Brendon Burns

Canterbury has reputation for being one-eyed. When it comes to our water, many of us currently feel a bit like the biblical David. It is we Cantabrians that are up against Cyclops and all we’ve got is our slingshot.

So forgive me, if I start this address by firing a few stones. I will then move to the wider issues of how we might better make decisions on water allocation and management. And give you an assessment of the EPA’s likely role.

I believe the demise of ECAN was decided no later than six weeks after the 2008 election. A forum of Canterbury irrigations was called, organised by MAF on behalf of a trio of senior Government Ministers. Not one environmental voice was present, not even Nick Smith.

Implicitly or explicitly, I believe the signal was given at that meeting that issues with ECAN starting to turn off water consents would be resolved; And with it, the constraints imposed by Water Conservation Orders.

OIAs to MAF and others show the direction of that thinking taking shape at and soon after that December 20 2008 forum.

Labour has pledged to rescind the ECAN Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management Act and to hold elections as soon as possible.

It is unfair on the people of Canterbury that they are subject to a different set of rules than the rest of the country; Cantabrians are not able to seek the same protection under the Resource Management Act as other New Zealanders;

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act denies people the right  to appeal proposed policy statements or plans based on the merits of the decision; Cantabrians will be prevented from seeking a reconsideration of the decisions of the un-elected commissioners that have been forced on them; 

The same has occurred with the process for water conservation orders – Cantabrians are not able to seek a review of the merits of the un-elected Commissioners decisions in the Environment Court; Yet, Water Conservation Orders are granted for waterways of National Significance.
Kate Wilkinson told a meeting at which I was present that the WCOs had to go as the water was needed for the Government’s growth agenda. A Conservation Minister openly advocating that waterways of national significance give way for rushed regional economic imperatives.

What’s more, Agriculture Minister David Carter is on record warning other regional councils to take note of what happened in Canterbury. He suggests it would be wise for them to develop better relationships with farmers otherwise they too might be ECANNed.

Little wonder, organisations like Fish and Game, Forest and Bird, Whitewater NZ and others, who are members of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, have questioned continued membership. We will all pay a big price if that once in a lifetime strategy falls apart because of an explicit Government rapid growth agenda superimposed over the top.

Similarly, there are major questions about what the Land and Water Forum can now deliver.

This is Nick Smith’s big hope of rafting up diverse groups to get better water management around the country; he put his foot through the raft by choosing not to consult it on the changes to Water Conservation Order processes in Canterbury.

He has however kicked it the report on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management headed by Judge David Sheppard. This report says that the Government cannot put aside environmental values for economic gain

Labour supports that report.

I will credit Dr Smith for one thing. His announcement that, here in Canterbury he Government will move to meter major water users.

That’s an appropriate decision but in Parliament Dr Smith would not answer my question whether the Government will stop big water users being able to on-sell unused allocations – sometimes at windfall profits – to other farmers

Labour believes water is a common good, owned by us all and that there is no case to effectively allow the privatisation of water

We believe this is being set up at a local body level with the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which would allow private water companies to develop and own water projects for up to 35 years. Such ownership is currently precluded. One vehicle for this within council ownership but still removed from ratepayer scrutiny is to use a Council Owned Operating Company.  I note the Christchurch City Council has this year set up several Council Owned Operating Companies, without defining what they might be used for.

Labour is working on policies to ensure we as New Zealanders continue to own our water and require that those who use it, do not degrade it; to put sustainable environmental outcomes alongside if not ahead of economic growth outcomes.

We are perhaps a year away from policy announcements, but here are some themes that I have been considering.

• Labour is a party that supports our quality of life – clean water, fresh air, open spaces –  are part of our birthright as New Zealanders
• Our  ‘clean, green’ image is more than what makes us feel good – it is the basis of our economic livelihood – both for what we produce and our huge tourism industry
• Labour will work with business leaders who understand that the new green economy is where New Zealand should be positioning itself
• We want high-value, high-pay, sustainable jobs that create a more prosperous nation without undermining our quality of life
• Labour regards water as a common good, owned by every New Zealander who have absolute rights to expect they can use it and drink it safely
• We believe Government must assist communities to get safe drinking water

• I personally support metering and charging major water users so as to improve economic and environmental outcomes
• I see that a resource rental approach may be the best vehicle so we regard farmers as stewards of our water, not its owners
• I firmly oppose tradeable water rights which are used for major private gain (read privatization)
It is now critical for New Zealanders to debate and decide the future of water allocation.

