Sage Eugenie: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sage Eugenie: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The silence from the Government benches has been quite astonishing and I think it shows that there is nothing that Government members can do to defend this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and the very spurious reasons that they gave in the first reading for its introduction. As the Christchurch  
Press  
said in an editorial the continued suspension of democracy at Environment Canterbury is “the most radical denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent times” and it is something that “besmirches the Government” and denies Cantabrians a fundamental right. I think it is consistent with what this Government is doing in local government. The Hon David Parker talked about the way in which the bill overrides or denies the right to appeal to the Environment Court. Are we going to see that same denial of rights of appeal to the Environment Court in the local government reforms that the Government introduces later this year? Are we going to see a continuation of the centralisation of power in Wellington and local government regarded as an agent of central government rather than having a mandate in its own right because its councillors are elected and get that mandate from that election? 
What we have seen in Environment Canterbury and in this bill with the denial of appeal rights to the Environment Court the appointment of commissioners and the changes to water conservation orders is a fundamental denial of democracy in Canterbury and we think it is symptomatic of the other changes that this Government is putting on local councils and local government. It is rich because this Government derides the term “nanny State” and yet it is taking an awful amount of power to the State to central government and cutting right across the ability of local government to represent the people that elect it. We have seen that with the changes in the Resource Management Reform Bill which deny the Auckland Council the right to appoint the hearing commissioners to hear submissions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Here in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we have had councillors denied the opportunity as elected representatives to make the policies for the region through regional plans. That has been supplanted with appointed commissioners. Are we going to see the same in terms of changes to local government where we have councils around the country denied their right to make decisions on their plans through increased intervention powers for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Local Government? We have seen that in the Local Government Act changes last year with the Minister able to much more easily intervene. 
Yet this bill that we have now could have implemented the advice of the Minister’s own commissioners at Environment Canterbury. It could have moved to a transitional model. It could have implemented the advice of officials to restore the water conservation order provisions of the Resource Management Act fully in Canterbury. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 176 in my name which actually makes changes and inserts a new clause 10 after clause 9 which would restore the law that applies elsewhere in New Zealand to Canterbury in regard to water conservation orders. As David Parker noted there are several water conservation orders in Canterbury. He missed Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere. There are other rivers that deserve that status. Water conservation orders are the mechanism to recognise that rivers have outstanding values that deserve protection. Both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the New Zealand Conservation Authority recognise their value and the need for a representative range of rivers throughout New Zealand to be protected through water conservation orders. What would the Government lose except to admit that it cares about rivers only for irrigation? If it agreed to this Supplementary Order Paper it would be restoring some measure of good faith to water management in Canterbury by making sure that we have the same law across all of New Zealand. 
The Minister has not taken a call recently. I would encourage him to take a call to say why we cannot have the same law in Canterbury in relation to water conservation orders as applies everywhere else. It would be too big an ask of this Government to restore democracy but given the radical denial of our voting rights again without any substantive reasons from the Government I would be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why—