is an affront to democracy. My colleagues are correct when they say that this is deliberate on the part of the Government. It is also a message that the Government does not care about democratic processes. I have to say that the people of Canterbury would be asking themselves what this says about their representatives. They are not insignificant individuals. They are significant members of their community. They are Alec Neill the chairman of the council who represents the Christchurch West constituency; Angus McKay who represents the Rakaia constituency; Professor Bob Kirk who represents the Christchurch South constituency; Bronwen Murray who represents the Christchurch North constituency; David Sutherland who represents the Christchurch East constituency; and Carole Evans Eugenie Sage Jo Kane Jane Demeter Mark Oldfield Sir Kerry Burke Pat Harrow Rik Tindall and Ross Little. My point is that they are not insignificant people. They represent the community they were elected by Canterbury and now they have been removed. Canterbury has been told it will not hold elections this year. It has to wait. That is all because the Government has seized the power in wanting to make its own decisions and has forced its decisions upon the people of Canterbury. 
What do the local people think about it? I have heard councillor Chrissie Williams who said that “Minister Nick Smith made a brief appearance at the Council meeting on 11 March at which Councillors were able to ask questions but there was no report discussion or decision by the council. He has not met with us at any other time. The Christchurch City Council does not have a view on whether intervention was required and has certainly not supported the intervention handed down by the Minister today.” To rush through a bill to take powers away from elected representatives and to give those powers and more to a group of appointed commissioners is a kick to the heart of democracy in this country. Is that not what they are doing? That is what this bill is about. 
I will read something else from councillor Eugenie Sage: “Sacking councillors would deny 500000 Canterbury citizens their elected voice in water management.” 
Paul Quinn 
: Another poodle. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: That is what those members might think but these people were elected. They were elected; they were not imposed upon the people. The people of Canterbury elected them through democratic process. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Mr Chair I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is That the question be now put. 
Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it. Clerk would you please conduct a party vote. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: An hour and a half on a Part that has never been to a select committee and was introduced under urgency. An hour and a half—that’s ridiculous. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair I seek your guidance in reminding the member opposite that the vote is held in silence. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In the spirit of collegiality I give advice to the junior whip that when her member moves a closure motion she should simply put those words. We can be petty and pedantic if she likes. I did not pull the member up on it because she moved it and it was clear what her intention was but it was not within the Standing Orders. If the junior whip wants to behave in that way we can go toe for toe; otherwise we can just have the vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think that is a draw. I will ask the Clerk to continue the vote in silence—well not the Clerk. Members will hear the call and so on in silence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause 1(c) “except sections 52 to 55 and 60”; and 
to omit from subclause 1(d) “except sections 64 to 69”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6AIndependent review 
(1)The Minister shall immediately appoint a review authority to review consider and report on the performance of ECan in respect of its management of fresh water in the Canterbury region. 
(2)The review authority shall be appointed by notice in the  
Gazette 
 and a copy of that notice shall be sent to ECan. 
(3)Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies with any necessary modifications to the review authority and the review. 
(4)In addition to any remedies in Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister of Local Government may on the recommendation of the review authority issue an Order in Council bringing Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act into force. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to Part 2 but before we take any bidders on it I advise the Committee that we had 2 hours of debate on the previous part and many of the speeches went well outside of what would normally be acceptable in a Committee stage speech. Many of them were second reading speeches. We have ranged far and wide. The Chair is prepared to be quite liberal about that because the point has been made that the bill has not been to a select committee. But members should focus their attention on the fact that this is the Committee stage we are dealing with the nuts and bolts and the debate is on Part 2 not Part 3. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You anticipated part of my point of order which was that we spent roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes on Part 1 25 minutes of which were taken up by the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment—which is great because we want to be engaging with him on the issue. The point I make about that is that the Minister is intimately involved in this legislation. He wrote it he has seen it he has had a chance to take it through Cabinet processes and he has had the benefit of his officials’ advice on it. The problem that the Opposition has is that we have not had that luxury of having seen the bill beforehand. The bill was introduced under urgency. Mr Chairperson your reference to it not having gone to a select committee is true; there has been no chance for public submissions. But the fact that it was introduced under urgency means that we did not get a chance even to read it before we started to debate it. There are Speakers’ rulings that give members a little more leeway when they are debating a bill part by part under urgency in the Committee of the whole House and there has not been the chance for them to do research and prepare for the debate in the way that they might ordinarily have expected to do. 
I guess my two points are that one the reason that we opposed closure was that we did not feel that there had been enough time for us to debate Part 1 and the Minister has been contributing a lot and that of course extended the time of the debate. By definition if a debate goes for a length of time the Minister’s contributing will reduce the amount of time available to the Opposition to speak on a bill that was sight unseen until the debate started. The second point is about members’ being given leeway for the fact that they have not been briefed on the legislation and are not in a position to restrict every single comment they want to make to a particular clause in a part. Members are trying their best to do that but I think that point has to be taken into account in the absence of a select committee process and in the absence of the bill being laid on the Table for 3 days beforehand. Mr Chairperson had that happened had that process been followed you would be absolutely correct in asserting that members should follow to the letter the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in this respect but that is not able to happen because the bill was dropped on Opposition members. We are trying to construct our arguments as best we are able given the limited amount of time we have had. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I would like it to be understood that I for one had a few points left pertaining specifically to Part 1. I was going through it clause by clause and I had a little bit left that I wanted to put into the debate. Mr Chairperson I ask your indulgence that either we return to Part 1 or in the debate on Part 2 I am free to return to one or two clauses in Part 1 to register my points. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to that member. I noted that in his presentation to the Committee he focused specifically on the bill clause by clause and I was going to commend him for being one of the few speakers who did that and extrapolated wider points. I thought that was very good. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that yes he is correct; generally there is latitude and a wider brief is given when a bill has not been referred to a select committee. The point I would make to him in rebuttal is that we were debating Part 1 which is a very technical part. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The purpose. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The purpose yes. I have read the purpose clause and a lot of it is very technical. Part 2 is quite substantial and I expect the Chair to be more cognisant of the fact that there is a wider range of issues on that point. I also make the point that speakers referred to Part 3 very often; that was a substantial part of the debate. Had they done so in passing there would have been no problem. I just make the point that we have had a little dispute about the hours but we are going to continue the discussion and we will now focus on Part 2. No doubt there will be a focused and wide-ranging debate as people want within that context with some generosity on the Chair’s part. 
Part 2 Replacement of governing body of ECan 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill provides for the appointment of commissioners for the important functions in Canterbury. I point out specifically such provisions as clause 21 which puts quite onerous consultation requirements on the commissioners. 
The main reason I take a call is to engage with Kennedy Graham who made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of the commissioners and their functions. He rightly pointed out that under the Resource Management Act I as the Minister for the Environment have the power under section 25(1) to appoint commissioners to take over all or some of the resource management functions. I also endorse the remarks made by the member that the Government’s real concerns—and I think they are widely held—are around water management in Canterbury. We have a big challenge there. 
He asked why the Government has chosen not to use those section 25(1) powers and appoint commissioners to get on top of those issues in the area of water rather than use the provisions that are in Part 2 whereby the commissioners will take over all of the functions of Environment Canterbury. That is a good question and I will respond to it. The great difficulty is that if I use those powers effectively I will have a set of commissioners in charge of Environment Canterbury as well as the elected council. My advice and the advice from Environment Canterbury itself was that it would be very difficult to splice out of Environment Canterbury these all-important water functions. We could end up in the worst world which is almost a two-headed monster. Nobody would be sure who was in charge. 
If there is agreement on anything around the water issues in Canterbury I think it is that clear and strategic leadership is required. I am not satisfied nor were the key parties that I consulted that using those section 25(1) powers—for which the threshold to use them has clearly been met—would get us on top of the issue. In fact it would make it worse. But I equally challenge Kennedy Graham in this respect. He and his colleague Sue Kedgley have given an impassioned plea that it is an affront to democracy to have these commissioners. Yet in his speech he said it would be fine for me to use my powers to appoint commissioners to take over the water functions. There is a logical inconsistency there. He says that it is OK for the Minister to use powers provided for in law at the moment for those commissioners to take over the most contentious and difficult issues in Canterbury which concern water. He would support that and he would recognise that it was a good step forward. Yet he says that to do it this way is wrong. I think there is a serious logical inconsistency in the Greens’ position in that regard. 
As Rodney Hide said yesterday the Government has taken these provisions reluctantly. But this is the right way forward. I say to members— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s exactly what the Minister wanted. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel has interjected. It is always interesting that when one cannot play the ball one plays the man. When Labour members cannot respond to the substantive issues they choose to go into the area of personal denigration. Whether it be in terms of— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: About whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For instance Wyatt Creech. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What did I say? I said he had a conflict of interest that’s all. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members went a lot further than that. I point out to the ranting members of the Labour Party that this report has been prepared by four people: Wyatt Creech Doug Martin of MartinJenkins Greg Hill and Doug Low of Morrison Low. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who was the leader of the group? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The chair was Wyatt Creech. Did members on our side of the Chamber choose to be heavily party political when Mike Moore was appointed to roles when Helen Clark was appointed to roles and when a whole number of former Labour MPs have been appointed to roles? I really think it says something about the quality of the roles from members on Labour’s benches that they want to play the personality game. They play the personality game because they are not prepared to confront the substantive issues. Those substantive issues are that we need clear direction from Government around water management. The provisions in this part show this Government providing something that has been required for many many years: clear leadership around water management. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak to Part 2. Before I do so I would like to note an issue that has come to my attention that relates to the bill in its entirety. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment I will refer to the title. The title of the bill is the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The advice to me is that Environment Canterbury is in fact the regional council’s trading name; it is not its legal identity. The legal identity for this organisation is the Canterbury Regional Council. I put it to the Committee and the Minister that this bill is inappropriately named. At the very least this is sloppy drafting but I suspect— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2. There is a debate very specifically on the short title of the bill. The procedure is long established that we debate Parts 1 2 and 3 and then the last debate is on the short title. I would welcome a debate around the points the member has raised but they are outside the debate on Part 2 that the Committee is currently having. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I understand the Minister’s point but my concern in the earlier point of order was that I wished to address that point under Part 1 pertaining to clause 4 and was denied the chance to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any further assistance. I say to the Minister that I think he is unnecessarily finessing the point. As I understood it Brendon Burns was referring to the title because it related to aspects of Part 2 which he is perfectly entitled to do. Yes he can talk about the title and so on later but he was addressing it in the context of Part 2. I invite Brendon Burns to continue. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am of course talking about Part 2 of a bill entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We know from that title that there are questions around what the bill will do in terms of temporary commissioners what the bill might or might not do to improve water management and now we have serious questions about whether the bill is legally appropriate. I will move from that point but we will come back to that issue in the debate on the short title a little later. 
