Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

Dalziel Hon Lianne Dalziel Link to this

I tell Lianne Dalziel that all 10 councils that I have personally visited have indicated support for the replacement of the regional council, or Environment Canterbury, with commissioners. There was also very broad consensus amongst the key stakeholders in Canterbury that action is needed.

I acknowledge, and I think my colleague Rodney Hide would acknowledge, that when last October we sought a formal review of Environment Canterbury it was not our expectation that this would be the outcome. I expected that a lesser intervention might have been necessary, but having received such a comprehensive report, with very clear recommendations, it would not—

It’s not comprehensive; it’s outrageous.

Burns Brendon Burns Link to this

I draw the member’s attention to the fact that Wyatt Creech, Doug Martin, Greg Hill, and Doug Low are very respected individuals who were used by the previous Labour Government, as well as by this Government, in the review. What that review concluded was that there was an unprecedented gap between the issues that Environment Canterbury faced, particularly in respect of water management, and its capacity to act in that regard. I also note its very clear conclusion that failure to act would lead only to continued malaise around water management in Canterbury. The Government’s intervention is warranted; our response is measured, it is reasonable, and it is appropriate for the circumstances.

To turn round Environment Canterbury does require a response from the Government. As I have said, this is not a step we wanted to take, but this decision represents the best chance to move water management in Canterbury forward. This intervention is not only in the interests of Canterbury’s environment economy but, quite frankly, it is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. The appointment of commissioners is an interim measure. Commissioners will be in place for only as long as they are needed to do the job. The legislation makes plain that the period, at the very longest, will extend to the 2013 local body election. This provides sufficient time to place Environment Canterbury on a firmer footing.

The bill provides an obligation on the commissioners to seek the advice of, and consult, the mayors of Canterbury. That is an appropriate link back to those persons who will be democratically elected across the region of Canterbury in the local body elections this October. The terms of reference will also bind the commissioners so that they are required to consult Ngāi Tahu and other key stakeholders on the issue of water resource management in Canterbury. I also note that all of the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act about the inclusion of, and consultation with, the people of Canterbury have been carried over in these decisions.

A challenge was set down by the Labour environment spokesperson, Shane Jones, to be clear about what the provisions are in this bill that will improve the management of water in Canterbury, and I want to go through the three of those quite explicitly. Firstly, this bill provides for a targeted moratorium to be able to be placed in Canterbury, where, frankly, there is no more water. I challenge members opposite to say whether they support that view or are opposed.

We support it.

Dyson Hon Ruth Dyson Link to this

It is clear that they support that measure. That is welcomed. It was asked of the previous Government, by Environment Canterbury, many years ago. I think we should at least accept that that is an improvement, but Brendon Burns’ acknowledgment that that is a step forward is contradicted by his colleague Shane Jones, who says there is nothing in this bill to improve water management in Canterbury.

The second key provision in this bill is that we need to have a plan, as quickly as possible, for water management in Canterbury. That is why this bill enables the commissioners to fast track the completion of the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement for Canterbury. Again, I say that that is a step forward; again, I challenge both the Greens and Labour as to whether they support the measures in this bill to ensure that we have a plan in Canterbury for the management of water.

The third key provisions in this bill that also improve water management are those in respect of integrating decisions on water conservation orders with those of the regional plan, and having those decisions made by commissioners. Again I challenge members opposite to say how it makes sense for decisions around water conservation orders to be made by a separate group of people from those who are developing the regional plans. We are of a view that if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury, it needs to be done in an integrated way, and that is what this bill provides for.

I have been disappointed in the debate on this bill that the major contribution from members opposite has been one of misinformation and personal denigration. For instance, the latest is the claim made by Ruth Dyson that Margaret Bazley will be paid $2,000 a day. I challenge the member: where has she got that information from? Why would she want to denigrate a person like Dame Margaret Bazley—

How is that a personal denigration?

H V Ross Robertson Link to this

I challenge Ruth Dyson to say where she got that information from. She just enjoys making things up. Let me give that member an assurance that the amount that Dame Margaret Bazley will be paid for her work will be exactly the same amount as was agreed by the previous Government to pay Dame Margaret Bazley for her work on the royal commission in respect of the work in Auckland. I would not find any member who reasonably objects to that approach. I note that Brendon Burns has had a track record on this issue of making all sorts of claims in the newspapers about things going to Cabinet on particular days and about particular members of the commission. He has been grandstanding all the time and not making any sort of constructive contribution. I can name six times when he has made claims about his sources who tell him things that have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. I am surprised that Mr Burns wants to continue, in the name of grandstanding, to compromise his own integrity, with those false claims.

It is hugely important for New Zealand that we improve water management, and nowhere is that more important than in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House because I think that all members of this House know, in their heart of hearts, that the Government had no choice but to act. I think the comments from the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, were particularly revealing when he said that everyone knew the problems in Environment Canterbury. He had taken a proposal to Helen Clark, and she had said that for political reasons they did not act. This Government will rise above politics. This Government is determined to deliver improved water management for New Zealand. That is what this bill delivers, and I commend it to this Parliament.

Burns BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

What a conclusion to a shameful day for this Parliament. That Minister, who has talked about people’s integrity being questioned, used his last speech on the bill to question the integrity of other people, including myself. This bill is an absolute travesty from beginning to end. It is based on a specious review, which interviewed fewer than 20 stakeholders in 1 short month, with a conflicted chairperson, of Environment Canterbury’s performance, which had improved immeasurably in the time between the review’s taking place and the end of the time frame it was looking at.

I thought the Minister was on record as saying he wanted better water quality in New Zealand. This bill does absolutely nothing to deliver on the promise that he made repeatedly when in Opposition and in the early stages in Government. Earlier today I asked a question of the Prime Minister on the issue of what he wants to see and what he is on record as seeing. I have now tabled that reference. I quote from written question No. 291 from Dr Russel Norman, in which the Prime Minister stated that when, earlier this year, he spoke of looking forward to seeing water schemes built in the South Island this year, he was referring to the Rangitata South scheme as well as to some of the specific water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

So there we have it. There is the agenda of this Government, on paper. The Government wants to see new projects next year. That is what this bill is about: enabling those projects to happen rapidly and in a context where there are no new environmental frameworks or safeguards being put in place by this Government. During the course of question time, too, my question was rejected on the basis that it could not be authenticated by reference to Dr Smith’s comments in today’s Timaru Herald. Let me quote the Timaru Herald of today: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections. ‘ECan put forward a negotiated solution, but one of the downsides is that there was no guarantee the commissioner-adviser would have the same powers come October,’ ”.

