E-Can Speech

Mr Speaker,
The Green Party strongly opposes this Bill – the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill.

This Bill may come to mark an historic occasion – which may live on in infamy in the annals of this Parliament.

Last week in General Debate I advanced a critique of the Creech Report and its recommendations. I do not wish to repeat myself here. Suffice to say that the report was politically-driven and not politically-informed, and failed basic standards of organisational and managerial professionalism.


In particular, the statutory arrangements in this country impose five functions on regional councils. They are: resource management, bio-security control, river management, land transport and civil defence. The Creech Report focused excessively, almost exclusively, on one part of one f those functions, and condemned the Council to death.

But that is already history. What we are addressing today is the response of the Government to that report and to the Canterbury water situation.

And in a more fundamental manner, what we face here is the relationship between central government and local government, and what that means for democracy in this country. So this is not a light issue – it has to do with two fundamental issues – economic growth on the one hand and good governance on the other.

The stated problem, as advanced by the Minister in introducing the Bill, is the “long-standing systemic issue in regional governance.” Intervention, said the Minister, can only occur if there is serious failure. This has occurred, he said, in three areas:
1. It has failed to effectively manage Canterbury water;
2. It did not put a fully operative regional plan for resource management – after 18 years there is no regional water plan
3. The quality of regional governance is lacking – the reviewers found “an enormous and unprecedented gap” between ECan’s responsibility and capability.

So what does it do? It abolishes the elected council, establishes a new appointed Commission, and gives that unelected body extra powers – the power of moratorium.

That is a classic example of shifting the goal-posts. We condemn a democratic body for alleged ineptitude that derives from weakness in powers granted to it. Then we set up an undemocratic body and grant it the powers its democratic predecessor had always needed. That is not only devious; it is dangerous to this nation’s constitutional health.

We need to be careful in this country because our constitutional integrity is quite fragile compared to most countries.
- We have no codified constitution.
- We have no upper house.
- We do not have a clear separation of national powers.
- We have no federal division of authority, but rather a strong centralised government.

It does not take much to generate a momentum where power becomes concentrated. We can all remember a New Zealand government not long ago that was described as an elected dictatorship. Jim Anderton in this very debate said that he had never, in all his time in this House, over a quarter century, seen anything like this.

Stamping out the tender plant that is local democracy can be done even with the best of intentions. This Government believes it is doing the right thing, as Jacqui Deans said earlier. So did Tony Blair when he invaded Iraq. That was on the principle of humanitarian intervention – grotesquely misconstrued. So did Bainimarama when he took out the elected government of Fiji – at the end of a gun. That was on the Doctrine of Necessity, grotesquely misconstrued.

What is to be the doctrine on which the Leader of this nation, with his two lieutenants Smith and Hide, rest their intervention? What grotesque misconstruction will eventuate?
- Will it be the doctrine of frustration? Frustration over the obstacles which democracy, sustainability and the precautionary principle place in front of economic growth?
- Will it be the doctrine of corporate efficiency – a truth which will not be denied, either in Auckland or in Canterbury?

If it is the latter, how many regional councils will go under the guillotine for alleged inefficiency before this Government and its supporters are satiated?

ECan came in last out of an alleged 84 in the most recent regional survey. In fact that is misleading. There are only 12 regional councils, so it is a sleight of hand to trumpet 84.

And, of the twelve, Minister, one had to come last. There is a reason why it was Canterbury. It is because water is the most sensitive issue in New Zealand right now and Canterbury is the most sensitive region for water. You do not need to be a rocket scientist, or even an ECan reviewer, to recognise these truths.

So which is the next regional council – that which came in 11th – to get the evil eye turned upon it, in the name of efficiency?

So how are we to judge the nature of this intrusion into this nation’s democracy?

Let us turn to the Regulatory Impact Statement. Let us see what the Statement says. “Elections”, it said, “are a right and privilege of any citizen in New Zealand. The suspension of such a right should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Such a decision is correct to sit with Parliament.”

The Impact Statement continues: “Targeted consultation”, not ‘targeted’, “Targeted consultation was undertaken during the statutory investigation of ECan and ECan has been consulted on the draft recommendations of the investigators. However, there has been no public consultation on the proposals. …. The short time-frame available for formulating and drafting the legislation necessary to enable the government’s proposed intervention has not allowed for a comprehensive assessment of risks and alternatives. This increases the risk that intervention could be incorrectly targeted. And / or could require subsequent amendment to address unforeseen circumstances.”

This, Mr Speaker, is an extraordinary Impact Statement. It is prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. It is a brave action for clearly the Ministry is not happy with what is going on. Will it, too, be disbanded? And on what principle? A lack of loyalty to the leader and his lieutenants?

Yet that is not all. Because the Minister proposes to proceed under Urgency, this, says the Impact Statement, “alongside the proposal to limit appeal rights on decision / recommendations made by commissioners … potentially alienates Canterbury ratepayers and the general public from decisions made on natural resources in the Canterbury region. This raises equity and access to justice issues.”

Mr Speaker, this is perhaps as Jim Anderton says, an unprecedented situation. Here we have a situation in which a government department is fighting to defend the principles of democracy and natural justice that is historically and constitutionally the responsibility of central government. But it is central government that is stamping it out. The rate-payers and the general public of my province are being alienated from decisions made over their natural resources, raising issues of equity and justice.

That, Mr Speaker, is the kind of things that citizens rebel against.

Well, I have news for Ministers Smith and Hide, and also their Leader, Mr Key who appears to be losing his footing. The rate-payers and general public have taken about 2 hours to get their act together, in the face of this threat to their natural rights.

A group of Canterbury citizens are organising already, to picket the offices of the four National MPs in Canterbury – MPs Brownlee, Carter, Wagner and Adams. They will leave this letter at their doors. It reads as follows:





“NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! An open letter to Canterbury National MPs

We, the undersigned, are writing to utterly condemn the National Party government's decision to abolish the democratically elected and accountable Regional Council in Canterbury and replace it by unelected commissioners responsible only to central government. Moreover, this has been done without the slightest consultation with the Canterbury public.

This is an outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy, and also a sorry degradation of democracy for New Zealand as a whole. It seems to signal the determination to favour sector interests over the welfare of the public at large.

We pledge never to vote for a party which has such a flagrant disregard for our sovereign rights as citizens to elect and to recall our democratic representatives at the local level.

Since from May 1 the councillors we elected in 2007 will no longer be working for us, we expect to find on our next ECAN rates bills that the portion of our rates which went towards their salaries has been rebated accordingly, from May 1.

If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision-makers, then it is central government's responsibility to pay for the unelected decision-makers it chooses to put in their place.

We look forward to hearing the National Party's assurance that this will be the case, before May 1.”