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:10013] 
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.