What he is saying is that he did not want to trust the voters of Canterbury to have their say about who should decide on the functions of their regional council on the allocation of water in their region. He wanted to have control of that, via commissioners. That is what this bill is about. It is the replacement of a democratic council function by executive fiat—the Fiji solution, as it has been referred to in the House. There is no requirement across this bill for consultation with the public of Canterbury. What we have is the requirement for commissioners to issue public notices from time to time. Where will we see these commissioners replacing the functions of elected councillors? Where will they go out and meet with people who have issues about their rates, the need to replace their fireplaces, and the need to improve the city’s bus service, scheduling, or timetables?

I ask the Minister where those commissioners will be. They will be cloistered in Kilmore Street, in the headquarters of Environment Canterbury. They will be paid, I wager, the thick end of $1,000 or more a day. A commissioner will be getting five times what an elected councillor would be getting. Will we get five times the value? Will they go out to talk to their constituents, or will they sit there and implement the Government’s agenda? What they will do is become isolated in that castle in Kilmore Street, and “ECan” will become “ECan’t”, in terms of any connection with voters. That is what they will do. There will be nobody there to look after the interests of Canterbury voters. There is nothing in the bill on the question of commissioners having to meet the public, hold public meetings, or establish consultation groups so that they can get some window of view on what the people in Canterbury want from them. We are talking about these people being in place for up to 3½ years, without any reference to the community they are supposedly serving, at five times the pay rate of the people whom they have replaced. That is what this bill is about. There is no consultation mechanism whatsoever.

It is disgraceful for a Government to put in place an enduring replacement for 3½ years, whereby people will sit in splendid isolation in an ivory tower and have no contact with the voters or reference to them. There will be no requirement to consult, to gauge, or to go and see them. All the power rests with the Minister for the Environment, and he says “Trust me. You can be assured that I’ll look after the interests of Canterbury.” Well, I do not trust him, and I do not believe he has the power anyway. This is another victory for Rodney Hide. This is doing to Canterbury what he has done to the super-city in Auckland. It is a two-fingered salute to the people of Canterbury, as he has done to the people of Auckland. Talk about democratic process. At least in Auckland there was a select committee hearing. We have not had even a flicker of democratic process here. This bill has been rammed through under urgency without any consultation whatsoever, other than the 20 groups talked to by the review group, and the Ministers trotting round and having a brief conversation with some of the councils. That is what it has come down to: Rodney Hide has won the day. I suppose we can congratulate him on that, but it is at the expense of the voters of Canterbury. We have to ask who will be next. Will it be Wellington, Waikato, or the Bay of Plenty? There will be an agenda that follows on from this. Mark my words!

I want to comment on the Māori Party, which, after opposing the bill’s introduction, has supported it on the specious belief, I believe, that it will improve the representation of Māori in whatever replaces Environment Canterbury. On the experience of Auckland, that is a fond, fond hope. Members of the Māori Party held out for Māori representation on the Auckland super-city, and it was not delivered. Rodney Hide made it an issue, basically, that he was going to win or walk, and so much for mana enhancement for the Māori Party. Its nose was dusted on that one, and I suspect we will see the same outcomes in Canterbury. There will, I think, be a Māori commissioner appointed. That is implicit in the bill, I suppose. I suspect that we will see somebody from the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I think we will probably see Alec Neill appointed.

What? Not Alec. It can’t be Alec.

Burns BRENDON BURNS Link to this

Oh yeah, they will give him a job, I would have thought. But that still does not address the issues, because the power will still rest with the Minister. There will still be conflict, in the fact that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy embodies a whole range of principles that will not be upheld by this bill. I noted the chairperson of the Water Rights Trust said last night that there would be war if the Canterbury Water Management Strategy was not implemented and held to. Well, we will see. There have certainly been plenty of protests around Christchurch already today. There were 300 people at a rally on Monday before last on this issue, at short notice. People in Canterbury are very one-eyed. They are feisty and they believe in their institutions, and they hold to them dearly. This Government takes that on at its peril.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy states that it will uphold principles concerning the environment. This bill is going in absolutely the opposite direction. I note the Minister’s crocodile tears for the staff and councillors at Environment Canterbury. He brings in a bill to dismember them, and then says, oh, he is sorry, and he really feels for them. Talk about shallow! As for his references to a step change—we keep hearing that phrase “step change”—I ask where the step change is in terms of the delivery of the improvements we want to see in environmental outcomes in Canterbury. Nothing is happening to do that. There is nothing in this bill, and nothing signalled. The Minister has put a lot of faith and hope in the Land and Water Forum, which will report at the end of July, and it was based on the same sorts of principles that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy tried to uphold and patiently negotiated. Those principles are being put at extraordinary risk by this bill, and we will see the outcomes of that in short order.

As for the idea that water management has been holding back Canterbury, members have to acknowledge that Canterbury has been leading the charge in terms of economic growth across the country for quite some considerable time. It has produced nearly half the national growth in the dairy industry over the last 10 years. So we are not being held back. We are at risk of seeing opportunities thwarted because the costs of water management will be stitched back to the people of Canterbury. They have lost their vote. Shame on this Government, I say.

Goodhew JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) Link to this

I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so because since well before being elected to Parliament I have been well aware of a high degree of frustration amongst the regional authority’s ratepayers who form part of my constituency. Despite significant changes in my electorate boundaries at the last election, the level of disenchantment has remained, and perhaps has even increased.

All levels of Government bear the brunt of the disaffection of those who feel their level of taxation might not be matched by services or outcomes. It happens to central government politicians as well as to those at the territorial local authority level. In my time as an MP I have worked with one regional council and five district councils. I have received complaints about ineptitude, whether perceived or real, about all of those entities, but the complaints about Environment Canterbury have been remarkable in the extreme. Most of the time regional ratepayers have felt a sense of disquiet in that they also feel vulnerable in complaining. There is no doubt that when someone has already battled for some 5 years to get a water consent for a small dry-land holding—5 long years—the last thing he or she wants to do is to annoy the powers that be when maybe, just maybe, there might be some progress tomorrow. I have heard stories about environmental enhancement being slowed up, then costing far more than was advised—that is environmental enhancement I am talking about. I have heard stories about economic enhancement through the obtaining of a water consent having the same problems. In the dozens of examples that I have been approached about, there has been a consistency of message in terms of distrust of Environment Canterbury’s procedures. Time and time again I have heard of council officers changing and the new case manager wanting to start again and wanting more information. Time and time again I have heard about the rules changing mid-process.