I note clause 12 and I say I have amendments in my name to the clauses within this part relating to the appointment of commissioners. The provisions in these clauses will give powers to the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment to amend the terms of reference for those commissioners “at any time”. That removes any scrutiny by Parliament or by any other body and it removes any input from the people whose affairs are being managed by the commissioners. I put it to the Minister who indicated there will be from five to seven commissioners that if one or more of them starts to take a line that is deemed to be unacceptable to the Government the Government will have the power to remove them again without any reference. That reinforces the autocratic—the Fijian—style of decision making that this bill embodies. It gives absolute power to the Government to remove commissioners who do not toe the line. It gives back to the Government absolute power in respect of all of the decisions around Canterbury not just in terms of its water but in terms of all of the functions that Environment Canterbury currently has and holds. Those are important functions and they are not just limited to water. 
We have for instance starting in 2 days’ time an absolute ban on open fires being put in place across Christchurch. That will now become the function of commissioners. I say that Environment Canterbury has broadly done a very good job of improving the air quality of Canterbury under the way that those councillors are elected as opposed to commissioners which Part 2 proposes to install. Will the commissioners continue to do the good job that Environment Canterbury has done in terms of improving the air quality of Christchurch from the point where it was the worst in New Zealand and arguably in parts of the Western World to being a city with a very good air quality? 
There are real questions around the capacity of the commissioners to do the job envisaged for them when the Ministers have an absolute right to remove them from office or to change the terms of reference and there will not be any scrutiny of that power. Those amendments can happen at any time by executive fiat by ministerial decree without any reference or even notification to Parliament or to the people of Canterbury 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s better; very nice. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Part 2 absolutely enshrines the power being put in a very small set of hands. Mr Quinn might like to see that kind of thing happen and maybe his area of the Hutt Valley will be next to have this kind of situation imposed upon it—on its voters and its people. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Auckland was first. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: If Auckland was first and Canterbury is to be second you can bet your life that Wellington will be next in line— 
Paul Quinn 
: Aw! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Wellington will be next in line and if it happens in the same way that it has happened in Canterbury Mr Quinn will not be pleased although he might maintain a public face. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 First off in speaking to Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill I make one comment in response to the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith which he addressed to me. Then I hope I will have a chance later to make further comments on Part 2. I was just about to say how regrettable it was that the Minister had left the Chamber so it is very good to have him back because we can engage in a dialogue on this I think. In response to the Minister who believed that he had detected an illogicality in what I had been saying I reassure him that— 
David Garrett 
: Surely not! 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: No I think not. I thank the member for that. As far as I can determine the Green Party does not have an illogical position. Our position is this as I was saying at the time that I spoke to Part 1. Responding to the bill as it is drafted and understanding the intention of the Government—and particularly the Minister—to clear up water management as it sees best there could have been another way. There could have been a way that a particular commission could have handled water and the councillors could have continued. That was one of the recommendations was it not? I understand from the Minister’s intervention the reasons why he did not proceed down that route. I do not necessarily agree but I understand why he did not do it. It is not an illogicality on our part to seek to offer the possibility of another way to go. 
It is not the Green Party’s preferred way but it is not the case that there would necessarily be confusion between a commission and the councillors. Dear Lord we have a New Zealand Cabinet with 20 or 22 portfolios! They are delineated; to some extent they overlap. We understand there has to be give and take between Cabinet Ministers in Cabinet. It does not follow that there is chaos and confusion reigning supreme. It would not necessarily follow with Environment Canterbury either. 
But the main point is that if we are looking at the logicality of the Green Party’s position it is this: the Government should never have gone down the route of disbanding an elected regional council because that strikes at the heart of local democracy. If a Government does that it unleashes a tiger especially in a country as I said in the second reading debate where our constitution is more fragile than we like to acknowledge. The Green Party would have preferred the council to have continued as the elected body with its proper mandate for the proper term. 
How might we have cleared up the imperfections of water management? We would have given the council the extra powers that the Government is now giving to an non-appointed body that at least the chief executive and the council I believe had requested 4 years ago. [ 
Interruption 
] It is the height of illogicality if we are addressing the point of illogicality I say to Mr Garrett that the Government should proceed to disband a council then set up an unelected body and give it the powers that the council should have had in the first place. So our point is that the Government should never have gone down this route in the first place. If there were major problems of water management it could have appointed advisers—Dame Bazley or others—to assist and it could have given the council the powers to do the job. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. I am rather concerned about the way the Government has referred to some of its own actions in the past—or some of our actions in the past—without mentioning the most obvious one. 
Part 2 goes through the technical details of the replacement of Environment Canterbury. I will talk about the amount of notice essentially that people are being given in respect of what is happening with their roles. We got about a month’s notice to the elected members of Environment Canterbury which reminds me of the approach that an earlier National Government took when it sacked overnight every member of every area health board during the urgency that followed the Budget that even the then Minister of Finance described as the “mother of all Budgets”. I was in Parliament at that time and I recall the debate incredibly clearly because I knew people who were on area health boards across the political spectrum from a range of different political backgrounds. Many of them had budgeted for the fact that they were undertaking that work as elected members of the area health board. They had no idea that this was going to happen and as a result a number of people had resigned permanent positions and full-time jobs in order to devote their energy and attention to their work on the area health board. Then completely out of the blue they were all sacked. 
There was the rather strange situation where the Government of the day and the Hon Simon Upton—I remember this as if it were yesterday because I feel a sense of déjà vu with what is happening here—at the same time as the 1991 Budget released a green and white paper on health that signalled the most radical reform in health this country had ever seen. Before the consultation had even begun National had decided that elected members would have no part in the future of New Zealand’s health system. 
It is a bit ironic really—we are not allowed to use other words in this Chamber—that we heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith ask the Hon Ruth Dyson and myself where we were when Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board. We said that we were not in Parliament. He said that it was not relevant because anything that happened before one arrived in this Parliament did not count. He asked us where we were. Well we were not here so I do not know what sort of answer he expected to elicit from that response. He was not in Parliament either because he was elected the same year I was and probably recalls these debates very very clearly as well. That was the longest period of time that Parliament had been in urgency. In fact we were called back the following Monday and it was the first time since the Second World War that Parliament had sat on a Monday. So we have had this situation before. 
How is this relevant to Part 2? I refer members to clause 9 “Elected members cease to hold office on close of day before replacement day”. It states that “(1) On the close of the day before the replacement day the elected members of ECan then holding office (the ‘elected members’) cease to hold office. (2) This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say. (3) An elected member is not entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office.” That is pretty much exactly the clause that went into the health amendments that came around during the course of the urgency debate after the 1991 Budget was presented to Parliament. An elected member’s not being entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office caused problems from one end of the country to the other. People had relied on having an income from the role they had been playing on their district health board. I am not sure of the circumstances of the individual members of Environment Canterbury but to get 1 month’s notice that the position they have been democratically elected to hold is being cancelled cannot be anything other than a breach of natural justice. It is important that we debate these issues because people’s interests are being affected by the way this legislation is being worked through. 
We come to the question of timing. What timing does this bill sets out? It states: “The responsible Ministers”—well “The irresponsible Ministers” might have been a good amendment for that clause—“must determine the replacement day and give notice of it—(a) in the  
Gazette 
; and (b) to the elected members of ECan.” We heard from the Minister yesterday that we are looking at 1 May for the replacement day. That is kind of an ironic day because of course it is International Workers’ Day. Although these people are not employees of Environment Canterbury in any way shape or form they might have made commitments based on the income they have been receiving. That does not seem to faze the Minister whatsoever. In fact as I understand it the Government will pay the commissioners significantly more than Environment Canterbury councillors are being paid because they will be employed on a commission as opposed to being elected to represent the democratic interests of the Canterbury region. 
I will also talk about the timing in terms of how long this measure lasts for. The 2010 election for members of Environment Canterbury is deferred by clause 22 and members of Environment Canterbury elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day. The resumption day—that was the word I was looking for—relates to the period at which this measure is overturned or the 2013 election of local bodies whichever comes first. The problem is that I suspect the reason for this time frame is that the Government has decided to defer the decision it has already made to cancel regional government in Canterbury and I personally believe to cancel regional Government across New Zealand as we saw with the super-city in Auckland. This is really a forerunner to what is about to happen right across the country. 
The Government does not want that to be an election issue next year for the general election and I believe that is why this particular process has been chosen. If we honestly took this bill out to a broad consultative process that included this bill’s going to a select committee those councillors who put themselves up for election could have their say. Whether I agree with their politics or not I admire people who are prepared to put themselves forward for some of these roles. Sometimes performing a role for Environment Canterbury can be a bit of a thankless task. It has a reputation—a lot of anecdote has driven the report as I have already referred to once in this Chamber—and that makes it hard for people to take on these particular roles. In this particular case the Government has not allowed those people to have a public say. They should be able to be held to account within their own constituencies. A select committee should be meeting down in Canterbury now and travelling throughout the region letting those who stood for election and who were successful in that regard have their say about what has really gone on in this particular case. Maybe the individual councils could be asked to debate the issues as councils rather than the mayors and chief executives being the only ones who are entitled to express an opinion in respect of what is appropriate in terms of our regional democracy. 
