Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10062] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I shall talk about the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an oxymoron at the very least because it is not “temporary”; commissioners are being put in place for the next 3½ years. That is a very very long stretch of time. It is longer than the term of a Parliament. It is longer than the term of a local body in office. It is not temporary at all; the bill is totally misnamed in referring to temporary commissioners. 
The second thing relates to the improved water management. I ask how it will deliver that promise when it bases itself on and includes in schedule 1 the excellent visions and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That strategy was patiently negotiated in a roundtable consensus by good people in Canterbury giving every commitment to a sustainable management outcome. That in fact is the primary principle enshrined in that schedule. It talks about water being a public resource not one there for private gain without recourse to environmental outcomes. It enshrines as its first priority the environment. Only in second order does it come to uses such as irrigation and electricity. I note from that that schedule 2 refers to a cautious approach. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I remind the member that we are not debating the schedules; we have voted on those. We are on the title. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: The title includes reference to the water management strategy. The document is embodied within the title. 
The point I want to particularly make is that this bill is entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioner and Improved Water Management) Bill. There is no legal body entitled Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury is actually the trading name of the Canterbury Regional Council. It is the name that the public knows it by but it is not the name of the organisation. In fact the name of the regional council is the Canterbury Regional Council. That is its legal status that is its legal name and I suggest that at the very least this bill has been shoddily drafted. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy to tell me how we can have a bill named after a trading name when in fact it is not the legal name of the entity involved. Environment Canterbury is not the entity involved; it is simply the name the public knows the Canterbury Regional Council by. It is not its legal name so how can we as this bill does do away with the functions of elected councillors of Environment Canterbury as it is named in the title of this bill when in fact the name of the entity is the Canterbury Regional Council? The Minister needs to address this issue urgently because— 
Paul Quinn 
: Why? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I am raising the question. I am no lawyer but I think this is a very relevant question for the Minister to urgently address. 
Paul Quinn 
: He’s allowed to rename it. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: He can rename it if he wants to. It will be another indication of the shoddy and rushed nature of this bill if the Minister is forced to do that at the 11th hour and 59th minute under urgency because he is not competent enough to see through a bill using the proper name and title. If that is the case it is a further black mark for this Minister. It is absolutely a further black mark because it is reprehensible legislation whatever its title is; it does away with the right of people in Canterbury to elect their regional councillors for the Canterbury Regional Council. 
The bill is now named as the Environment Canterbury bill. It is inappropriately named because that is the trading name of the organisation; it is not the legal name of the organisation. It is another example of the Government’s shoddy rapid-fire approach signalling its desire simply to get in place rapid new water management. It does not care what it does it does not care what democratic principle it steps over; it will do anything it can to deliver fast new water so that it can have quick runs on the board in the run-up to the next election. The architect of that strategy is entering the Chamber. There will be quick runs except when it comes to superannuation card changes then there is quick reverse—but that is another issue. This bill is inappropriately titled. Environment Canterbury is not the organisation that should be in the title of this bill; it is the Canterbury Regional Council.