In all of the time I have spent over the years discussing issues that relate to Environment Canterbury, it has been comprehensively proven to me that there is validity in the view that the institutional failure of Environment Canterbury requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being, and that failure to intervene would lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury. How the regional council has managed our water has been critical for our economic success or lack of it, and for our environmental well-being or lack of it. All stakeholders agree on the importance of sound management of that resource, yet we do not have, after all those years, a proper water plan, we have growing problems of water quality, and we are not making progress on the opportunities for water storage and economic progress.

The principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy begin with environmental protection, so there will not be a takeover by dairying or irrigation interests, and in order to underline that I will read members the vision of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: “To enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social, economic, recreational and cultural benefits from our water resources within an environmentally sustainable framework.” That is in schedule 1 of the bill. There have been some 10 years of work on exactly that, there is huge buy-in, and the people who feel passionately about that water strategy say it is not going anywhere under the current Environment Canterbury, and therefore something should be done. This Government has done something.

So, too, the rhetoric of coup d’état and the abolition of democracy from the Opposition parties would suggest to me that they have been watching far too much drama on TV. Democracy has been merely interrupted, to be resumed as soon as practicable, and certainly by 2013, and the interruption absolutely is because Environment Canterbury has demonstrated that it has no ability to manage the precious resource that is gold culturally, gold to our environment, gold to our recreationalists, and gold to our economic future. That resource is water.

I finish by wishing commissioner Dame Margaret Bazley all the very best, because her work is of vital importance to my constituents and to New Zealand as well. Thank you.

Dalziel Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) Link to this

I have to say that the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill represents a very, very sorry day for democracy in New Zealand. A very strong view has been expressed in Christchurch that this has been a set up from start to finish. I suggested a sequence of events during the Committee stage of this bill that started with the Ministers getting a National MP to ask her local mayor to approach the mayoral forum in order to write a letter of complaint. This was not denied by the member concerned, nor was it denied by the Minister. That has added fuel to the belief that this is exactly how this matter has been brought to a head.

Let us look at the process. A letter was written to Ministers by the mayors on 18 September 2009, despite the Canterbury triennial agreement, which includes an undertaking by signatories with regard to the early notification of policy and proposals, opportunities for involvement, a no-surprises policy, and joint and collaborative engagement with communities. Who would sign up to a Canterbury triennial agreement and then send a letter like that? Every single one of the councils in the region has committed to that triennial agreement—it is a requirement under the law—but that letter totally compromised the basis of that agreement.

What is worse is that the mayors behaved as if they were the local authorities, because not a single one of those mayors went to their local authority to get the authority to sign off on that letter. Not one single mayor within Environment Canterbury’s jurisdiction went to his or her councillors and asked them what they thought about the behaviour of Environment Canterbury because he or she was about to sign a letter with other mayors to the Ministers—which was completely in breach of the obligations under the triennial agreement—in which he or she would demand that the Government take action against Environment Canterbury. Not one single councillor was engaged in that conversation at the council level, which is the governance level for councils.

The mayoral forum has operated completely independently of its statutory obligations to get council backing for this kind of breach of the triennial agreement. Not one mayor has subsequently consulted with his or her council. They have taken the opportunity to put the boot into Environment Canterbury without bothering to even reflect on what they have agreed to. What on earth makes any one of those mayors think that this Government would not step in to undermine the democratic processes without wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward.

I say to members that they should look at what has happened in Auckland, because that could be coming to a region near them. The people of Canterbury should be thinking about that, because this Government may well be thinking about imposing a super-Canterbury structure over the top of the structure that we have at the moment. I know from some elements of this report that individuals within Christchurch City will certainly want to see that happen, as long as they are the ones left running the show.

This is essentially what happened in Rodney. In Rodney there was wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward. I want to put on record the true sequence of events, rather than the hysterical nonsense that we have had from the Minister. The Rodney District Council approached the Minister of Local Government to ask for a review of the council under section 692M of the Local Government Act. Who was in Government when the Rodney District Council approached the Government?

Dyson Hon Ruth Dyson Link to this

Labour.

Dalziel Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this

No, it was National. National was in Government when the council originally made the approach. A National Minister set up that review. During the course of the review, there was a change in Government. That was when the new Minister of Local Government, the Hon Sandra Lee, was asked to extend the period within which the reviewers could report to the Government. She said that was fair enough as they wanted to do a good job. They called for public submissions by having public notices go out in the media, and they held a 6-day hearing before reporting to the Minister. It was an extremely open process; not so in this case.

When Sandra Lee appointed a commission to act in the place of the Rodney District Council on 11 April 2000, she did so with a great sense of reluctance, but she felt that she had no choice because in the wake of the review’s findings, the mayor and five councillors had resigned, leaving three wards completely unrepresented. She could not ignore that. She ensured that fresh elections were held in March 2001 instead of October 2001, which would have been the normal run of events. There could not be a greater difference in process between what has happened today and what occurred in the early part of the decade.

In the Rodney case, the local National Party member welcomed the intervention. In this case, Labour MPs have been completely left in the dark, although it is obvious that National MPs have been consulted in this regard. So there has been no transparency at all with regard to this process.

This report was commissioned in November 2009 and was released publicly in February 2010. It ran for about a month—or maybe 6 weeks at the most if we include the Christmas period—and no public input was invited. The report contains a list of stakeholders, and we have heard people refer to who was consulted: “Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, White Water New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Anderson Lloyd, Brent Cowie, Simpson Grierson, Pattle Delamore Partners, Central Plains Water, Ashburton—Valletta Groundwater Applicants, Canterbury Chamber of Commerce”—I think members will find that it is the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce—“Federated Farmers, Malvern Hills Protection Society, Irrigation New Zealand, Meridian Energy Ltd, Robert Johnston, Selwyn District Council, Red Bus Company, Staff representatives of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, A joint meeting of all territorial authority mayors and chief executives (except Waitaki District), or their designated representatives.” That is who was consulted. It does not sound like a comprehensive list of stakeholders. In fact, I would describe some of them as having a vested interest.

Vested interest is something that was debated throughout the Committee stage of this bill. No one, despite the Minister for the Environment’s nasty little asides from time to time, has challenged the competence or the integrity of any of the individuals or organisations involved in the review. We have talked about conflict of interest, and there is a difference because conflict of interest is either real or perceived. It does not actually matter whether it is real or perceived, conflict of interest must be avoided at all costs when we are talking about protecting the resources of our environment. If the Government had wanted the process to look disinterested in that regard, it would have appointed someone outside the dairy industry to chair the review. That is not a reflection on Wyatt Creech, it is just a reflection on the Government’s incapacity to work out who should appropriately do that job.

