Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9989] 
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.