That is what I keep coming back to. I honestly believe that the Government has deliberately made this decision at this time. It has used the urgency motion cloaked the bill in secrecy up until this point and simply allowed for a ramming through of a process that destroys regional democracy in the Canterbury region. I believe that this is a promise of things to come and that this Government has made a decision. Unfortunately the Minister of Local Government has not yet taken a call on this bill today. I am hoping that he will get up and take a call on it because it is vitally important to democracy in New Zealand. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The previous Chairperson the Hon Rick Barker asked us to be very focused in our comments on this part and it is extremely easy to be focused on Part 2 because it is the heart of the bill. This is where the coup d’état takes place. Part 2 is called “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. This is where we strip the 14 democratically elected councillors of their powers. As a previous speaker has pointed out it would be an illegal act to do so because there is no statutory basis for doing so. This bill is making legal what would be an illegal act: namely replacing the 14 democratically elected councillors of Canterbury. 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Some of my National colleagues are saying “Rubbish” but that is the truth. The Minister acknowledged yesterday in a briefing to Opposition members that there was no statutory basis to get rid of these 14 democratically elected councillors so he had to use this bill to do it. 
The other extraordinary thing about this part is that it gives the politically appointed commissioners who will be there to implement the will of the Minister the powers that the democratically elected councillors have been begging for for years. What is also extremely interesting in this part is that the terms of reference for the commissioners are not in this bill. This is the critical thing: what will their terms of reference be? What will they be up to? It is not spelt out. It is just left to the Minister after the bill has been rammed through Parliament to decide on the terms of reference. The reason is that he does not want us or the people of Canterbury to know ahead of time what the terms of reference will be. 
As the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has said this is a bill to fast track the building of dams in Canterbury. That is what it is all about. I predict that one of the terms of reference will be to facilitate the building of dams in Canterbury. By giving terms of reference such as these the two Ministers will basically be able to implement their agenda. I make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this bill and the replacement of the democratically elected councillors with commissioners is to ram through the building of dams. The councillors were sacked basically because they were getting in the way of agribusiness and irrigation companies. They were annoyed because Environment Canterbury was getting in the way. It was stopping some of their big water projects. Just as Bainimarama found that democracy was an obstacle to the implementation of his plans in Fiji this Government has also found that the democratically elected councillors were an obstacle in the way of implementing their irrigation plans so it has abolished democracy in Canterbury. 
The other thing of course is that at any time the Minister for the Environment may amend the terms of reference for the commissioners. At any time with no reference to democracy or to this Parliament the Minister can change the terms of reference for the commissioners. If the commissioners do not do exactly the Minister’s bidding then they can be got rid of under the provisions in this part of the bill. They can be dispensed with if for any reason they do not completely implement the Minister’s agenda. 
The Minister accused us all of being hysterical in his earlier intervention. That is the Government’s favourite word. It said that Opposition members are hysterical over mining they are hysterical over this bill and they are hysterical in everything that they do. The Government must think that everyone in New Zealand is hysterical. But we are not hysterical—we are simply angry. Did the Minister really expect us to sit politely by to yawn and to say: “Oh well never mind. We are just getting rid of another layer of democracy in New Zealand.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to make only a very brief contribution on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill but I was very taken aback by the words of wisdom from Sue Kedgley who has just resumed her seat. She said that this bill is so outrageous that it makes legal what would otherwise be illegal. Well I have to advise the member that actually every single bill this Parliament passes is intended to make legal what would otherwise be illegal. I advise the member that that is the very business of this Parliament. Her words of outrage saying that things would be illegal if we did not pass this bill were quite an extraordinary contribution. 
The second point I challenge the member on is her comment that the whole of the Government’s agenda is about Environment Canterbury’s stopping big projects in Canterbury from happening. Well I ask the member which big projects she is talking about and what is stopping them. The truth is that Environment Canterbury has no plans for water. Eighteen years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have a resource management plan for water in Canterbury. I ask members on both sides of the Chamber regardless of whether they come from a development perspective or an environmental perspective how the interests of New Zealand are served by not having a plan. I ask whether it is really the position of the Green Party and members opposite that we do not need a plan for water in Canterbury. 
I make absolutely no apologies nor do my Government colleagues and the parties that support us for saying that the issue of water in Canterbury is critical. We need to put a plan in place. The regional council has had 18 years and it has not done it. It is time for the Government to take a lead and that is why we have this bill. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a different angle in Part 2 of this “Democratic Outrage Bill”. The Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment knows this story very well. I will relate it to clause 13 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill “Amendment of terms of reference for commissioners” which states that the power to amend the terms of reference at any time is a ministerial power. 
I refer the Minister and others in the Chamber to a different approach that was taken by Labour in 2002 with regard to the quality of water in Rotorua’s lakes. At that time the then Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs could have done the same thing. She could have brought in the “Rotorua (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill” but she did not. We had dysfunction between the regional council which was the equivalent of Environment Canterbury— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who was the Minister for the Environment who crunched the money? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: —well the member must hang on a minute as I am getting to that—and the local body. All the non-governmental organisations were concerned that the water of Lake Rotorua and our other 14 lakes in the Rotorua area was being degraded. A delegation made up of the chair of the regional council the then Mayor of Rotorua Grahame Hall and a representative of the local iwi Anaru Rangiheuea came to see Minister Marian Hobbs and the Minister told those people to get their act together. She told them to get a water plan and come back to central government and if she did not see improvements then she would act. 
I agree with this Minister for the Environment that the Minister has the power at any time in Government to bring in legislation but this legislation is a democratic outrage. Thank goodness Labour did not go that way. What did we do? Minister Marian Hobbs set up terms of reference on how a steering group would proceed to clean up Rotorua’s lakes and we knew then that it was a 20-year journey. It is not a quick fix. This commission will not be able to fix up Canterbury’s water overnight. I think it is appalling that councillors will not be democratically elected at the local elections this year; Canterbury will have to wait until 2013. It is an insult to democratically elected councillors. 
In 2002 we set up a water quality group for Rotorua’s lakes. It was chaired by the mayor. It was not easy but he took leadership at that time. He worked as one of the three legs of the stool with the regional council and with iwi as the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. They all sat at the table and at that time we fixed up the ownership of Rotorua’s lakes. Issues keep on cropping up that give us concern about our lakes’ water quality and I have suggested to the mayor that he should bring in Nick Smith to fix it. But now I would tell him not to do that as Nick Smith might say that it is not being fixed up fast enough and that the Government will appoint commissioners. The Government might go trigger-happy over democracy. Instead of working through the issue in a long-term sustainable water quality improvement plan it might change all those democratically elected representatives put in commissioners and think that that will fix it. 
With regard to clause 13 the terms of reference are not even public knowledge. I think that the provision in clause 13 is an absolute outrage. The clause states that the terms of reference will be published. They should be worked out by all those who are contributing and who will fix the problem over time. We have our water quality group in Rotorua. It represents the elected representatives who have the expertise in certain matters as is stipulated in clause 14. They understand organisational change. I have heard the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith state that Labour did zip about water quality improvement in this country. I do not accept that. We worked for 7 years to bring in $70 million to fix up our lakes. The Minister can say at any time that that money from the Crown will stop if the water quality group does not achieve an outcome of improved water quality and I think that is a very powerful tool. 
I say to members of the Rotorua group to bring in the Minister if they are arguing about the lake levels or resource consent processes. I tell them to bring in the Minister as he has the power to do something about the allocation of funding and he will do something. However this bill is an outrage. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe tena tatou katoa. Tena koe Mr Chairperson. I will make a small contribution following on a little from the Hon Steve Chadwick the previous speaker in respect of firstly the issue of water and secondly the issue of Maori representation in decision making. There is no doubt that water is a major issue for Maori. It has been discussed at the Iwi Leadership Group and in our own forums. We have said to the Minister for the Environment that any discussions about this bill that would possibly jeopardise the bigger discussion with regard to water need to be taken off the table because the substantive issue about the ownership of water will need some time to be considered seriously and although this issue is solely about Canterbury issues about the governance and management of water are something that we definitely want to be involved with. 
We know that it is a serious issue because the previous Labour Government ended up giving back the lake beds to Rotorua as the Hon Steve Chadwick said but without any water in them. But that is an issue that Te Arawa will indeed follow up at a point in time—possibly even by asking the Crown to pay out for the storage of the water in our lake for the time since the settlement went through. But I will cross that bridge down the line when our trust board possibly puts that to the Government at some point. 
It is clear that Maori want to have a say about water but at this point in time unfortunately systems like local bodies and sometimes even Parliament do not necessarily allow for that input to come through. The system does not necessarily allow that to come through but the Maori Party takes a view that relationships to local bodies are about a Treaty relationship that we take seriously. We suggest that in that Treaty relationship any decisions are all about both parties coming to agreement through discussion and obviously the right of veto of one party over the other is an important issue. It is about the views we present as a Maori Party and we would hope that Maori partners through sitting next to the Treaty partner on local bodies or as commissioners or otherwise have an important statement to make. We have asked the Minister in respect of that about a Treaty relationship in the bigger picture down the line and specifically we have placed that issue with him about this and water. We hope that he has taken that on board. 
We look towards Treaty relationships as being a way that might advance Maori aspirations and understanding about the importance of water. With regard to our feedback from Ngai Tahu we understand that up until this point they have not necessarily had the ability to make real inroads in the decision making around water. As the Minister has already said Ngai Tahu are reluctantly moving to support the passage of this bill. But there is the issue in respect of representation and Ngai Tahu have expressed frustration at their lack of involvement. 
We have been given assurances from the Minister that Ngai Tahu will have a position in and around the commission and at the table and although having possibly just one position is not the beginning and ending of everything two points are to be made: firstly we have a position that is important; and secondly we should not believe that just having a position by itself represents the sole Maori view. In fact we have expertise throughout Maoridom that could come into that commission to provide valuable input. So just one person should not be relied on to give the Maori input. But the good thing as I say is that the Minister is recognising the importance of having tangata whenua involvement in water. It would have been really good for the Hon Rodney Hide if he had seen this issue in terms of the Auckland super-city proposal but obviously he did not. 
