First off under Part 2, I make one comment in response to the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, which he addressed to me, and then I hope that I have a chance later under Part 2 to make further comments.
In response to the Minister, who believed that he had detected an illogicality in what I had been saying, I reassure him that the Green Party does not have an illogical position because it is this: what I was saying at the time, under Part 1, was that responding to the bill as it is drafted, and understanding the intent of the Government, and particularly the Minister, to clear up water management, as he sees best, there could have been another way.
There could have been a way in which a particular commission could have handled water, and the councillors continued. That was one of the recommendations, was it not? I understand, from the Minister's intervention, the reasons why he did not proceed down that route. I do not necessarily agree or understand why he did it, but it is not an illogicality on our part to seek to offer the possibility that that was another way to go. It is not the Green Party's preferred way, nor is it the case that there would necessarily be confusion between them.
Dear Lord, we have a New Zealand Cabinet with 20 or 22 portfolios! They are delineated; to some extent they overlap. We understand there has to be give and take between Cabinet Ministers in Cabinet. It does not follow there is chaos and confusion reigning supreme. It would not necessarily follow with Environment Canterbury, either. But the main point is that if we are looking to the logicality of the Green Party's position, it is this: the Government should not ever have gone down the route of disbanding an elected regional council, because that strikes at the heart of local democracy. If a Government does that, it unleashes a tiger, especially in a country, as I said in the second reading debate, where our constitution is more fragile than we like to acknowledge.
The Green Party would have preferred the council to have continued as the elected body, with its proper mandate, for the proper term. How might we have cleared up the imperfections of water management? We would have given the council the extra powers that the Government is now giving to an unappointed body, which at least the chief executive, and the council I believe, had requested 4 years ago.
It is the height of illogicality, if we are addressing the point of illogicality, I say to Mr Garrett, that the Government should proceed to disband a council, then set up an unelected body and give it the powers that the council should have had in the first place.
So our point is that the Government should not ever have gone down this route in the first place, and if there were major problems of water management, it could have appointed advisers—whether Dame Bazley or others—to assist, and given the council the powers to do the job.