Let us talk about the other elements of process here. The review is riddled with anecdote. After stating that it had no evidence to back up certain claims made by interest groups, the review panel still used these as evidence against the council.

There is not enough time to highlight every aspect of it, but I will return to one point that I made during the Committee stage, which is on page 65 of the Creech report: “Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and ‘master of its own (expanded) destiny’ continues to detract from the relationship.” Christchurch City Council does not have on record any resolution supporting turning itself into a unitary authority. That is the mayor’s view about what it should be in the future, and it may have been the view of a previous mayor, but it has never ever been the decision of the Christchurch City Council.

I for one am completely and utterly opposed to one of the polluters being the same authority that has to determine resource consents. The city council would be continuing to discharge into the estuary on the boundary of my electorate and the Hon Ruth Dyson’s electorate if the city council had been responsible for its own supervision in that regard. We need to have regulation of our environmental protection, and that is what the primary role of Environment Canterbury has to be.

Norman Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

I stand to speak on the third and final reading of the “Environment Canterbury (Democracy Abolition) Bill”, which removes water conservation orders from Canterbury. The bill is all about what the Prime Minister told us in the statement he tabled at the beginning of this parliamentary year. He said to us: “The Government will also take action this year to remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury.” The Government has decided that the elected regional councillors in Canterbury are part of the regulatory roadblocks, and it has decided to remove them, which is what the bill does.

The Government has also decided that water conservation orders—the national parks for rivers and lakes—are also a regulatory roadblock to more irrigation and water storage in Canterbury, so it will remove those, as well. That very significant part of the bill has had some attention but probably should have even more, because Subpart 3 of Part 3, which basically guts water conservation orders, is a very significant change to the way in which we regulate the environment in our country.

The bill, at its foundation, is all about the fact that water is a finite resource. Water has become incredibly valuable all over the world because it is a finite resource and humankind keeps expanding its consumption of finite resources. Canterbury has access to quite a lot of this finite resource, and it has become an incredibly valuable resource. I would say “commodity” but, of course, the irrigation and dairy companies get it for free, so to call it a commodity is perhaps stretching things a little bit. Having access to free, fantastic water has been an enormous economic boon to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies, and that is what is really driving the bill. The bill is being set up in order to allow more access, as if there has not been enough, to more of the water resources of Canterbury, so that more rivers can be dammed, like the Hurunui River, which is at the top of the list at the moment but there will be others; so that more rivers can be drained of their water—part of the reason why the Ashley River is in such terrible shape and why it keeps killing dogs every year is that so much water is drained from it for irrigation—and so that more water can be polluted. Anyone who has tried to go on Lake Ellesmere Te Waihora recently would have come across the high level of pollution of that lake; the same applies to many other rivers and lakes right across Canterbury.

Canterbury has been the victim of malign neglect for so long, but it looked like the regional council was going to get on top of it. It looked like there was potential for the regional council to finally take some action. However, the regional council upset some very powerful vested interests. It upset some very powerful vested interests with some very close connections to the National Party, and for that reason it is now paying the price.

The Prime Minister said that he was going to take action to remove these regulatory roadblocks; the next step was, of course, to get the Creech report. The problem with the Creech report is twofold. First, the person who headed the review had a clear conflict of interest, being the director of a dirty dairy company, but, more than that, the review had some fundamental flaws. It was a very short review; only a handful of stakeholders were interviewed. It was anti-science; the report said that the regional council should be punished for being too science-led. It was very anti-environment. It said that the regional council was not sufficiently pro economic growth. The reviewers had no idea, I guess because they had not looked at the Resource Management Act, that in fact that was part of the job of Environment Canterbury, and that was what the “E” in ECan—or Environment Canterbury—stood for. If the reviewers did not know what the “E” stood for, then maybe they were not the right people to review the regional council. Maybe they wanted to call it “Exploitation Canterbury”. Maybe that is what they thought the “E” stood for—that its purpose was to exploit the water resources of Canterbury. So the report was very critical of Environment Canterbury because it spent too much time protecting the environment and not enough time exploiting it.

The bill removes democratic rights from the people of Canterbury—about 400,000 people—for about 3½ years, or possibly more. I thought Jo Goodhew hit it on the head. She said democracy has been interrupted and will be resumed as soon as practicable. Is that what democracy is? Is that the kind of value National puts on democracy? Does it think democracy is the kind of thing we can interrupt for awhile, and when the powers that be, who are smarter than all of us, obviously—Jo Goodhew knows better than the rest of us—decide that it is possible and practicable, then the people of Canterbury can have democracy again? The people of Canterbury are children; that is what National thinks, and it has had to interrupt their democracy, and it will resume it as soon as practicable. That is what Jo Goodhew said.

Jo Goodhew also inadvertently hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem is that it takes ages to get a water consent. No kidding! There are red zones in Canterbury where water is over-allocated, and Environment Canterbury has tried to restrict the taking of more water in the red zone, and, boy, it has made the irrigators mad.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Norman Dr RUSSEL NORMAN Link to this

This is the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which National and ACT are introducing to abolish democracy in Canterbury. It is also the third reading of the bill that National and ACT are supporting to undermine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. I think it is important to realise what that means. We can think, for example, of the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River. The application for cubicle farms on Killermont Station has been much discussed. The farms are reliant on accessing water from the Ahuriri River. It would have been very difficult for those farms to proceed with the water conservation order in place, because of the minimum flow regime that it imposed. The passage of this bill tonight, which National and ACT will vote for, will mean that the Minister for the Environment can vary the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River without going through the proper process, so that the developers—in this case, Williamson Holdings—can have access to the water in the Ahuriri River so that they can destroy Killermont Station.

As people may well be aware, the Mackenzie has been destroyed recently by massive dairy conversions. There has been the loss of tussock country, and a massive increase in pollution of the Ahuriri arm of the Waitaki River, and of the whole Waitaki River system. Part of that problem will be made worse by the fact that the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River will now be in danger as a result of National and ACT pushing this bill through the House in the middle of the night.

It is important to realise as well that there is a great paradox here. The House is passing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury and, at the same time, it is doing it in such a way that there is no democratic input. It is quite extraordinary. There was no select committee process. The public have had no right to submit. Members of Parliament had not even seen the bill until yesterday afternoon, and then, after we got the bill and a very short briefing from the Minister for the Environment, we were given a very short amount of time to look over the bill and try to figure out what it is on about. The other thing about the bill is that when we look at the regulatory impact statement, we see that the Ministry for the Environment states that it “has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” Well, I am not surprised. Who could fully quantify the risks and costs of a proposal that is being forced through at such short notice?