I will close by saying that the discussion at our caucus was about what happens after the commission has completed its term in 3 or 4 years’ time having given its position and worked through all of the issues in respect of water that have been debated throughout the last day and a little bit. What will happen afterwards? Does it mean that OK we will go back to democratically elected positions? Well maybe we will and that has been the subject of debate throughout the last day or so. But my point to the Minister and certainly from our caucus is that having set the precedent for allowing Ngai Tahu as an example to have input into the decision-making process at least through the commission that line should be maintained after the end of the commission’s time by allowing it a position in the decision-making process as of right and outlined against the Treaty responsibilities and the Treaty perspective. 
We hope that as we move through—let us complete the time yes but after that we want to see Maori participation. Because basically it ain’t going to happen by simply believing that the democratic process will deliver a Maori input just as it has not happened in the past in Canterbury. That ain’t gonna happen—not in Canterbury. So we are looking at having set positions in those councils to ensure that the Maori input which is important in terms of a perspective about water and other things is heard and given and is allowed to contribute in the best interests of the community. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak to clauses 12 13 and 14 in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. They show some very disturbing tendencies in this Government’s approach to local government and they reflect many of the elements that we have debated and identified in Auckland over recent months—in fact over the last year or so. 
Clause 12 on the appointment of commissioners shows there is a distinct lack of transparency in the legislation with the terms of reference for the commissioners to be determined by the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment with no scrutiny by Parliament. Under clause 13 the terms of reference are able to be amended “at any time” by the Ministers. So the provisions give the Ministers who were referred to by councillor Jo Kane as “Jekyll and Hide” in the now-famous  
Timaru Herald 
 story complete carte blanche to determine the terms of reference for the commissioners. That is very very reminiscent of the kind of approach that Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are taking in Auckland. They are appointing all of the first round of directors to all the council-controlled organisations so they will be controlling 75 percent of the assets of the new Auckland Council. It is a heavy-handed approach which has no regard whatsoever for democratic accountability or for the important role that Parliament plays in scrutinising these sorts of appointments. 
Clause 13 gives the Ministers the ability to amend the terms of reference “at any time” and the unrestricted power in clause 17(3) allows that “The responsible Ministers may in their complete discretion remove a commissioner by written notice at any time.” Well this is Government by fiat; this is where our democracy has got to. Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will basically run a puppet show in Canterbury to make damn sure that they get what they want and run their agenda through. The commissioners will be on a very short leash and the Ministers will be pulling the strings to make sure that they get the kinds of outcomes that they are looking for in water management in Canterbury. 
Clause 14 states that the commissioners must have collective knowledge and expertise and requires them to have knowledge and expertise in “organisational change”. There are no requirements for them to have any knowledge of science because as we know the regional council has been science-led rather than science-informed and it would be a very dangerous thing if the commissioners were led by science! I find that remarkable given this Minister’s many many statements in this House about the importance of good science. I have heard him say that on a number of issues in my short time in this Chamber. It is clear that the Ministers think that the council has not given sufficient weight to economic matters and when we read this bill we find that the kind of direction in which this Government under its hand-picked commissioners will push Environment Canterbury is also pretty clear. 
The other disturbing element is clause 14(1)(b) which requires the commissioners to have knowledge and expertise not in science but in “fresh water management”. I ask who will be dealing with the other very important responsibilities of the district council over the next 3½ years. As members will know public transport and regional transport planning are key responsibilities of the Canterbury Regional Council so who will be responsible for ensuring good governance of the regional transport strategy? Environment Canterbury has led some very impressive gains actually in public transport. Under Environment Canterbury’s management of public passenger transport there has been a steady growth in patronage a coordination of services the tendering of contracts and a record 17.5 million public passenger trips made across the region in the year to June 2009. That is impressive by anyone’s standards and under Environment Canterbury’s management Christchurch was the first city in Australasia to achieve integrated planning. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Firstly I will continue to respond to the Minister for the Environment from where I was when I was interrupted last time. The Minister knows full well that there is a process under the Local Government Act by which a democratically elected council can be replaced but a number of steps have to be gone through. It has to be proved that the democratically elected council is dysfunctional etc. The Minister brought in his mate Wyatt Creech and gave him the instruction to try to denigrate the council and a clear mandate to try to undermine Environment Canterbury but unfortunately Mr Creech was not able to deliver which must have been very disappointing for the Minister. He did not enable the Minister to say that the council was dysfunctional so he did not enable him to take the steps under the Local Government Act to get rid of the councillors. Whacking this bill through circumvents what should be due process under the Local Government Act. 
It was also interesting when the Minister was rebutting various comments that one of the comments he did not seek to rebut was my prediction that the regional council in Canterbury would never be reinstated. It will never be reinstated because the Government has an agenda to get rid of all of the regional councils around New Zealand. The bill states in clause 23(1): “The members of ECan elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day.” but that clause will never be activated because those members will never come into being. It is interesting as the co-leader of the Greens Russel Norman said last night that this is so similar to what is happening in Fiji which we all thump the table about in this Chamber. Bainimarama said he was just going to abolish democracy for a little wee while but he would bring it back later. This is what this bill is saying. It is going to get rid of 14 democratically elected councillors and replace them with unelected and unaccountable commissioners—just for a wee while. Actually folks it will be for ever because the Government is not about to bring them back. 
The other point I was making is that the terms of reference here are completely unknown. I guarantee that these terms of reference will be written up. As official information papers will reveal they will be already written up; it is just that the Minister does not want us or Canterbury people to know. The terms of reference could be anything. They could say “We will build roads only in Canterbury. We will get rid of public transport. We want you to facilitate the building of dams.” They could say anything; we do not know. 
The other point is that this is another example of how central government—and this is a very sinister development—is dictating what happens at the local government level. The cornerstone of local government is that locally elected representatives decide on what happens at the local level. Under this bill not only does the Minister get to appoint his political buddies as the commissioners but also he gives them very explicit instructions. So we now have a second example of central government dictating to local government and undermining the whole principle of local government. We have this in Auckland and now we have it in Canterbury. In Auckland for the first time ever central government is dictating how many council-controlled organisations will be established in Auckland and who will be on them. In every single other council in New Zealand it is up to the local council to decide whether it wants to have council-controlled organisations and if so who will be on them. But this Government is directly intervening and dictating to local government. That is what is happening here: it is dictating to the commissioners what they will do what their agenda will be and how they will meet the Minister’s wishes. This is very sinister. This is a coup d’état. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The Minister for the Environment in introducing Part 2 “Replacement of governing body of ECan” said he had made the decision to appoint commissioners very reluctantly. That sort of suggests that there were some viable options for him to consider and I would like to know what those options were. 
Part 2 of the bill really goes to the crux of what we are debating and what this measure is all about. It is about replacing legally elected political representatives with people who will be appointed by the responsible Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. Clause 7 sets out the technicalities of appointing commissioners. The commissioners will be political appointments. They will be accountable to the Ministers only; they will not be accountable to the public of the Canterbury region. The public will not have a say or be able to have a say in the decisions that that political body will be making. In many ways it will be very similar to what we have with regard to the Auckland Transition Agency in the Auckland region. Aucklanders are now up in arms that we have political appointees working behind the scenes and responding to the Minister’s wishes and will and that the public is left out of those decisions. 
I would say that every citizen of Canterbury ought to be angry because of the significant change that will come about as a result of this Government imposing its will on the people of the Canterbury region. This is the kind of action that just turns people off politicians. It gives politicians a bad name because often what the public will see is that when politicians get a little bit of power it goes to their heads. And then what do they do? They impose their will on the people who elected them there. 
But more important the responsible Ministers are taking away local council representation that was elected in 2007. Furthermore this Government will not even allow the people of Canterbury to elect their representatives this year. So for the next while the Government will dictate to the people of Canterbury its will and it will dictate to the people of Canterbury what it wants to do with regard to the environment of Canterbury. 
Clause 8 provides for the replacement day so the Government is to determine when the elected members will be replaced. Clause 9 is the significant clause in my view. It removes the elected members of Environment Canterbury who are holding office. This is the significant change and I ask the Minister whether he consulted with the people of Canterbury about doing that. Was any widespread consultation undertaken similar to what was undertaken in Auckland where the royal commission took 18 months and consulted with people throughout that region? I would say there was not but I would like to hear whether that was an option for the Minister and what his reason was for not undertaking it. I have a letter here from councillor Eugenie Sage who writes: “The Creech report is based on a 3-week review in November 2009—interviews with less than 20 stakeholders.” There were interviews with fewer than 20 stakeholders out of a population of 500000-plus. 
We have to ask ourselves what the reason was for not undertaking broad-based consultation. It sends some really strong messages: firstly that the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment thinks he knows better than to do that; secondly that he thinks the officials elected by the people of Canterbury have no brains of their own with which to make political decisions; and thirdly that he thinks the 500000-plus people of Canterbury many of whom would have voted for National are people of no significance whatsoever and should not have a say. The Minister Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government think they know better than those people and that is what they are saying. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I will make a few comments about clause 14 to start with and then I will move away from there. Yesterday when the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment had us up in the fifth floor meeting room to tell us about the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill he said that if we knew of anyone who would be useful we could put a name forward. That did not sound like Dr Smith’s usually very honourable pattern but some people come to mind. 
If we look at it we see that those people have to have organisational change. In respect of water management and local authority governance and management two names spring to mind straight away. First of all there is Bob Harvey who will not be Mayor of Waitakere City any more. He has more experience as mayor than anyone. The Minister should have a really good close look at Bob Harvey because he has wide knowledge and would probably most generously help the people of Canterbury. The second person is also a mayor in the Auckland region with vast experience in water matters: Andrew Williams. Only this week we heard about his expertise in water matters—irrigation of just a single tree but it is a start! I think he should be considered. 
The problem is that the Minister of Local Government must support him as well. That would show us who the real boss is whether it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith or the Hon Rodney Hide. You see the people in Auckland who will have their jobs taken from them without any say will have a certain amount of feeling for the people of Canterbury. They will understand what it is like when all of a sudden they are ridden roughshod over. 
