Parker David: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I am always suspicious when we have loaded titles of legislation. It is a bit like Operation Enduring Freedom which we had under President George Bush. We have got the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and when you hear a Government use a self-congratulatory title like that you do wonder what is going on. 
Well the real effect of the Government’s actions in respect of this legislation has to be put alongside other legislation. This Government has neutered the freshwater policy statement that came out of Judge Sheppard and went through the Land and Water Forum. The Land and Water Forum came up with a consensual solution that was pretty close to where Judge Sheppard and his panel had got to. The Government then responded to behind-the-door pressure and undermined that. We have had this legislation undermining water conservation orders in the Canterbury area. Everywhere else in New Zealand except in Canterbury water conservation orders bind the regional council. They can be changed only through a process that ends up in the Environment Court after the Minister has had a say as to whether the amendment application should be heard but it cannot be done by a regional council just saying: “Oh look we’ve changed our mind. We actually think that way back when when New Zealand tried to protect a river like the Rakaia River”—they want to change it. But you know that is the effect of this legislation. It overrides water conservation orders which is another thing that threatens water quality and water quantity in Christchurch. 
And that is why I am not surprised to see some of the media criticisms of this legislation particularly in respect of Part 1 saying that one of the background factors to this is not actually the better outcome for the planning of water in Canterbury; it is actually irrigation outcomes that the Government wants to achieve perhaps through changing provisions in water conservation orders and also through its ill-considered subsidies that are coming from the taxpayer dollar to irrigation schemes which are effectively increasing the capital value of farms at the cost of taxpayers. So those two factors alone make it a nonsense to call this the improved water management bill. 
It is also I think an indictment on the poor processes of this Government that it could come to this Parliament 3 years ago and take the Draconian step that it did then and promise that 3 years later which sounded like a long time at the time it would have elections. Here we go in 2013 and it is saying that we are not now going to have elections. It promised them in 2010; now it is extending them until 2016. 
What about the old principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Because that is what rates are effectively. They are a form of taxation and ratepayers are forced to pay under threat of their properties being sold if they do not pay their rates. You should have representation. You should have local representation. There is no good reason that we have heard from the Government to justify the extension of these commissioners in Canterbury who have taken over the proper role of the regional council for an additional 3 years—no good reason whatsoever. 
I wonder also whether it is related to the Government’s intentions to ram through if it can the abolition of regional councils just about everywhere moving towards unitary authorities which might be a good idea for a big city like Auckland but which I am not convinced is the answer for the rest of New Zealand yet the Government seems to be pushing forward on that trajectory. So I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries to take a call and answer the criticisms that I have made and that have been made by submitters on the bill such as the Fish and Game Council amongst others who criticised this process; the Human Rights Commission; and local voters in the Canterbury region who are sad or annoyed that they have lost their rights. 
The Human Rights Commission submission said: “The Commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content - or the continuing need for legislation - is an abuse of the democratic process …”. They are very strong words from the human rights commissioner—very strong words indeed. I will say that again: it is an abuse of the democratic process. Then the submission goes on and says: “and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians (and could even do real harm).”