Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9955] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We believe that it will come to mark an historic occasion; it will live on in infamy in the annals of this Parliament. 
Last week in the general debate I advanced a critique of the Creech report and its recommendations. I do not wish to repeat those criticisms; suffice it to say tonight that this report was politically driven and not politically informed. It failed the basic standards of organisational and managerial professionalism. In particular the statutory arrangements in this country impose five functions on regional councils. They are resource management biosecurity control river management land transport and civil defence. The Creech report focused excessively almost exclusively on one part of one of those functions and condemned the council to death. But that is already history. 
What we are addressing tonight is the response of the Government to that report and to the Canterbury water situation. In a more fundamental manner what we face here is the relationship between central government and local government and what that means for democracy in this country. This is not a light matter. It is concerned with two fundamental issues—economic growth on the one hand and good governance on the other. The stated problem as advanced by the Minister when introducing the bill is “the longstanding systemic issue in regional governance.” “Intervention”—said the Minister—“can only occur if there is serious failure” and he said that that had occurred. 
So what does the bill do? It abolishes the elected council establishes a new appointed commission and gives that unelected body extra powers. That is the classic example of shifting the goalposts. We condemn a democratic body for alleged ineptitude that derives from weakness in the powers granted to it and then we set up an undemocratic body and grant it the powers its democratic predecessor had always needed. That is not only devious; it is dangerous to this nation’s constitutional health. 
We need to be careful in this country because our constitutional integrity is quite fragile compared to most other countries. We have no codified constitution. We have no Upper House. We do not have a clear separation of national powers. We have no federal division of authority; rather we have a strong centralised Government. It does not take much in these circumstances to generate a momentum whereby power becomes excessively concentrated. We can all remember the New Zealand Government not so long ago that was described as an elected dictatorship. Jim Anderton said in this debate that he has never in all his time in this House—over a quarter of a century—seen anything like this. 
Stamping out the tender plant that is local democracy can be done even with the best of intentions. This Government believes that it is doing the right thing as Jacqui Dean said earlier today. So believed Tony Blair when he invaded Iraq. That was on the principle of humanitarian intervention but grotesquely misconstrued. So believed Bainimarama when he took out the elected Government of Fiji at the end of a gun. That was on the doctrine of necessity but grotesquely misconstrued. What is to be the doctrine on which the leader of this nation with his two lieutenants Ministers Smith and Hide will rest their intervention? What grotesque misconstruction will eventuate? Will it be the doctrine of frustration—frustration over the obstacles that democracy sustainability and the precautionary principle place in front of economic growth? Or will it be the doctrine of corporate efficiency—a truth that will not be denied either in Auckland or in Canterbury? If it is the latter how many regional councils will go under the guillotine for alleged inefficiency before this Government and its supporters are satiated? 
Environment Canterbury came in last out of an alleged 84 in the most recent regional survey. In fact that is misleading. There are only 12 regional councils so it is a sleight of hand to trumpet 84 councils—Rodney District Council incidentally is not a regional council and it was not for 5 years. Of the 12 regional councils I tell the Minister one had to come last. There is a reason why the council was Canterbury. It is because water is the most sensitive issue in New Zealand right now and Canterbury is the most sensitive region for water. One does not need to be a rocket scientist or even an Environment Canterbury reviewer to recognise these truths. So which is the next regional council to get the eagle eye turned upon it in the name of corporate efficiency? That which came in 11th? 
How are we to judge the nature of this intrusion into the nation’s democracy? Let us turn to the regulatory impact statement and see what it says: “Elections are a right and privilege of any citizen in New Zealand. The suspension of such a right should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Such a decision is correct to sit with Parliament.” The regulatory impact statement continues: “Targeted consultation”—members should note the word “targeted”—“was undertaken during the statutory investigation of ECan … However there has been no public consultation on the proposals … The short timeframe available … has not allowed for a comprehensive assessment of risks and alternatives. This increases the risk that intervention could be incorrectly targeted and/or could require subsequent amendment to address unforeseen circumstances.” 
This is an extraordinary impact statement. It was prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. That was a brave action for clearly the ministry is not happy with what is going on. Will the ministry too be disbanded? And on what principle—a lack of loyalty to the leader? 
Yet that is not all because the Minister proposes to proceed under urgency. The impact statement states: “This alongside the proposal to limit appeal rights on decisions/recommendations made by commissioners … potentially alienates Canterbury rate payers and the general public from decisions made on natural resources in the Canterbury region. This raises equity and access to justice issues.” This situation is perhaps as Jim Anderton has said unprecedented. Here we have a situation in which a Government department is fighting to defend the principles of democracy and natural justice that are historically and constitutionally the responsibility of central government to defend but it is central government that is stamping them out. The ratepayers and the general public of my province are being alienated from decisions being made over their natural resources thus raising issues of equity and justice. 
This is the kind of thing that citizens tend to rebel against. Well there is news for the Ministers and also for their leader Mr Key who appears to be losing his footing: the ratepayers and the general public of Canterbury have taken roughly 2 hours to get their act together in the face of this threat to their natural rights. A group of Canterbury citizens is organising already to picket tomorrow the offices of four National MPs in Canterbury—MPs Brownlee David Carter Wagner and Adams—and they will leave a letter at their doors. 
That letter reads as follows: “No taxation without representation: an open letter to Canterbury National MPs. We the undersigned are writing to utterly condemn the National Party Government’s decision to abolish the democratically elected and accountable regional council in Canterbury and replace it by unelected commissioners responsible only to central government. Moreover this has been done without the slightest consultation with the Canterbury public. This is an outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy and also a sorry degradation of democracy for New Zealand as a whole. It seems to signal the determination to favour sector interests over the welfare of the public at large. We pledge never to vote for a party which has such a flagrant disregard for our sovereign rights as citizens to elect and recall our democratic representatives at the local level. From May 1 councillors we elected in 2007 will no longer be working for us; we expect to find in our next ECan rates bills that the portion of our rates which went towards their salaries has been rebated accordingly from 1 May. If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision-makers then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision-makers it chooses to put in their place. We look forward to hearing the National Party’s assurance that this will be the case before 1 May.” Thank you.