Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10056] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I will pick up on what the Minister has just said and will refer back to clause 34 of Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill which I commented on earlier. I will pick up where I left off on that. I have a couple of comments I would like to make. Before I do I will clear away one thing so that we do not have to revisit it because I think it is rather unedifying for this House. There are various forms of ad hominem attacks and I took some exception to the Minister in the chair casting a slight—an aspersion—on the Green Party’s co-leader Russel Norman who asked a question in the House in good faith today. That question pertained to a conflict of interest and I would like the Minister and his colleagues to accept the fact that any Opposition member in this House does have the right to ask a question pertaining to conflict of interest which is a constitutional precept embedded in this democracy. 
To conclude on that point I find it somewhat gratuitous of the Minister to offer his view of what the Green Party’s previous co-leader might have to think about the standards of this party. Our co-leaders both previous and present aspire to the highest standards. I know them very well all three whom I do know: the two current co-leaders and Jeanette Fitzsimons. I do not think this party needs to take advice from this Minister about the standards that the Green Party is aspiring to attain. If he continues to do it then he would invite me and others but particularly me to rank this Minister in terms of integrity and dignity in the context of some of his predecessors some of whom I know very well indeed. 
On a more positive note I would like the Minister to address one thing that has not come out in the debate to date. That is the following: I presume that the Creech report and the Minister’s judgment about the Environment Canterbury regional council are not based in any way on a judgment pertaining to the individual capabilities competence or integrity of those councillors. It is to do with something else. I think it would clear the air a little bit if we could invite the Minister to make a statement to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong but I have not seen it made before. I know at least half of the councillors and I have a high regard for each of them as individuals. They have done good work and if they are to be disbanded for whatever reason—and we can debate the reasons here—then I think it is incumbent on the Minister and the rest of us to acknowledge the individual competence and good work they have each done. 
The Minister was wont just a moment ago to refer to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and he complained that the Labour members had misunderstood the point. As he put it the natural resources management strategy has been in place for the better part of 18 years and there is no water management plan coming out; therefore that is the principal reason the criterion for disbanding the council. I remind the Minister that the National Government back in 1991 introduced the Resource Management Act. Exactly 18 years later another National Government its successor amended the Act. Clearly the Act was not perfect at the very beginning. Does that require that we disband this Government? It is the same period of time. 
I spoke earlier about the deadlines that Environment Canterbury was meant to meet and failed to meet in producing the water management plan. That appears to be the principal reason that Environment Canterbury is being disbanded. I identified the fact that out of 15 regional and unitary councils six of them did not have complete water management plans established. Three have not done any one has made a statement and two others have simply introduced water management plans in part only. So where does that leave us in terms of time frame? One of the issues we have to look at is the various sizes of the irrigation responsibilities regional council by regional council. 
I can offer statistics for the Minister and he is free to correct them if he thinks they are different. These are the statistics we have gathered and they are the following. Of the irrigation undertaken in New Zealand 62 percent comes from Canterbury 17 percent comes from Otago and the rest account for 5 percent or less. So there is this huge differentiation. If we put Canterbury and Otago together it is 79 percent of irrigation which is huge. So it is important to regard those two regions more or less as separate and unique compared with the others. But as I say some of the others have not achieved the stated goal the criterion by which the Minister is disbanding Environment Canterbury. Let us look at them and have regard to what fate may lie in store for them. 
We find that Marlborough has 3 percent of irrigation. It has a plan in part only. We have Tasman which has 2 percent of irrigation. It has not yet introduced Part 5 of its plan. When run together those two councils represent 5 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation. I ask the Minister what we are to do with those. Let us put a deadline on those two regional councils to complete their work let us say by 30 June this year the failure of which would require that they be disbanded and we can introduce an unelected commission. We find Gisborne which has 0.4 percent of irrigation. Let us give it a deadline of 30 June. It has made a statement only. Let it translate that statement into a water management plan by 30 June failing which it will be disbanded. Auckland is responsible for 0.2 percent of the country’s irrigation. It is tiny. But we know what is happening to Auckland so let us give the super-city an extension. Let us give it to 1 April 2011 to introduce a water management plan failing which we will have to disband the super-city and return to the status quo ante. 
My favourite is the West Coast. The West Coast is responsible for 0.37 percent of the nation’s irrigation. Members may think that is trifling but I suggest that it is an onerous responsibility on the West Coast to draw up a water management plan. I think we should give it only 5 months—until 31 August 2010. Failure to have a complete integrated water management plan in place by 31 August requires that it be disbanded. It should not be beyond our competence collectively watching this Government in action to ensure that in addition to Canterbury the other five regional councils will go under the guillotine no later than 1 April 2011. Thank you.