Last week, two Government Ministers acknowledged that any prospect of improving New Zealand’s water quality will come second to intensive agriculture.

At the Primary Production committee meeting last Thursday, Agriculture Minister David Carter certainly acknowledged the importance of New Zealand’s environmental record to our exports, but could not say what will stop new irrigation projects leading to further water degradation.
 
John Key has said he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury and possibly Otago next year. Mr Carter suggested those time frames were too optimistic, but said no new environmental controls could be put in place anywhere near as rapidly to ensure new water flows do not lead to further deterioration in water quality because of unchecked farming practices.

David Carter confirmed that the most recent assessment of dairying’s impact on water quality saw it going backwards, yet he is keen to put in place new water before any tough new requirement is introduced to stop polluting our waterways.

Meanwhile at the Environment and Local Government select committee, all Environment Minister Nick Smith talked about was environmental protections already in place — which are not stopping current levels of waterway pollution anyway.

Dr Smith argued that water schemes don’t necessarily have negative environmental water impacts, but can be positive. That’s true in terms of taking pressure off aquifers but doesn’t address increased discharges of effluent and nitrates that will flow unless the Government insists it’s time the environment should come ahead of new, rushed irrigation schemes.

So what about the Environmental Protection Authority? Will that provide the new checks and balances? Well first, Nick Smith is at least a year out on delivering the EPA.  He wanted the EPA fully operational by, as it happens, yesterday.
Eighteen months into government, the Budget estimates for the Environmental Protection Authority show it will receive only $2m a year for the next four years, $1m less than the current year.
It employs just seven staff – one fewer than last year.
The estimates do show the EPA will receive $16.8m as a resource consent processor for major energy, land and roading projects. But that was never intended as its core function.
Dr Smith promoted the EPA as filling the gaps in the RMA which have allowed such outcomes as a deterioration of water quality across much of New Zealand.
Since the Budget, Dr Smith has announced the EPA might be up and running with 150 staff by next July. Sounds ok? But 90 of those staff come across from ERMA; 40 will work on climate change. Some of the rest will work on Antarctica; others will be working on fast-tracking major projects. You have to ask whether an Environmental Protection Authority should be taking money from developers to speed up resource consents.
So, that’s the 150 staff. Perhaps some more might be folded across from a reduced Ministry for the Environment. Perhaps. Personally I think Bill English has squashed Nick Smith’s dream of an EPA that would deliver real environmental protection policies and enforce them.
That brings me back to my opening point. I don’t believe Nick Smith wanted the ECAN legislation as introduced. I think he has a genuine commitment to improving environmental outcomes. I don’t view him as Cyclops because I think he, has both eyes open. If we put our environmental record at further risk, with it we put in jeopardy the very way we earn our living as a nation.
Water is the litmus test of our clean, green image. We need new ways to allocate it and manage it that make maintaining water quality the key to getting access to it.
Frankly, at the moment you’d have to be pretty one-eyed to believe that we are making real progress.

Kia ora tatou, welcome everyone

I am pleased to see that you have all joined the movement.

The movement to save the Linwood Post Shop.

As someone representing a party which in government established KiwiBank , I have to say I am very disappointed that we all have to be here today.

That is doubly so because as a government we required New Zealand Post to work with KiwiBank and provide services to communities like Linwood.

KiwiBank is our bank. It is only seven years old and already its getting the itch.

Being our bank is more than an advertising slogan.

KiwiBank began because the other Aussie owned banks were closing down
branches left right and centre. Like the Westpac branch opposite the Linwood Post Shop.

KiwiBank was still talking the talk as recently as its latest annual report.

So what’s happened?

Well, a couple of weeks ago I invited KiwiBank’s and NZ Post’s chief executive Sam Knowles to my Parliamentary office.

As is happens, Sam is a former resident of Linwood.