It is interesting to look at the sort of people who will put their names forward. I now nominate a National member. My friends who sit around me think I am too close to National at times but I put forward the name of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He would be ideal. He was too busy before. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although entertaining this speech is straying somewhat. But I am happy if this is an indication that the debate is drawing to a close. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for her comments. Mr Hawkins is specifically referring to clause 14; he said that at the beginning [ 
Interruption 
]. I am on my feet. Although there was a little bit of light banter and light humour—I have no difficulty with that—the member knows that it is a very limited debate and I am sure he will talk about Environment Canterbury and clause 14 which he has mentioned. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That point of order shows that National members have not read the bill; otherwise they would know what is in clause 14. That clause is very very important. 
As I was saying I think Jim Bolger—he has the time now because he will not be running KiwiRail—could be running the water management in Canterbury. It may flow even better than his friends seem to. 
I also say that it is very important how much the commissioners will be paid. The ratepayers of Canterbury will be footing the bill but they will have no say. They will be putting up the money so that the commissioners can be paid but there will be no representation from where the money is coming from. I think most people in New Zealand think it is fair that if they pay they have a say. That is fundamental. It is what happens in New Zealand. If we look at clause 18 we see that Joe Bloggs and other people from Canterbury will not have a say over how much the commissioners get paid and who will pay them. People in Canterbury will open their wallets and see that money is being plucked out by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide without their having a say. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I intend to speak on clauses 9 to 22 starting with clause 9 and in particular the reference made to the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. Clause 9(2) states: “This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It was not so long ago that we had National members railing in this Chamber against any change to electoral laws without bipartisan support. But it appears that that applies only at the national level and at the local government level the Government can do whatever it likes. If it does not like the decisions being made by local authorities then it will just ride roughshod over the electoral laws that govern those local authorities and do whatever it likes. 
Clause 9(2) overrides the Local Electoral Act and it does not have bipartisan support. At least two parties in this Parliament have spoken very strongly against it yet nobody from National is willing to stand up and say why he or she thinks the democratic rights of people with regard to their local authorities should receive a lesser amount of importance and attention than their democratic rights to elect their nationwide Government. It creates two tiers of government in New Zealand one tier being clearly subordinate to the other. It says that once a nationwide Government is elected the nationwide Government can completely override the democratically elected local authorities. 
We have seen this twice in this House under this National Government already. We saw it with the Auckland super-city where under urgency the Government effectively sacked all of the Auckland local authorities and replaced them with the Auckland Transition Agency. All stages of the legislation were passed straight through under urgency with no chance for the public to have a say and no chance for the people whose roles were affected by that decision to have a say and that is exactly what we are seeing here. Through clause 9(2) in particular the Government is completely overriding local electoral law and installing a new regime that it will totally and utterly control. Democracy at a local government level in Canterbury with regard to what was previously Environment Canterbury is now dead. There is no democracy there. It will be ultimately controlled by the Ministers. 
Clause 13 states: “The responsible Ministers may at any time amend the terms of reference for the commissioners …”. At any time the Ministers decide that they want to do something a bit differently because they are not happy— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Gone by lunchtime. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The terms of reference could be gone by lunchtime. The Ministers could decide that they are not happy with what the commissioners are doing and completely change their terms of reference. Of course if the Ministers are not happy with what the commissioners do with their changed terms of reference under clause 17(3) they are entitled to simply remove them. The Ministers can simply sack the commissioners and that is no problem whatsoever. If the Ministers are dissatisfied with what the commissioners are doing they have ultimate control over what goes on with what was formerly Environment Canterbury. This measure gives the Government ultimate control. There will be no consultation. Ministers can do whatever they like without any reference to the local authorities. The local people will have no say. They had an opportunity to elect a council and it is being removed by this Government with the local people having no chance to have a say. 
In fact if the local people were dissatisfied with what it has been doing there is a local election coming up this year and they could have replaced that council—that is the nature of democracy. But that democratic opportunity is being removed by this bill; local people will not get to have a chance to say whether they think Environment Canterbury is effective. They will not get any opportunity to vote members of the council in or out; that right is being removed for at least 3½ years. It will be at least 3½ years before people get a chance to pass judgment on what this Government is doing by removing their democratically elected local authority members. 
The other thing that this bill does in clause 18 is to give Ministers the ultimate responsibility for establishing what these commissioners will be paid. The Remuneration Authority which sets MPs’ salaries and the salaries of the local authorities will have no role in that. It will ultimately be up to the Ministers. So the Ministers appoint the commissioners they determine their terms of reference and they determine what they are to be paid. Ministers will have ultimate control over everything that the commissioners do in Environment Canterbury. Democracy is dead. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which abolishes democracy in Canterbury. Later on this year people all around New Zealand will as part of the celebration of democracy be involved in local government elections. As someone who lives in Wellington I will vote for my mayor and my council. However were I to move to Canterbury or Christchurch I would find that I was not allowed to vote for my regional council. In fact my right to vote for the regional council would be taken away by this bill which National and ACT are pushing through today. It is quite extraordinary that Part 2 takes away the idea of one person one vote. We have heard a lot lately about one person one vote from National and ACT. Part 2 states that we will start with one person one vote and then we will go to one person no vote. One person no vote is National’s preferred option for how people in Canterbury decide what happens to them. 
What will be the outcome of this? In the rush to get the bill through the House the regulatory impact statement has not had a lot of attention. It is a rushed regulatory impact statement that the Ministry for the Environment cobbled together in between generating all those national policy statements and national environmental standards—oh that is right we do not have any—that we have tried to get over the years. The regulatory impact statement states: “the Ministry has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” So this rushed bill is being pushed through the House without any public input or any select committee process Part 2 abolishes the right of the people of Canterbury to elect their regional council and we find that the Ministry for the Environment says in its regulatory impact statement that it has not had the time to fully quantify the risks and costs of the proposal. There is a very close connection between the lack of democracy in terms of the process of this bill in the House with no select committee process and the fact that Part 2 abolishes democracy for the people of Canterbury for the next 3 years. Part 2 is about getting rid of democracy for the people of Canterbury. 
It is interesting that in order to be appointed a commissioner one needs expertise in freshwater management. Wyatt Creech actually has some expertise in freshwater management as it turns out. He knows how to pollute fresh water which is of course why he did the review of Environment Canterbury in the first place. A company he is director of has numerous convictions for polluting water so obviously he has some expertise in freshwater management. Maybe he will be one of the people the Minister appoints to be a commissioner to oversee what happens in Canterbury after the abolition of elected democracy in Canterbury. He could also ask the Crafars. They have a lot of expertise in freshwater management. They were very very effective at polluting fresh water. They did an excellent job of polluting fresh water across the central North Island so I think it is time they spread to the South Island. It seems to me that the Minister could consider them under Part 2 which provides the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government with the power to appoint commissioners to oversee the management of water in Canterbury. Over the next period they are obviously going to need someone with expertise and the Crafars have shown tremendous expertise in polluting fresh water in New Zealand. 
It is also extraordinary that we do not even know what the terms of reference are and that they could be changed at any time. We are voting to put this bill through the House yet one of the key aspects of the bill the terms of reference is not even being made public. Not only do we not have any public process through a select committee so that the public can look at Part 2 and not only does Part 2 abolish public oversight of the regional council—because Part 2 gets rid of democratic oversight—but there is no public oversight of the terms of reference under which the commissioners will operate because the terms of reference are still secret. Here we have a Government pushing through legislation under urgency to implement a regional governance structure and we do not even know what the terms of reference for it will be. Will the terms of reference for example include maximising irrigation potential in the Canterbury region which is what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech to Parliament this year? Will that be one of the terms of reference? I ask the Minister for the Environment to take a call. Will maximising irrigation be one of the terms of reference? 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 2 of this oxymoronic Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill particularly to clauses 14 17 and 18 and to amendments in my name. 
But first I want to touch on comments made by the member opposite from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell about the Maori Party supporting the bill in the hope that it will improve Maori representation on Environment Canterbury. I have to say that is a forlorn hope on two counts. The first is that the bill disestablishes Environment Canterbury. Public comments from the Minister for the Environment made very clear that it is the death knell of Environment Canterbury; it will not see the light again in 2013 or earlier and I challenge the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to correct me on that point. Second I thought the Maori Party would have learnt by now that this Government does not want to deliver Maori aspirations for improved representation. I ask those members to look to the Auckland super-city as an example of that. 
Clause 14 of the bill talks about commissioners having “collective knowledge and expertise in certain matters”. Environment Canterbury’s chair and deputy chair Alec Neill and Jo Kane proposed to the Minister that he could follow the model that sometimes happens in schools where a commissioner is appointed and works alongside the principal to improve the outcomes for that school. Effectively they were suggesting that commissioners come in to provide some of the expertise that everybody acknowledges Environment Canterbury would benefit from in terms of improving its water management and its approach to it—reinforced one would hope by some new legislation with new environmental safeguards and quality standards. But the Minister has not chosen to do that so I am moving by way of amendment that we should appointment all the existing councillors as commissioners. That will serve to deliver the expertise that the Minister seeks in respect of organisational change freshwater management and local authority governance and management in terms of the Canterbury region and its people. And he might like to supplement some of the gaps in Environment Canterbury’s current representation in terms of Maori representation which I acknowledge is a deficiency that needs to be remedied. Adopting that amendment would effectively put in place the model suggested by the chair and the deputy chair of Environment Canterbury. 
I turn now to make a comment about the idea of the council being dysfunctional which we have heard once or twice through the course of this debate. Again I would like to quote from the Creech report on that issue: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … Mostly the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” So there is no case to say that it was a dysfunctional council. It had its tensions it had its challenges and it was starting to come to terms with the issues around the management of water in particular. 
I also note that clause 14(1)(b) requires the commissioners to have expertise in freshwater management. Well fresh water is a huge challenge. It is a big part of Environment Canterbury’s job but the Minister went for the doctor in respect of Environment Canterbury even though the Creech review identified that it was doing a good job in respect of its other functions—notably public transport. In fact public transport is the biggest percentage of its current budget. The council is acknowledged within Australasia as having delivered some of the best results for public transport by way of integrated planning ticketing and real-time information. It is acknowledged across Australasia for the bus services it provides the way that they are integrated and how they work. 