The other issue that has arisen with regard to this bill is the conflicts of interest. The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, saw fit to put out a release in response to some of the claims that have been made in which he confirmed all the key facts. He confirmed that he has a farm on the Hurunui. He confirmed that currently very little of it is irrigated—so much of it is open for irrigation—but he said that at this stage he has no intention to irrigate. Well, I am afraid that having no intention is not good enough, because he still has the potential to irrigate, which is the whole point. That is why there could be a potential conflict of interest, and it should be declared. The other thing he confirmed is that he approached those who were applying to the Environment Court for a water conservation order in order to get them to stop doing it. This, very interestingly, is exactly what he denied doing in an answer to a written question. When I asked him in a written question to this House whether he had approached the applicants for the water conservation order, he said no. I think it is very clear that the conflict of interest claims that have been raised with regard to the bill have been vindicated by the facts that Mr Carter has put on the table for our convenience, and I am sure we will go into that further.

This bill is a bill to get rid of democracy. It is a bill to get rid of water conservation orders. It will disenfranchise 400,000 to 500,000 people for the next 3 years. It is an unacceptable bill to the Green Party. We will not be supporting it. It is shameful that National and ACT are ramming it through under urgency without proper democratic consultation.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

It is pleasing to rise to an ovation from the Labour Party. It seems to me that three issues have been discussed over and over again in the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, and we have just heard about them. We have heard about democracy, we have heard about water, and we have heard about regulatory impact statements and reports on bills. As Dr Norman reminded us, this is a third reading debate, a debate in which to go back and reflect on the whole of the issues that have been raised over the last 24 hours with regard to this bill. Time and time again, we have heard from members on the other side of the House that this bill is about democracy: the suspension of democracy and the outlawing of democracy.

When the House resumed at 7 p.m. this evening, Dr Russel Norman talked about ACT and National introducing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury. That is what he said ACT and National were doing: they were abolishing democracy in Canterbury. As the member sat down, he said this is a bill to get rid of democracy and to strip 400,000 to 500,000 people of their rights. Well, Dr Norman and his colleagues are the last people who should be speaking about democracy in this House.

Twyford Phil Twyford Link to this

You’re the only one.

Twyford Phil Twyford Link to this

No, I am not the only one, but Mr Twyford’s party certainly cannot speak about democracy. However, I suspect that Mr Twyford could speak about democracy, because he was not part of the sordid, sorry parliamentary Labour Party that governed this country from 2005 to 2008. That Labour Government saw the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill.

If members are to criticise the ACT Party and National with regard to this bill on the issue of democracy, then I think we need to go back and reflect on the record of the previous Labour Government over the preceding 3 years. That Labour Government introduced a bill that told all New Zealanders that if they wanted to spend so much as a single dollar—a single dollar—on speaking out either in support or against the Government, then they must, as a minimum, sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace stating, for instance: “I, Phil Twyford, promise not to spend more than $5,000.”

So how do you feel about this bill, John?

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

I say to Mr Twyford that if one could not sign that piece of paper, one was required to register as a third party.

The Labour Government and the Green Party, which was in cahoots with Labour, told the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to speak out or to criticise their Government and wanted to spend more than a single dollar on doing so, at the very minimum they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace. They said to New Zealanders that if they did not like that, they should rise up and protest. That Government said if people did not like that, they could make a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee to tell the Government what they thought, because that was its plan. I cannot think of a more despicable action for any political party to bring into this Parliament.

We heard from Lianne Dalziel this afternoon. She got up and said she had been in Parliament for some 20 years and had never seen anything as dramatic as a bill such as this one. Well, I cannot think of anything worse than saying to New Zealanders that if they wanted to rise up and speak out against the Government, and if they wanted to put as little as a single piece of paper through a xerox machine in order to make that statement, they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace.

I will move on to the issue of water. Water is very valuable, and we know how important it is to conserve water. But this country of ours has much potential. It has much potential, and we wonder why we are not as wealthy as our neighbours across the Tasman in Australia are. The reason is that we have not governed this country properly. We have not realised its potential. We have not put in place the policies to create the prosperity that this country can create. This Environment Canterbury bill goes part of the way towards that, because we have a rural economy. We depend for our exports, our livelihoods, to a large part on the farming sector. The Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, said recently that Australia might have its minerals, but that once they have been dug up, they are gone. What we have is water. Water comes from the skies, and, long after Australia has dug up the last of its mineral wealth, the rain will continue to fall on New Zealand.

We can do a lot to harness the power and the value that is in that water. Currently, we harness only some 1.5 percent of the rainwater that falls on New Zealand. Can members imagine the prosperity that would come to this country if we could just double that—just double that, from 1.5 percent to 3 percent? If we could catch and utilise just 3 percent of the water that falls on this country, we could put that water to great use. We could put it to use in agriculture. We heard the allegations this afternoon from the Green Party about the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer. Well, I say farmers work very hard, and they are the backbone of this economy. But we can do something else with water: we can generate electricity with it.

The water in the Canterbury basin and the Canterbury region will become a lot more valuable on 1 July.

It makes you wet.

Jones Hon Shane Jones Link to this

I find it fascinating to stand and speak while being shouted at and abused. I will go silent, so that I can hear what Mr Jones has to say.

I described you as being wet—a drip.

It is more than a drip, I tell Mr Jones; it is a flow, and the water that flows down the Waitaki River generates wealth. It generates wealth for our farmers. It allows our farmers to irrigate our farms, and it allows us to generate electricity.

But the tragedy with regard to harnessing water is that from 1 July, this country will go where no other country has gone before. We are introducing an emissions trading scheme, and its effect will be to raise the price of electricity by 5 percent. Treasury told the Finance and Expenditure Committee—

The emissions trading scheme has nothing to do with this bill, and I ask the member to focus in, please, on the third reading. This debate is about what has been discussed earlier, and the emissions trading scheme is not part of that.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that what is being discussed in this bill is the introduction of commissioners in the Canterbury region to administer, among other things, a water plan—a plan to manage the resources of the Canterbury region. Water is a very valuable resource. It results in power generation, and I was trying to explain to the House that come 1 July, when electricity prices are forecast to go up, the companies that generate electricity with water—and in particular I am referring to Meridian Energy and the dams it has in the South Island—by virtue of the way that the electricity market works, will be able to push through a 5 percent increase in the price of electricity without paying for any emissions, which their competitors, like Genesis Power, will have to do with regard to thermal energy.

