Norman Russel William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Norman Russel William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9935] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Government’s bill to abolish the elected councillors from Environment Canterbury a bill that we are debating under urgency and which will be pushed through in the middle of the night without proper democratic process. 
In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury. This Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is the fulfilment of that promise because the Government believes that democracy is an obstacle to irrigation in Canterbury. The Government believes that Agribusiness and the irrigation companies have become aggrieved at the regional council for stopping some of their projects. It has got in the way. So the Government is getting rid of democracy in Canterbury by getting rid of the elected regional council. 
What does one do when one cannot get one’s own way? What one does is to get rid of the obstacle. When the irrigation companies and Agribusiness got annoyed with the regional council they went to the Government and asked it to get rid of the regional council. The Government tonight—forcing this bill through under urgency—is to sack the regional council. 
It is interesting that we have had a debate over the last few weeks over whether we should have one person one vote. Well the Government tonight is moving towards one person no vote in Canterbury. Tonight it is abolishing democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years. It sounds like something that Commodore Frank Bainimarama would do in Fiji when he said “We are just going to abolish democracy for a little while but we will bring it back again later.” 
Mr Anderton said earlier that there should be no taxation without representation. The people of Canterbury will now be taxed through their rates and will have absolutely no say about how their taxes will be spent. The people of Canterbury—500000 people roughly—are about to have their democratic rights taken away from them. There is no royal commission as there was in Auckland if we want to compare it with the Auckland example. There are no select committee hearings as there were during the Auckland super-city process with all the aspects of the Auckland problem. It will be forced through on the 500000 people of Canterbury overnight under urgency in this House. 
The thing that justifies it—the fig leaf that is used—is the so-called Creech report. The Creech report was the result of a review headed up by a director from a dairy company with multiple convictions for water pollution and it worked for about 3½ weeks I think. It interviewed about 20 stakeholders. Among other things the Creech report concluded that there was “no fundamental dysfunction” which was an interesting conclusion for the Creech report on which all of this was based. It said that there was no fundamental dysfunction. One of the interesting things about the Creech report was that it criticised the regional council for being too pro-science. It said that the regional council was basing too many decisions on science. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What an outrage! 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: That was the outrage. That was the criticism. It was science-led rather than science-informed. That is what the Creech report criticised the regional council for: paying too much heed to science and not enough heed to the irrigation companies. It also criticised the regional council for being an obstacle to economic growth. This is one of the regions that has grown fastest in New Zealand as a result of the dramatic increase in irrigation in the Canterbury region. 
In fact if members look at the Resource Management Act which is obviously something this Government very seldom does—they will see that it talks about sustainable management. It is not supposed to be there for endless unlimited economic growth with no constraints whatsoever. For the Creech report to criticise the regional council for taking the environment into account means that the Creech report does not understand the Resource Management Act which is supposed to take the environment into account. That is the whole purpose of sustainable development. Responsible management of the environment is to take the environment into account. That is what Environment Canterbury was being criticised for in the Creech report. 
It is also notable that within the last 12 months Environment Canterbury processed nearly 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time lines. Of course they are being criticised because during one period they processed only 29 percent. Yet now just as they are about to be abolished they are processing about 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time frames. That is the right time to abolish them! What a brilliant time to abolish them—just as they are doing well! 
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls this bill the fast track to dams and that is what this bill is. It is an attack on the water conservation order process around the Hurunui River. Currently that process is on its way to the Environment Court. It was supposed to be there in May to hear the appeals. This bill will cut the water conservation order on the Hurunui off at the knees because the water conservation order might have got in the way of the irrigators and that is unacceptable. As John Key told us he will remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury so we cannot possibly have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River that would stop us building a big dam across it. 
The other problem with this bill is that the people of Christchurch aside from having their democratic rights taken away from them will have their clean water taken away. Currently Christchurch is fortunate to have very good potable water supplies which are untreated. Already there are small amounts of nitrogen appearing in that water and as irrigation expands—because as John Key says we have to get rid of regulatory roadblocks to irrigation—and pollution expands it is goodbye to Christchurch’s clean water supply. Also the water conservation order on the Rakaia River is also a target of this Government. It wants to break the water conservation order on the Rakaia River so that it can access that water for irrigation as well. 
This bill aside from being an attack on democratic oversight of executive Government is also an attack on judicial oversight of democratic government. The water conservation order which would normally go to the Environment Court so that the judiciary could have a say on this process has been cut off. It will no longer go to the Environment Court for judicial oversight. The natural resource regional plan will no longer have access on points of content as opposed to points of law to the Environment Court so that particular aspect of judicial oversight of regional government and the regional executive will be removed. 
It is not very well known that water conservation orders are the national parks for rivers. Just as the Government wants to mine national parks—it wants to mine the conservation estate and the schedule 4 lands within the estate—it also wants to mine the national parks for rivers which are the water conservation orders. The Government wants to get rid of the water conservation orders so that it can take the water that is currently protected in the Rakaia and put it into irrigation schemes so that it can give lots of money to the big dairy companies and the irrigators and add lots of pollution to the groundwater and the surface water in Canterbury. 
These water conservation orders are a problem for the Government the irrigators and the dairy corporations. But if we want to protect the environment they are very important. So when the Government intervenes as it will under urgency tonight and tomorrow it will interrupt the water conservation order process and that will fundamentally threaten the national parks for rivers in our country. Water conservation orders are national parks for rivers in our country. The orders are put there to be an absolute protection for rivers and this Government is tonight moving in to overturn water conservation orders because it sees them as an obstacle to irrigation. 
In respect of the moratorium on new water-takes in at-risk catchments giving the power to implement a moratorium is a good idea but why was it not given to the regional councillors and to Environment Canterbury? They have been begging for that power for years. Brian Jenkins has been begging to have that power but time and again Governments of both flavours have refused to give it to him. It has become a real problem. It is of course one of the great paradoxes that at the same time that they are giving Environment Canterbury a moratorium to suspend resource consent processing in particular catchments the main reason given for sacking it is that it took too long to process resource consents which is one of the great paradoxes of the matter. If the Government really wanted to give the moratorium power and I support that then it should have given it to the regional council which was finally getting its act together. 
Finally I shall say a word about the Ministry for the Environment. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as big a failure as Environment Canterbury because for 19 years it has not produced national policy statements or national environmental standards. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as bad and just as responsible. We are moving from an era of malign neglect of rivers under the previous Government and the one before that to malign attention. Under the previous Government rivers were left to get dirtier; now this Government will accelerate the process. We are ramming it through in the middle of the night so that the Prime Minister can do just as he said in his opening statement to Parliament and take action to remove regulatory roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is what this bill is for.