In clause 17 there is a provision that the commissioners must call an election when their work is complete. By way of amendment I propose that once the commissioners have completed their work in terms of bringing together a proposed regional policy statement or plan as defined in clause 61 of the bill there must be an election. Let us not wait until 2013. If the Government is genuine in saying—even if it is a mixed message—it wants to resume some sort of democracy in Canterbury let the commissioners come in and do their job and if it is such an easy task to pick up and perform let us have the election as soon as that task is completed. That is covered in my amendment to clause 17. 
I am proposing an amendment to clause 18 to make the commissioners’ remuneration the same as the councillors’ remuneration. At the moment an Environment Canterbury councillor earns in the order of $50000 a year. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Set by the Remuneration Authority. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: That is right; it is set by the authority that deals with salaries in this building. That is an appropriate mechanism. This is ratepayers’ money. I have ratepayers who have struggled to meet their Environment Canterbury rates especially last year when their rates increased by 10.8 percent. The reason for that increase was the council was deadlocked regarding starting to charge farmers for the management of water supplies. The rates of constituents in poor areas of my constituency such as Phillipstown Linwood Shirley and Mairehau went up by 8 percent more than would have been necessary if there had been a decision to impose a part-charge rate on the farming community which was appropriate. It is coming into place this year so that is good to see. 
I think of current councillors such as Jane Demeter whose ward is within my electorate. I was recently approached by a couple who had installed a new fireplace under the very good Environment Canterbury - led and driven clean air accord which the council has been putting in place. The fireplace was not working properly. I approached Councillor Demeter and she resolved the issue and another fireplace was installed. Would I be able to approach one of the commissioners with that sort of constituency issue? Will I be able to go to them and tell them I need a resolution on this? Or are they there only to do one job—to implement a new rapid regime in terms of water—as far as this bill is concerned? I want to know that my constituents will have representation for the taxation they will be paying. 
If my constituents will be paying the commissioners’ rates they should not pay any more for that privilege than they pay now. Those commissioners should be paid about $1000 a week and I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that we will not see the sort of profligacy that sometimes happens when people are appointed by the Government to these jobs. Will we see salary levels of about $1000 a week or more likely about $1000 or $2000 a day? I would like to know what sort of budget the Minister has in mind in terms of how this set of commissioners will operate because it is not the Minister who will be paying the bill; it is the people in my electorate and across Canterbury. It is the Environment Canterbury ratepayers who will be paying the bill. They have every right to know what is envisaged in terms of the rate of payment to the commissioners. What is the estimate for their travelling costs? We have commissioners such as Dame Margaret Bazley who I understand is a resident of Wellington. There will be considerable expense in terms of her airfares hotel accommodation and out-of-town expenses such as meals. Ratepayers across Canterbury will be picking up the tab without any recourse to the Minister the Government Parliament or a select committee process for a say on it. 
Not only that but we have learnt that the Minister has the ability to alter the terms of reference for the commissioners. If they are not operating in the way that he wants he can change the terms of reference by executive fiat without any reference back to this House. I think that is really unacceptable. 
At the moment the chair of Environment Canterbury’s salary is $142000 a year the deputy chair is paid $56710 a year and the councillors are paid the grand sum of $53294—about $1000 a week—for the duties they perform for their constituencies across the Environment Canterbury rohe and I think that is an appropriate level of remuneration. In fact it is probably a little under what they should be paid in terms of the job that I know some of them do. With the call they have upon them they act in the same way as an MP does servicing their constituencies and acting for constituents. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how the new commissioners will perform. Will they take up that bread and butter work that regional councillors do? Will they meet constituents? Will they take up constituents’ issues? Will they iron out the red tape issues that emerge when one is dealing with a council on a consistent basis? Will they help constituents navigate through the bureaucracy? Will they deal with queries about rate demands? Will they pick up the just-published annual plan for Environment Canterbury with a budget of I think $142 million? Will they pick up that task see it through and take on board any concerns that ratepayers have about the future of their bus service and the improvements that are needed? There is no reference in the clauses of this bill to those requirements in terms of the capacities of the commissioners. 
There is no requirement for anybody to have any expertise in or knowledge of public transport and that is the biggest component of the budget that Environment Canterbury deals with. It is in charge of the public transport system across Christchurch. It has done a darn good job. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to speak specifically to clause 22 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is interesting because the heading above this clause states: “2010 election for member of ECan” then the title of the clause is “2010 election for members of ECan must not be held”. That is an unusual juxtaposition is it not? We have the election but it must not be held. It is a remarkable thing. It cannot be understated what is being done in the House right now in Part 2 of this bill. The first words of an article in the  
Press 
 this morning read: “The Government’s sacking of Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors will deny hundreds of thousands of Cantabrians the right to vote for regional representation this year.” That is what is being done in the House right now. It is the taking away of the democratic right of Cantabrians. It is cancelling an election. We know about countries around the world where elections are cancelled by a central government. There are names for those kinds of countries such as banana republic. That is what the National Government is perpetuating today with the assistance of the ACT Party in this bill. 
This is a democratic outrage. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would do this. We found that out this morning in the  
Timaru Herald 
. The article states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues as ECan had suggested—was that he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” People are wary of the outcome of elections all the time. I was particularly wary of the outcome of the 2008 general election but nobody cancelled it. Nobody decided it was time to cancel the election because we were wary of its outcome— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We couldn’t get the numbers. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —I tell Mr Mallard that I do not think we would have even tried—but that is what Dr Nick Smith is doing through this bill today. This is anti-democratic. This is cancelling an election where the ratepayers of the Canterbury region would expect to have representation. Their rates are not being cancelled. I ask Mr Hide whether that is a proposal on the table—to cancel the rates for the people in the Canterbury region. No they will still be paying the rates but there will be no representation for those people. There will be no representation because this Government has decided to cancel an election. 
This is an outrage. Clause 22 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill sets this out in the baldest possible terms without any real justification coming forward from the Government at this time. This is the first time in New Zealand local government history that councillors have been sacked like this without their interest without their involvement and without them actually coming forward. The Rodney District example has been raised numerous times in this House by the Government side but that is completely different. Rodney District asked for the review and the process of having the next election was put in place as quickly as possible. There is no guarantee in Part 2 that the 2013 election will take place. 
I challenge the Minister in the chair or members opposite to stand up and tell us that there will be a 2013 election for the Canterbury Regional Council. No one has done it so far. I challenge the Minister in the chair to stand up and tell us he can guarantee that the people of the Canterbury region will have the opportunity to elect their regional councillors in 2013. When we look at clause 23 we do not see anything that guarantees that—there is nothing there. We know that people all around New Zealand should be very very concerned about what is coming next. In fact Alec Neill a former member of this House from the National side said in the  
Press 
 this morning that this is a big call because there is always a political downside and to that end a message has been sent to other regional councils. That was said by Alec Neill who is a former National MP and the chair of the regional council. He said that this Government is sending a message to councils right around the country that there is no guarantee that regional councils will continue under this Government. 
I know that here in Wellington the performance of the Greater Wellington Regional Council comes under scrutiny from time to time but people are happy with it. People vote in the elections and they work with that regional council. As Brendon Burns said those regional councillors play an important role in the environmental health of the region. MPs are able to work with regional councils as closely as a lot of us do to make sure that there are good outcomes. That is at risk from clauses 22 and  23 of this bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to pick up from where I left off a bit earlier on. I will move now to clause 21 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That clause sets out that “The commissioners must as soon as practicable establish a process for seeking advice from the mayors of the territorial authorities in the Canterbury region on local issues that affect the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions of ECan.” It is interesting that the bill states that the commissioners have to consult only the mayors; they do not have to consult the councillors. This provision basically states that there are two tiers of local authority: the mayors who are important and the councillors who are also democratically elected but who are not important. The commissioners need to talk only to the mayors. What happens in a situation where the mayor may not necessarily reflect the view of the whole council? The council itself will not get to have any say. I am very concerned that only the mayors will have the opportunity to give advice to the commissioners and that councillors will not be consulted. 
I want to move back to the clauses that effectively cancel the next local government election for Environment Canterbury. They override the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. I ask the Minister of Justice in particular to comment on why he thinks that the electoral laws for local authorities should be overridden by this House without any broad bipartisan support. He has argued at a national level for nationwide local government reform. It is not something that he is seeking to do at the local level and I want to know why the Government thinks Canterbury should be treated separately from the rest of the country. 
I move to clause 22 which deals with the election of the members of Environment Canterbury. It effectively cancels the next election for members of Environment Canterbury. It states that the voters of Canterbury will not have a say on who will represent them on important issues such as the management of water. They will not have a say on that issue and they will not have a say on this bill. They do not have a say on the removal of the democratically elected council members. They would have had a say in October of this year when they could have replaced the regional council had they been dissatisfied with it. At the very least if the people of Canterbury are not to have the opportunity to vote at an election they should have had the opportunity to come to a select committee to have a say. The councillors who are to be removed from office by this legislation should have had the opportunity to come and put their view to parliamentarians before we vote on the matter. 
I understand that the Government wants to move with some haste on this matter but it is not unusual for truncated select committee processes to be used in situations like that. The process can be gone through reasonably quickly. But unfortunately this Government has a real reluctance when it comes to issues of democracy to put those matters before a select committee. It did not put most of the Auckland governance reforms before a select committee. It did not give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on the removal of their seven democratically elected councils and their replacement by the Auckland Transition Agency which is what the first super-city bill did. The Government did not send that bill to a select committee and give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on it and it is not giving the people of Canterbury the chance to have their say on the removal of Environment Canterbury. 
Of course as a Wellington member of Parliament I want to know whether we are next. The Government has been to Auckland then it went to Christchurch so will it come to Wellington next? If so what will be removed? Will it be the regional council? Will it be the local councils? Will the Government merge the councils in Wellington without giving the people a chance to have a say on that? Wellington must be next on the agenda after Auckland and Christchurch. In population terms it certainly would be. It is probably only a matter of time before Rodney Hide Nick Smith and their colleagues decide to get stuck in and have a crack at Wellington. 