We will see windfall profits. We know the profits that Meridian is currently making, but we have seen nothing yet like the profits that it will make, because from 1 July we are essentially introducing a 5 percent surcharge on water. That will see massive windfall profits being taken, and a massive value being put on water. Every single New Zealander will pay for that. I am very proud, but sad, to think that I am one of only five MPs who are standing up and opposing a 5 percent surcharge being imposed on the cost of electricity from 1 July—a surcharge that will go on every single New Zealander, young or old, poor or well off. The elderly, particularly in the winter, will have to pay more for their electricity simply so that companies like Meridian can earn more for its water, that valuable water.

I have mentioned to the member that this is a debate about what is happening with regard to Environment Canterbury, and it is not a debate about Meridian, electricity price increases, or whatever might be affected from 1 July. I ask the member, who has 40 seconds remaining, to focus in on the bill.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I am conducting the debate in the way that I am is that, as you say, this bill is about Environment Canterbury—the regional council—the appointment of commissioners, and water.

Well, if the member had mentioned that, that would have been fine. But I say to the member we have had about 8 minutes of other things, and I did warn the member earlier on. I ask the member to come back to the bill; he now has 39 seconds remaining.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is, I repeat, about Environment Canterbury. It is about the appointment of commissioners, including Dame Margaret Bazley, who will be taking a lead role. She and her fellow commissioners will have the job of putting in place a water management plan for the Canterbury region, which is something that Environment Canterbury has not been able to do in the last 18 years—18 years. This Government has been required to make these changes in order to put in place that plan to provide for the better use and conservation of our water resources, so that we can use more water wisely. As I have said, from 1 July that water will become even more valuable. Thank you.

Katene RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

A statement was made by Anake Goodall, the chief executive of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, which I will quote in full, as it sets the scene for the way in which I have seen this bill: “Ngāi Tahu regretfully recognises the need for intervention in ECan and reluctantly supports installing commissioners as a temporary measure, that while not optimal for the important principle of democracy, is a necessary practical solution in the circumstances.” The words “regretfully”, “reluctantly”, and “not optimal” do not indicate wholesale, complete, and utter satisfaction with this bill, rushed through under urgency. The Māori Party is also regretful—regretful that urgency prevents people from having a voice. For any legislation to be authentic, it should reflect the processes of negotiation and discussion that would emerge from the process of consultation.

Ngāi Tahu used that word again in a letter to Ministers Hide and Smith, advising that “Ngāi Tahu regretfully support the recommended transitional arrangements to install commissioners in place of the council.” The interesting issue for us as the Māori Party is how the Government can overturn the democratic process in one region—by dismissing the councillors of Environment Canterbury—while in another region, Tāmaki Makaurau, it is passionately fighting on an argument to uphold democracy by refusing to invest in Māori representation through the establishment of Māori seats. I want to be really clear. This bill is not just an issue about water, although that is vitally important; this is an issue about power sharing, or, indeed, about not power sharing, in this case.

As a local MP, I have taken a close look at Environment Canterbury, not just because of its significance across Te Tai Tonga but also because the way in which we work through these issues is likely to be nationally significant in terms of the place of local government and approaches to the management of fresh water. The Māori Party has consistently stated that issues about water management must include mana whenua, including water rights and privatisation. We believe also that Treaty claims in relation to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the review of the Resource Management Act. It has been a matter of some pride to the party that we were able to overturn the commitments made pre-election by National to remove any Treaty references, or references about the capacity for Māori to object on cultural grounds, from the Resource Management Act. These sections include section 6: that “all persons exercising … powers … in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for … (e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:”. Section 7 states: “all persons … shall have particular regard to—(a) kaitiakitanga:”, and section 8, “Treaty of Waitangi”, states: “In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers … in relation to … natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of … (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).”

I repeat these key legislative provisions, because they are critical in guiding councils and communities about the way in which we protect our streams, lakes, rivers, and waterways from agricultural, industrial, and domestic waste. There are many vital issues around freshwater management, which the Māori Party signals will need to benefit from nationwide discussion and input, and these three sections in particular provide us with a strong starting point for those discussions.

Turning then to the specific legislation, we accept that this bill is a temporary measure, designed to respond to the longstanding concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. Our decision to support the legislation was made both regretfully and reluctantly, but made also in response to the guidance of mana whenua. We did so, also, knowing that the existing situation regarding Environment Canterbury was untenable. This, after all, was a council that came 84th out of a possible 84 councils in the 2007-08 biennial survey of resource consent processing. This was a council that frequently appeared in the Environment Court as a result of criticisms having been highlighted about the management of fresh water in Canterbury. The proposed response to the review of Environment Canterbury, therefore, could have no stronger basis, in my mind, than that provided by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and I quote: “ECan even within its current statutory framework has demonstrably failed to reach the standard of best endeavours to give effect to its broader responsibilities to Ngāi Tahu.” So there is no suggestion that there was not a dramatic need to do something.

The question is, however, what exactly is the something that will be done? We have been concerned that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is being given legal effect in the empowering legislation. It is the view of key stakeholders that this strategy is not well developed, that it has real policy holes, and that there is risk that it erodes the Treaty rights of Ngāi Tahu. Although we appreciate that there is support from many key stakeholders, including Ngāi Tahu and the region’s territorial authorities, we want to ensure that the rights and interests of Ngāi Tahu under both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 are given full cognisance in further development of that paper. In this context we acknowledge the move made by the Minister to ensure that in the appointment process of commissioners there will be explicit recognition of the collective knowledge and expertise of commissioners in relation to tikanga Māori as it applies in the Canterbury region. We welcome the opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to be represented in the temporary commission that is likely to replace the council of Environment Canterbury. But we would also recommend that Ngāi Tahu be represented in the new statutory entity that will be created, separate from Environment Canterbury, to manage water in the region and to be known as the Canterbury Regional Water Authority. As we consider the ongoing tension between kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga, we also raise the question that one person on a commission of seven is for ever relegated to the minority seats.

Finally, I remind the House that the report of the review of Environment Canterbury revealed that there are significant issues in relation to water management in terms of meeting the Treaty obligations of the Crown, and it also recommended that iwi liaison should be elevated in importance within Environment Canterbury. We fully support the approach proposed by Ngāi Tahu, which seeks a commitment from the Government to a structured joint work programme so that the various governance arrangements can be structured in a Treaty-consistent manner. They would also expect that any existing undertakings by Environment Canterbury to Ngāi Tahu, such as the iwi management plan, should be honoured.

