Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9960] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I have sat through a lot of this debate and have listened to members speak. Like Ms Adams I am a Canterbury member. Ms Adams represents a mostly rural electorate; in my case it is semi-rural. To some extent this debate has degenerated into some sort of name-calling or labelling exercise and it is interesting to note that there are people in the community who love to live off the back of our rural constituents and who love to live off the back of the revenue that our rural constituents create but when it suits them they put the boot into rural people and bag them. 
It is very interesting that the Minister of Conservation a Cabinet Minister who nominally resides somewhere in my seat—we are not quite sure where—has not taken a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. 
Colin King 
: Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Kate Wilkinson someone says. She has not taken a call on this bill. Maybe she is dropping acid—folic acid that is—somewhere in this place. But it is interesting that that Minister has not come down and has decided not to take a call on this bill because that member does not like to front up on the hard issues. That member has been rolled so many times in this House that—and I sympathise with her—she has probably decided to raise the white flag! “I’m out of here. I’m not speaking on the bill.” But I could be wrong. 
The Opposition has talked about process. I acknowledge that there were and are problems with Environment Canterbury—I acknowledge that. If members talk to farming communities or to urban communities they will hear that there were difficulties and problems particularly around water—I acknowledge that. But the question is how we fix or attempt to fix those difficulties. 
A lot of the members on the Canterbury Regional Council did an outstanding job over many years and they will no longer be there once this bill is enacted. The question is one of process: how to deal as a Government with those difficulties. One option that was suggested by a number of the regional councillors was to have a commissioner sit alongside the regional council to deal surgically with some of the difficulties in the bureaucracy. 
It is interesting to look at the process and what we are hearing tonight. I listened with interest to Mr Boscawen’s contribution. He is a man who holds himself up as the bastion of democracy who then stands in the stalls beside his leader Rodney Hide a man who for many years celebrated being Parliament’s independent man a man who believes that minorities should be represented a man who believes in the democratic approach and a man who has said repeatedly that the people know best how to deal with their money that we should empower the people that we should give the people the right to deal with Parliament that we should give them respect—empower them. Tonight with this piece of legislation just as on other nights in relation to the super-city legislation he has been led by the nose through the stalls and into the Ayes lobby. What Mr Hide and Mr Boscawen are really saying is that they believe in democracy as long as it suits them. 
Mr Colin King talked about principle. The commissioners remain till around October 2013 not up until the next election when the people would have their say and could either blow the regional councillors away or re-elect them. No the process of people having their say is gone—and Mr Colin King talks about principle. 
When we look at the Creech report we have to say that its recommendations looked preordained. There were 80 submissions—none from the public of course—and 20 groups were spoken to. It was a 3-week process and then we had the political massaging effort of the roadshow with Mr Hide and Dr Nick Smith wandering around the countryside for a couple of weeks having a chat to the local authorities. That is the alibi for putting this measure through the House. 
Another interesting point is that Dr Smith told Labour members and Green members this morning that this bill would not be implemented till roughly some time in May—possibly the end of May. He himself did not know at that point when it would be enacted because it is required to commence on a  
Gazette 
 notice—there has to be a transitional period. Well I am reliably informed that the Local Government and Environment Committee has an extremely light agenda—feather light. It could have been called together tonight it could have been called together tomorrow and people and groups could have had their say. Why would the Government abrogate its responsibility and guillotine that? I suspect—and I will adhere to your ruling Mr Deputy Speaker and I will not elaborate—that it is exactly the same mentality as this Government exhibited over the “three strikes” bill which was to kill off any opposition to not allow anyone to have a say and to ram the bill through as quickly as possible and then hope that all is well. 
I am one who acknowledges the economic benefit of irrigation. It has given massive benefits to my electorate and other parts of Canterbury—massive benefits and massive economic growth. I am balanced enough in my views to say that publicly without fear or favour. But I also acknowledge that there have been problems. 
One of the biggest problems as David Parker pointed out was Dr Nick Smith sitting on his hands for 18 months in respect of the National Policy Statement For Freshwater Management. Dr Smith got up and asked what Labour did for 9 years. That is a fair call. But the question also goes back the other way. Dr Smith as David Parker said could have called Cabinet together on Monday or last Monday or a month ago or 18 months ago when he became Minister and he could have activated the statement through a Cabinet decision. But for whatever reason he chose not to. So I say to those like Mr Hide the bastion of democracy the man who says we should empower New Zealanders and we should put the power back into the communities that he says that when it suits him and when it suits his means. 
I see Mr Gilmore writing frantically. I am reliably advised that there will be a picket of four National Party electorate offices. I assume that it will be the offices of Mr Brownlee Mr Carter Ms Wagner and Ms Wilkinson. Forget that there is another National member called Mr Gilmore. He ain’t even worth picketing! There is the old saying about why seagulls fly upside down but I will leave it there because it would not be appropriate. Mr Gilmore ain’t even worth picketing. He is a legend in his own lifetime. The punters know that it ain’t worth going near his electorate office because it ain’t worth picketing. It ain’t worth throwing a tomato or a rotten egg because it would just bounce off. 
I say very seriously that I think this House should acknowledge the difficulties of Environment Canterbury but should acknowledge also that it made great strides in the months before this report concluded as it did in respect of consent processing times reaching 90 percent of the rolling time frame compliance rate to the end of January 2010. But oh no there was not a word of that from across the aisle. This decision will not go through the select committee process. The public has not been consulted on the Creech report and every vestige of public input has been cut off apart from debates in this House. Those members talk about the Rodney District situation but Ms Dalziel has outlined the difference there: the difference was that the council wanted some action wanted the Government to move in and take action. The difference here is that no process is being embarked upon. If it is so principled— 
John Hayes 
: For good reason. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And if it is for good reason well let us hear one I ask “Les Patterson” in the front row. I ask him to give us a reason because we have not heard one tonight. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot refer to another member by a nickname or a surname. 
John Hayes 
: It’s not my nickname with respect. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not his nickname. The member cannot refer to another member by a name that is not his. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise. It is actually “Sir Les Patterson”. I should have used it— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No no. I have ruled. The member cannot use those references. I ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. 
The member said “For good reason.” Well no good reason has been outlined or articulated tonight. There is no good reason to justify not having a select committee process. There is no good reason to justify not asking the community—except that for the Government there is one good reason: people may rise up and oppose this measure. Yes the public of Canterbury want action. Yes I think they want decisions through the regional council but they also guard their democracy. These commissioners will have the power to rate but unlike elected folk the commissioners will not be voted in or booted out by the public. The commissioners are at the behest of the Minister until October 2013. They will rate and they will require money from the Canterbury constituencies to empower them to do their work but they will not be accountable to those constituencies in the same way as elected members. I wait to hear from that member the good reasons why democracy has been cut asunder tonight. I wait for those reasons as do the people of Canterbury.