I will summarise the main concerns around the way that commissioners are appointed and about their remuneration. Basically the commissioners will be appointed at the exclusive whim of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. The commissioners’ remuneration will be established at the whim of the Ministers they can be removed at the whim of the Ministers and their terms of reference are set at the whim of the Ministers. The Ministers have ultimate control over the total functioning of these commissioners. I have heard the name of one of the people who is likely to be appointed as a commissioner and she is somebody in whom I have a lot of confidence. She did a fantastic job with the Fire Service; I think that is great. But I am concerned that her position will be undermined by the ultimate authority that the Ministers will have with regard to the position. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Since the last time I spoke on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill I have tabled an amendment which I would like to speak to. The reason I tabled the amendment came from other contributions that have been made in this Committee. We have been listening to this debate and contributing to it in a fair and reasonable way. There are concerns about the way this part of the bill has been promoted. The clause I will focus on is the one I have an amendment too which is clause 14. I know that my colleague Brendon Burns has an amendment to remove this clause. Actually he has an amendment that suggests that the commissioners be the current Environment Canterbury councillors who should be appointed to the role of commissioners. I think that would give a very good signal to the people of Canterbury that at least the people whom they elected to these positions would hold these positions through to the establishment of the water plan. I think there is a certain degree of neatness around that which is worthy of greater debate and consideration in this environment. 
However given that I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government will vote down that amendment I have another amendment that asks for us to look at adding additional criteria to the appointment of commissioners. I will read clause 14(1) as it is at the moment: “The responsible Ministers must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of and expertise in relation to the following matters: (a) organisational change; and (b) freshwater management; and (c) local authority governance and management; and (d) tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (e) the Canterbury region and its people.” 
That is all very well and good but actually the regional council does more than undertake its responsibilities in respect of water. I am promoting three additions to subclause (1) so that collectively there is a knowledge of an expertise in relation to the additional matters that I have set out in my amendment which states “environmental protection and integrated public transport planning and sustainable development”. I have inserted them in between the first three of the matters that are already set out there in order to highlight that they have an importance that is relevant to the ones that are already established. 
The Minister when he gave us his briefing yesterday at 11:45 a.m. 15 minutes before the Government made the announcement had organisational change at the top of his mind. He said that organisational change was the most important element of the new set of commissioners that would be appointed. I think if we remove sight or any language that refers to the environmental protection obligations of the regulator it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that these commissioners could be left with the view that their primary responsibility is around organisational change and freshwater management and blow the rest. 
When one looks at Wyatt Creech’s report one sees that it makes that very clear. That is why they wanted to have a separate authority to deal with water. That is why I think the Government will actually do that behind the scenes if it gets back in after the next election. I think that that is a shame because there should be a lot more openness and integrity in this whole process than this particular process has allowed. 
I shall refer to another element of the Creech report. It states that Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and “master of its own expanded destiny” continues to detract from the relationship. But what is the relationship going to be between the city and the commissioners if that is the case? The Christchurch City Council has never ever debated as a council the establishment of a unitary authority in Christchurch. That is the mayor’s view. That is his point of view and it may have been a view held by former mayors. But that is not the view of the Christchurch City Council and I think it is wrong for us to sit here debating changes to the legislation under urgency. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will pick up on the points that my colleague Lianne Dalziel was making in relation to the amendment that she has moved. That was the first time I was alerted to that amendment during the course of this debate. I think the Minister of Local Government who is in the chair needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment is not frivolous. It was made on the basis of that member being a local resident as I am of Canterbury the area that is affected by the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which we are debating under urgency. He needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment would strengthen the bill. We fundamentally oppose the bill but this amendment would make it better. I suggest to both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment that they look at the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel and take it seriously. It would make a bad bill better. 
It would certainly be for us a major step forward in what has been a fundamental breach of process and of democracy in our region. I was listening to the debate a couple of speakers back when my colleagues Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson took calls and it struck me that a lot of people in other towns will be scared. What has happened is that our elected councillors have all been sacked; they have been given just a month’s notice. The Minister for the Environment will appoint five or seven commissioners—we do not even know the number—to do their job. The Minister on his own will define what their job will be and he is going to decide how much they will get paid. And guess what? We are going to pay the bill! So the Minister can say that he thinks the commissioners are worth a huge amount of money and I predict that he will say they are worth $2000 a day. That is the going rate for this sort of job. It is a lot more than any of our existing councillors get. Then he will say to the people of Canterbury that they will have to pay for the commissioners out of their rates. That is a disgrace. Our elected representatives are being sacked without any recourse back to us. Commissioners are being appointed with no say at all from local people. The Minister by himself will decide who the commissioners are and what their job description is. He will decide how much money they will be paid a day. And we get to pay their consultancy fee. Well I do not think the people of Canterbury will think too warmly of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide but that will not be a particular revelation to anyone. They have never been very high on our list of people who share our concerns anyway. But on this issue it is a fundamental breach of good process and of democracy. 
The other point that I would really like the Minister to address is that I am really puzzled about what exactly the breadth of the work will be. My colleague Brendon Burns alluded to this briefly in his earlier contribution but I ask the Minister to tell the Chamber whether the commissioners will be expected to do the constituency work the bread and butter work the work that keeps the community connected to the regional council. Will they be expected to do that or will we lose all that strength and connection between our regional councillors whom we have now and our community? 
I recently took a complaint to Environment Canterbury to our regional council about a proposed change to a bus route. That is one of the things that members of Parliament deal with day in and day out. We have to talk to the local authority about proposals and about the concerns of our constituents and how we might get a win-win situation. I spoke to the man at Environment Canterbury who is responsible for this issue and we organised a time to meet. He rang me back the next day and said that Councillor Carole Evans would like to be part of the discussion because she is the chair of the transport committee and she was interested in the fact that I and my constituents had concerns. She wanted to be part of that discussion. Will a commissioner do that I ask Mr Hide? Will a commissioner getting $2000 a day of our ratepayers’ money get out of the office in Kilmore Street come out to St Martins drive over Glenelg Spur as Councillor Carole Evans did and say that he or she understands the problem and we will work together to fix it? I cannot see that happening. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 12(2)(c); 
to omit from clause 12(3)(a) “(including the terms of reference for the commissioners)”; 
to omit clause 13; 
to omit clause 20(b); and 
to omit clause 20(d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
14 Minister must appoint all existing councillors as commissioners 
The responsible Minister must appoint all those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors as commissioners. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 14 agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (a): 
“(aa) environmental protection; and”; 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (b): 
“(bb) integrated public transport planning; and”; and 
to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (c): 
“(cc) sustainable development; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call election when work complete 
Once all proposed regional policy statement or plans (as defined in section 61) have been decided the Commissioners must call an election under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
17ACommission must call special election 
The Commission must call an election for ECan under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to occur before 30 March 2011. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause: 
18Commissioner’s remuneration same as councillor’s remuneration 
A commissioner is entitled to be paid the same remuneration by way of salary fees and allowances as those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
21ACommission to hold public meetings 
The Commissioners must hold a public meeting no less than once every 3 months to hear issues from the public and to answer for any decisions made. 
21BCommission to establish consultation group 
(1)The Commission shall establish a consultation group for each ward within the Canterbury region. 
(2)The purpose of consultation groups established under subsection (1) is to— 
(a)advise the Commissioner in relation to decisions affecting their community; and 
(b)represent the views of their community; and 
(c)enable wider community participation in the decisions of the Commission. 
(3)Membership of each consultation group will be determined by the Commission in consultation with the respective community. 
(4)Each consultation group will have no fewer than 4 members. 
(5)ECan must provide adequate resources to each consultation group to enable it to perform its democratic and representative functions. 
(6)In this section “ward” has the meaning given to it by the Local Electoral Act 2001. 
21CApplication of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
For the avoidance of doubt the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the Commissioners. 
21DFinal report 
(1)No more than 6 months after the resumption day the Commissioners must prepare a report on changes to the management of fresh water in the Canterbury region and changes to fresh water quality and use in the Canterbury region during their term in office. 
(2)The report must be laid on the table of Parliament. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
21ACommissioners to give effect to Canterbury Water Management Strategy 
The Commissioners must exercise the functions responsibilities duties and powers prescribed in section 20 in a manner consistent with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 22 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Additional functions and powers of ECan after commencement day  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that establishes firstly a process for moratoriums being imposed in parts of Canterbury and then moves into the water conservation areas. There is support for the idea of moratoriums from me at least because they are a mechanism that can address issues of water shortage in red-zoned areas around Canterbury. There are a number most particularly concentrated around the Selwyn district. The past history of this is that Environment Canterbury has over the last few years started to say no to more water allocations in such areas. It has been a frustrating period for Environment Canterbury because at times the commissioners it has appointed have heard the arguments of people with the capacity to buy the science and the law to push an argument that says that even in a red-zoned area there should be more capacity for more water to be allocated. Even at times the Environment Court has overturned Environment Canterbury decisions on such matters. 
Moratoriums would be useful in that respect but there is an enormous caveat on all of this. When people have had access to water and want to expand and in the past have been able to expand by seeking more water they will obviously not be too enthused about a moratorium being imposed in a particular area. I look for example at the Synlait dairy company based in Dunsandel. It has started in just the last couple of years to produce milk powder for export. It has plans already to quintuple production. It took an idea to the sharemarket last year for a share float and that did not go at all well. A former National member sits on the board of that organisation as members opposite would well know. Where will it go next for its money? One of the suggestions is that it might come back to the Chinese offer for investment in New Zealand’s dairy infrastructure. 
Putting that to one side the point is that moratoriums are a useful exercise but they will I am sure at times lead to more demand for water if there is a wish for expansion. That could indeed put more pressure back on new allocations. 
Going back to the original premise this bill is around enshrining the wish as stated by the Government for rapid new water allocation—water projects on the ground in place next year in Canterbury. That is a statement of fact from the Prime Minister. The problem around that is the environmental constraints to ensure that new water is allocated in a way that gives back some of the water quality that Canterbury has lost over the last while. That is the balance we want to see. Moratoriums—moratoria if you wish—are a mechanism that can assist but that has to be part of an entire balanced process. If moratoria go in place and lead to rapid decisions about new allocation or assist that process then that raises enormous questions about where the checks and balances are in this legislation or anything forthcoming that will put new environmental constraints upon those who get new water. It is simply not there in the bill. 