We have supported this bill in order to respond to the urgent need of the situation outlined in Canterbury, and in line with our respect for the guidance of mana whenua, but as the debate proceeded we have become more troubled about the new powers of the commission to determine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region under new criteria. The bill clearly states that they will hear appeals against points of law only. Therefore, it is not an Environment Court substitute. We are absolutely committed to effective compliance with the Treaty requirements of the Resource Management Act, and the requirement to look nationally at water management issues across the nation are a key priority of our party. Ultimately, tangata whenua Māori perceive natural and physical resources, such as water, as a taonga, an invaluable treasure gifted by their tūpuna for the benefit and use of their descendants. It is our responsibility as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki, to ensure that the resource is conserved and handed on to future generations in a similar condition. It is my duty to advise the House that in light of the concerns we have raised during the course of this debate, we have reconsidered our position and regretfully we conclude our struggle with this bill by voting against it at this final reading.

Dean JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

The Waimate mayor, John Coles, said: “Good on the Government for having the guts to come out and do something like this.” The Mackenzie District mayor, John O’Neill, said that it was a bold move that would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers. The Waitaki mayor, Alex Familton, believed that it was the right decision and that the commissioners would have his strong support. I suggest to the House that these are the people who know. Members opposite may not understand how rural local authorities work, but the 10 mayors, particularly the rural mayors, understand only too well the deficiencies of Environment Canterbury after the past few years.

I am proud to stand in support of the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The debate over the last 24 hours or so has been characterised by arguments from the Opposition, promoted by Christchurch-based Labour MPs. I acknowledge that they cannot help but promote the Christchurch City view, because they do not represent the provinces and have little and limited understanding of the issues that have been faced by rural constituencies in their dealings with Environment Canterbury. Interestingly, though, the Christchurch Central member did acknowledge that Labour had failed to act on water management issues while Labour was in Government, and I congratulate him on that acknowledgment. Trevor Mallard, when he was the Minister for the Environment, said: “Everyone knows there was a problem here.”

The city Labour MPs have no idea what has been happening in the provinces in the area of Environment Canterbury. Labour members have no courage to deal with this hard issue. Their Sustainable Water Plan of Action—or should I say, their water plan of inaction—went nowhere. So I say to the House that Environment Canterbury’s failure is also Labour’s failure. It hard for them to face up to, but it is true. All the Canterbury district mayors, themselves democratically elected, have had enough of Environment Canterbury, which they characterise as dysfunctional. All 10 mayors and councils were consulted during the course of the development of this bill. I was at meetings represented by four of those local authorities, which is nearly half of those involved, and all of those democratically elected mayors and councils have welcomed the introduction of this bill.

The regional council has, after 19 years, failed to produce a regional water plan, while other regional councils are on their second-generation water plans. Environment Canterbury has been making consent decisions in a policy vacuum, which has resulted in policy making on the hoof, and that has been hugely costly in terms of time and expense to the applicants. They have made applications to Environment Canterbury in a policy vacuum. What is needed for the management of an area that has 70 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water is clearly beyond the capabilities of Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury has let down its constituents and proved to be a handbrake to both the development and the protection of natural water resources in Canterbury.

The Government wants to consider carefully the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, the Land and Water Forum, and the work from the Environmental Protection Authority, and will take on further advice from the commissioners. This legislation gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy recognition and provides commissioners with a sorely needed and clear framework for managing Canterbury’s water. This bill looks to fix the problems we have now and set a good policy framework for water management in the future.

The explicit intent of this legislation is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task of addressing the institutional and planning problems is achieved. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill empowers commissioners to do what is required to turn round Environment Canterbury to the benefit of the people and the environment of Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

Dyson Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

I will begin my final contribution to this debate by going back to the very beginning and asking “How did all this start?”. Well, we have heard during the course of this debate that one of the National members of Parliament approached her local mayor and said that there were major concerns with Environment Canterbury within central government, and that that mayor could start the ball rolling by writing to the mayoral forum. Jo Goodhew approached Janie Annear to write to the mayoral forum, saying there were major concerns about the operation of Environment Canterbury. The mayors then decided, on the assumption that they were not just mayors but also the local authorities, to take the matter further. That is how this sorry saga began.

My message to the public, as a result of this debate and of what has happened in the last 24 hours, is not just to look at Auckland any more and say “Be very afraid of your democratic rights.”, the public can look now at Canterbury as well, and be very wary because it could be coming to a city near them soon. We have lost all our democratic rights in terms of voting for our regional council.

The Minister for the Environment has introduced a shoddy little bill. I say that with the greatest respect to officials, who, I guess, had no other option but to write it. But if the officials had been given a decent amount of time and guidance, perhaps the bill could have been a bit tidier. The shoddy little bill was given to us in draft form half an hour before it was publicly announced as being introduced. It was introduced into the House yesterday afternoon at 5.30 p.m. It was debated until 10 p.m., with just an hour and a half for the dinner break, and then begun again at 9 o’clock this morning. Soon the debate will be concluded.

Well, what is urgent about this legislation? What is not only urgent but so urgent that this Parliament considers that it is OK that not a single submission can be called for and not a single submission can be heard? People in Canterbury are really outraged. Some people would have actually come along to a select committee and said “Good move, Minister. Get rid of ECan.” But they cannot. Others would have come along and said, with a more considered opinion, in my view, that they did not agree that this measure was the way forward for our regional management in Canterbury. But neither of those perspectives, nor any in between, have had an opportunity to be heard, because the Minister unilaterally decided that the legislation had such a high priority it had to be passed under urgency and not a single submission would be called for. I think that that is an outrage.

We have done our best through the first and second readings, through the Committee stage, and now through the third reading to try to put the facts of the situation on the table. I mentioned in the dying stages of the Committee stage the water plan excuse that the Minister has constantly raised. He has been going on and on about the fact that there is no water plan. I said then that not only did we have the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—and asked whether he had noticed it, because it is actually in the bill—but we also had the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan, which members of Parliament like Amy Adams, Jacqui Dean, Jo Goodhew, and Nicky Wagner would do well to familiarise themselves with. They are attacking the council on the basis of misinformation, and that is not a good basis for debate. It is OK when trying to score cheap political points, I guess, to make things up and not tell the complete truth, but when the action is about disestablishing a regional council, then it should be done on the basis of facts, truth and honesty, and open debate.