Part 3 also deals with the issue of water conservation orders which are mechanisms to protect some of the great waterways of our country. They are in place in Canterbury; they are on the Rakaia River the Hurunui River and from memory on the Rangitata although I could stand corrected on that one. Perhaps the local member might assist. The Hurunui River is the last of the Canterbury rivers that is effectively untapped from lake through to sea. The Environment Court was due in a month’s time to consider this issue. That is an appropriate process. There are a whole range of wishes around the Environment Court decision. Obviously people with a strong conservation ethic say we should leave the Hurunui entirely alone. There are those of the farming community who want to see the south bank dammed and used for irrigation. The point is that these decisions need to go through a process. They need the checks and balances upon them. They do not need rapid allocations made because the long-term consequences of rapid allocation will see without the environmental checks and balances put in place more deterioration of our waterways. 
There are real concerns and it is good to acknowledge that Part 3 has two references to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy both in reference to introducing moratoria and in reference to water conservation orders. There is a requirement that Environment Canterbury commissioners consider the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The problem still arises from the fact it is just “taking note of”. There is no requirement to implement it and this strategy which has been drawn up over the last 3 years and has been patiently negotiated for the future of Canterbury had a table that included representatives of Fish and Game the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Federated Farmers the irrigators the Ministry of Agriculture the Ministry of Fisheries Ngai Tahu and the councils. All of those parties patiently negotiated this strategy and it embodies conservation as its first principle. 
There is an acknowledgment from those parties and I note again that Federated Farmers and irrigators are part of that water management strategy. The first principle was the environment followed by customary uses community supplies and stock water. Those were the first-order priority considerations. The second-order priority was around irrigation electricity generation recreation and tourism and amenity. It was envisaged that these principles would be worked through by the local community with Environment Canterbury to try to ensure that those priorities were upheld. But what this bill does is say goodbye to that collective approach and goodbye to Environment Canterbury which was the driving force behind this strategy. It introduces commissioners installed by the Government for a 3½-year period to implement an agenda which is really the Government’s agenda. It is explicitly around rapid water allocation. 
I come back to the questions around the clauses relating to moratoria. Speaking personally I support moratoria as a mechanism but one cannot believe that moratoria will deliver on their own. There are problems around the build-up that occurs and we saw that in Marlborough with two moratoria imposed on the issuing of further licences for marine farms. All it created was a huge backlog and a floodwater when the moratoria were lifted. We have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the issues are addressed and they need to be addressed across the divide of both the environmental and the economic issues. We cannot have one superimposed over the top. 
In Canterbury we have lost the capacity to swim safely in lowland streams. That is something every member would at least in theory uphold as a principle or God-given right that we have as New Zealanders to take our children and our grandchildren to the streams and the rivers and know they can safely swim. But even in the rivers of Canterbury now—the bigger waterways—it is not safe at times to swim in those rivers. 
Colin King 
: Even if it’s over our head? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: In places like the Ashley River in the electorate of the member for Kaikoura and he should be noting this very carefully it is not safe to take one’s dog to the Ashley because it is quite likely the dog will get cyanobacteria and die as a result of blue-green algae. I note that blue-green is the theme that National picks up in terms of environmental issues. It has a blue-green caucus. Blue-green algae is toxic. The worst toxin known through the algae family is blue-green. I also note that when we mix blue and green we get brown. That is an outcome that is in prospect with this bill because it does not have the environmental checks in place. It is not delivering for Canterbury it is simply enshrining the Government’s agenda. That is not appropriate and not acceptable. If the Government is going to push this bill through under urgency here in the Parliament at a quarter to one in the afternoon it must give alongside this new environmental strengthening protections that make sure that water is improved not put in place an agenda for rapid allocation which will simply see further degradation. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson Roy in giving me the call you have made a very challenging decision and you handled it impeccably if I may say so. I had a bit of a Harry Potter moment when we were moving from Part 2 to Part 3. I am not sure whether Mr Chair is familiar with the train station that Harry Potter and his fellow students catch the train from—and I do not want to tell you the whole of the Harry Potter story because that would ruin it for you if you have not already read it—but there should be a “Part 2.5” between Part 2 and Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because there is a big chunk missing. I tell members that a lot of people in Canterbury will be very frustrated by the missing information particularly given the fact that the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide has steadfastly refused to take a call. I thought that as part of his regime of getting up and bouncing around that he is so highly regarded for he would at least stand up take a call and provide us with the information that we have been seeking through our questions. But he has not done so. I think he should look at what is missing between Part 2 and Part 3. 
Part 2 chucks out all the councillors. Part 3 provides some existing powers for Environment Canterbury which is not even a legal entity after the start of this new regime. Well I want to know what will happen to the stuff that is already started. What will happen to the stuff that our elected regional councillors have already started? Who will pick up that work? How will we download the brain cells of our existing regional councillors on to the as yet unknown non-appointed commissioners so that they can have some competency in carrying on the work that has been started? If we are going to pay them $2000 a day of my ratepayers’ money they had better be giving us good quality. 
Let me give members an example. In terms of the additional functions and powers that are being given to these $2000-a-day ministerial-appointed commissioners I cannot see anywhere in Part 3 or anywhere else in the bill a description of what will happen to the draft annual plan that Environment Canterbury issued less than a week ago. What will happen to that draft annual plan? It was issued on 27 March and the public in the whole of the Environment Canterbury area got a copy of it. We were told that there would be public consultation. Well that is a bit of an innovation for the Minister. He will not have tripped over that particular set of words very often in his lifetime. In case he is not aware of it I tell the Minister that public consultation is where proposals are taken to the people so that they have an opportunity to read think and talk about them within their communities. Then they have a say and the Minister gets to hear it—or in this case the councillors get to hear it—and then decisions are made. But what happens if there are no regional councillors any more as is the case here because we have just passed Part 2 which is “How to sack your regional council 101”? We have until 30 April to make submissions on the draft annual plan for Environment Canterbury but it no longer has councillors who can hear the submissions. 
The paragraph in the Local Government Act that covers this matter states that the purpose of the annual plan is to “contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.” As Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide will be very familiar with those words because he is the Minister in charge of that legislation. I want him to tell me how an unelected ministerial-appointed commissioner can have any accountability to the local community. We do not even know who the commissioners are. We did not vote for them; we voted for the ones the Minister has just sacked. So how can section 95(5)(d) of the Local Government Act be complied with? We do not have any local accountability from our elected councillors; we do not even have elected councillors. What will our community think of commissioners setting the Budget for the coming years when they have had no public input? The commissioners do not even live in our region. The provision of the Local Government Act to which I have just referred is being ignored not because the Minister cannot be bothered with it but because he has actually voted to have his own legislation ignored. Part 2 of this bill specifically states that the Local Government Act— 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Just to answer the question of the Hon Ruth Dyson and to settle her concerns and those of her constituents I say that the long-term council community plan that has been released stays in place and the consultation continues. It is exactly as set out. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I wish to address Part 3 and in particular clause 34 which comes under the heading “Imposition of moratorium” and is called “Power to impose moratorium on specified applications.’” It begins “(1) ECan may” and on that point I allude back to a point made earlier by Brendon Burns. I attempted to get the same point across before our debate on Part 1 was cut off. The reference to “ECan” is very sloppy drafting. Throughout the bill the text is littered with references to “ECan”. Indeed it is defined in the interpretation clause but it is a poor use of legal drafting. It is almost as bad as clause 9 which is about elected members ceasing to hold office stating that this provision applies “no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It so clearly has been drafted in haste that considerable time is required for revision to be undertaken. 
But when I look at clause 34 and the imposition of a moratorium I ask myself why an unelected body would be granted such powers when the elected Environment Canterbury council was not granted those powers. The answer we are given both in the Creech report and now by the Government is that Environment Canterbury was insufficiently efficient in applying the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and in granting consents. On the basis of that I was disposed to undertake some research to compare Environment Canterbury with the other 11 regional councils and the three unitary authorities to see how the others had done. A great deal of concern and apprehension have been expressed in the Chamber this morning about which other regional councils may go under the guillotine on the basis of the same rather loose subjective and partisan criteria that have been brought to bear upon Environment Canterbury. 
When we look at the other 11 councils and the other three unitary authorities we emerge with three general observations. The first is that some councils have a regional water management plan and other councils combine it with a land and water management plan or a more holistic resources management plan. The second observation is that in every case there seems to be a lengthy process for the introduction of the plans that involves introduction by the council followed by a request for submissions a hearing and an appeals process before the plan becomes operational either completely or in part. The third observation is that water and resource management plans are “living documents” and appear in many cases to be constantly subject to updating and variations. 
We need to take those three observations very much into account when we reflect on the dissolution of Environment Canterbury because it was said to have come in 84th out 84 councils as I said in the second reading debate. That is misleading because it came in essentially 12th out of the 12 regional councils. Let us look at those 12 councils and the three unitary authorities to see where each stands. By my count of the 15—12 plus three—six have not notified complete water plans. They either have not proposed anything as in the case of three of those bodies; have simply made a statement of water intent as in the case of one; or have simply notified a plan in parts as in the case of two bodies Marlborough and Tasman. So the Canterbury West Coast Tasman Marlborough Gisborne and Auckland councils either have not proposed a plan have simply made a statement or have simply made a plan in parts. That is 40 percent of the total 15 regional councils and unitary authorities. 
So to answer the question of Mr Chris Hipkins and others who spoke earlier today as to which council is next the short answer is that any one of those other five councils should watch out because the guillotine might be coming its way. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I begin my comments on Part 3 with my usual statement which I am getting sick of making. The Government’s decision not to include the regulatory impact statement in bills that are tabled in this House makes for very poor-quality debates because we have to go and find the regulatory impact statement which is not in the bill itself in order to address some of the concerns that the regulatory impact statement might contain. I am glad that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for Regulatory Reform because I think that was a bad decision and I really want his Government to think about overturning it. 
The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is a very good example of why we need the regulatory impact statement in front of us because the regulatory impact statement states: “There are significant risks associated with the Review Group’s recommendation to temporarily suspend planned triennial elections for regional councillors (scheduled for October 2010) and to transfer the functions and responsibilities of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) elected councillors to government-appointed commissioners”— 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.