Environment Canterbury notified its proposed Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan in 2004. The plan was notified in 2004 and it is operating. It does not have full legal force under the Resource Management Act because of various things such as submissions, hearings, decisions, and appeals, which all have to go through a process before the plan can become operative. But the objectives, policies, methods, and rules of the natural resources regional plan have continued from 2004 to guide decisions on resource consent applications. So the Minister said something that is completely and factually untrue, because we have two plans: the first, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, was specifically developed because of the huge amount of tension around Canterbury and water, and the second is the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan. So the Minister is just wrong, and I hope that he takes the opportunity to say he is sorry to the people of Canterbury, and particularly to the staff and the councillors who have been working on those plans for many years.

The other issue that I will shine again, and take a brief opportunity to have some factual input on, is the comparison that National was making—I noticed it stopped yesterday—between the process that this bill is going through and the process that the Labour-Alliance coalition Government went through in May 2000 in relation to the Rodney District Council. The first difference is that the Rodney District Council voted unanimously to ask the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Sandra Lee, to intervene and appoint a commissioner. That was a unanimous decision of the council, whereas there has been no such decision from Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council agreed that it should write to the Minister and ask for her intervention; no such request was made by Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council said that a commissioner should be appointed; no such recommendation came from Environment Canterbury.

So the processes started from a completely different basis, and the Minister made sure that the people in Rodney were involved in looking at the options and deciding what the problem was. She said for them to agree on the problem and then look at some solutions. They agreed on the solution. The Minister made sure that the role of the commissioner was not to take over the council, as it is in this case, but to ensure that relationships were mended and that systems and infrastructure were in place to deliver efficiently so that the commissioner could walk away and leave an elected council, once again, to take over. That happened in about a year. The Minister even ensured that the Rodney District had its elections early rather than having to wait until October. There is no such commitment to a return to democracy in this legislation. In fact, one of my colleagues said that we should have a bet on who will get the vote back first: Fiji or Canterbury. Who will get a democratic vote again first? Will it be entitlement in Fiji or will it be democracy in Canterbury for our regional council? It could be Fiji.

The other factual point that I will make is in relation to what the Creech review actually said. That has been the cause of some frustration for members on this side of the House, because National has insisted on misrepresenting Wyatt Creech and the recommendations. I will put on the record what the Creech report said in relation to the negative perception of Environment Canterbury—and there is no debate that there is a negative perception. The report said: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance.” But the reviewers interviewed only 20 parties in the whole of Canterbury, and it was a very narrow list. The reviewers said that they had heard that the councillors were “polarised” and “dysfunctional”, that there was “insufficient leadership”, and that the council was “too busy protecting individual/Party perspectives” and failing to pay enough attention to the region. But the Creech report said “Our investigation did not bear this out.” The reviewers had heard the stories. They had heard the rumours. They heard them repeated by National members, but the repetition of stuff about Environment Canterbury is just not true. This is what the Hon Wyatt Creech said in his report: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … The Review found that while the process for debating strongly opposing views has been marred by poor behaviour and reflects past grievances in some cases,”—well, that is not good, but it is not unusual—“the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.”

There is no need for this disembowelling of Environment Canterbury. There is no need for us in Canterbury to have our democratic right to vote taken away from us, and there is no need for this legislation to proceed.

Adams AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this

We come to the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and it is my final opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill because, unlike members opposite, I reflect the concern that has come through my office every day since I have become an MP about the way in which Environment Canterbury is operating. Despite the rhetoric and despite the scaremongering, this concern is coming not just from one side of the debate; it is coming from people who deal with Environment Canterbury in many ways and who express constant frustration about delay and excessive cost, and about being absolutely powerless in dealing with an organisation that has got into a mind-set of thinking that it does not have to listen to its people.

In the first reading debate I started talking about the importance of Canterbury as a region. I am quite happy to stand here as one of the Canterbury MPs and say that Canterbury is one of the most important regions in this country. It has a spectacular environment and it is one of the most important regions economically. Water is crucial in Canterbury. There is no bigger issue, I think we can safely say—certainly facing the people of Selwyn—than the proper management of our water. Every single person I have come across in this debate—and I ask members opposite who disagree to let me know—would agree that water has not been managed well in Canterbury. If anyone has a different view I ask that person to let me know. I have not heard anyone who is prepared to stand in this House to say that water has been well run in Canterbury—[Interruption] Mr Jones thinks that it has been. He thinks that everything is fine in Canterbury.

Frankly, anyone in this House who is not prepared to back this bill is saying that everything is fine with Environment Canterbury, that we should not do anything—let it keep going as it is, let us just bumble along with our heads in the sand for another 10 years, it will all be OK mate, and it will all come out in the wash. It will not. I can tell members that I have lost faith in Environment Canterbury’s ability to fix this crucial, crucial issue. I have lost any confidence that it can turn this round. I am not saying that members of Environment Canterbury are not good people—they absolutely are. I am not saying that they have not done some good work—they have. But I am saying that I do not believe that Environment Canterbury can deal with the problem of water in Canterbury. The Government needs to step in. The Government, in my view, has an obligation to step in when the job is not being done properly.

Regional councils operate under legislation from this House. We have the authority as a Parliament to step in if that job is not being carried out. It has not been done properly and there is a need for urgent action. Let us be quite clear about this: those problems have been around for a long, long time. Trevor Mallard was quite honest in saying that his Government knew that there was a problem. He wanted to see action on Environment Canterbury, but the Labour Government did not act because there was an election coming up.

At the very first briefing Minister Smith received as the new, incoming Minister for the Environment he was told about the pressing issues in Environment Canterbury, and this Government is going to deal with them. It is not an easy decision to make, it is a courageous decision to make, but it has to be done. We recognise our obligations to get this right; water is simply too important for us to bumble along and pretend nothing is wrong. There is a problem, it needs urgent action, and we have to put in place commissioners to get this right so that we can return to normal operations in our regional councils. They will not do it on their own; they have shown that over a long period of time. This bill is necessary and I am very pleased to see it happening. I commend it to the House.

Twyford PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) Link to this

The tension between private and public interests, and the tension between the many and the few, lies beneath hundreds of years of struggle in our political tradition. I take members back to the 14th century to the Peasants’ Revolt, to the Levellers in the 17th century, and to the English Civil War between the parliamentarians and the royalists, which raged across Britain for nearly a century. I remind members about the Chartists in the 19th century, who campaigned for popular sovereignty and universal franchise. I remind them of the fight to give women the vote, of those who gave their lives in the Second World War to defend democracy, and of the spread of parliamentary democracy around the world in the 21st century.