But I don’t think he was aware that this community has the highest
Percentage of sickness and invalid beneficieares in the country. And a high percentage of elderly as well.

Because otherwise, I don’t think you would be being told to get to your next yearest branch – Eastgate. It’s a 1.6 km walk or two bus rides to Eastgate,

I handed over the first bundle of the petition you’ve all signed – 2144 signatures.

I talked about the importance of this facility; how pulling banking and billpaying would gut it; and contribute to the further rundown of the area.

NZ Post/Kiwibank could lead an upgrading here. Make some investment into better facilities and others will follow. We’ve seen that further up Stanmore Rd.

I asked for a 6 or 12 month stay of execution so we could all work together to building up more business; I offered to move my own bank accounts to KiwiBank,

Open my postbox here.

Nothing was registering. It was like dealing with those other oh so awful Aussie owned banks.

My belief is that something is driving this. I believe it is the Government demanding higher dividends from KiwiBank and NZ Post. The easiest way to do that is cut services, staff and costs. This week we’ve seen $150m go from Mightt River Power to the government coffers rather than into assisting people meet

Ever rising power prices.

So what can we do?

Well, I think we should borrow on Kiwibanks own advertising campaign.

“Join the movement” it’s called. I would propose linking with other communities
and mounting a nationwide campaign. Because even if now its just Redwood and Palmerston North, then next month it’ll be more communities. to pull the banking and bill paying services.

I’ve already got some speakers which I’m prepared to mount on the top of my car, so I can run around Christchurch doing John Clark impersonations,

Telling people that their bank is actually behaving little better than those Aussie bankers in the pin striped suits.

If you are ready to join the movement, I am ready to support it.

Extracts from speech to Parliament on Budget night

Here we  are on Budget night under urgency.  It’s very common to have urgency after the introduction of a Budget, when a government has some compelling initiative or change to introduce to the House. But not tonight. Not from this Government. Not from this Minister of Finance.
 
After the donut Budget – all hole and missed opportunities – with just a bit of recycled dough, the Minister introduces this bill, the Taxation, Budget Tax Measures Bill.
 
But it’s not a bill that requires urgency. Its main provision doesn’t take effect for 10 months, and then a year after that. And yes, we as a Labour Opposition will support the bill. We know that we are in a recession.
 
We knew that last Septembe/October when we as a party revised our pledges to the electorate in the face of the gathering storm. But not the National Party. Not the now Prime Minister. Now the the now Minister of Finance.
 
They maintained the façade, as the Crosby Texter manual told them; tell the people that they can still have their cake and eat it. You can have most of what the Labour govt has given you – Working for Families, secure Superannuation, interest free student loans, – and  three rounds of tax cuts as well.
 
That façade was maintained throughout October, throughout the election, and brought it into this House, with the legislation, urnder urgency last December.
 
We all knew it was dubious; the fundamentals were not there.
 
But the promises had been made. So the government had to construct an escape route. Soften up the voters to the fact that the economic conditions were such that the second and third round of tax cuts could not be afforded.
 
Yet, the government still proceeded with Round one of the tax cuts; the cuts that gave a third of the money to 3 percent of taxpayers.
 
That ignored those on below the average wage; refused to acknowledge that the first fundamental of a recession is put the money were it goes round the best;give it to those who will spend every dollar, not use the money to save or pay down debt or swan off overseas with their windfall gains.
 
That’s why as a party now accept the need for this bill and will support it. We and many others knew that these tax cuts were a false premise; 
  
The Minister of Finance knew that in December with the Treasury financial update. He knew that in February when he told departmental chief executives that they would never hire another new staffer, spend another new dollar, in their careers. This bill now before the House is no surprise to anyone.
 
It is part of a cut and hope Budget, a budget that took a life from Dickens – a Tale of Two Cities – a worst of times Budget.
 
It could also, to quote Dickens, have been a Budget that made the Best of the Times. A budget which projected to the future and provided some investment in training. Theres’s barely a word about that in this budget
 
It is a budget speech which includes only one reference to the Environment
 
 I do acknowledge the funding for insulation- an issue I have long championed. I will be wanting to ensure it will extend to rented properties, where much of the poor, uninsulated stock exists
  
But there is no overall plan for New Zealand’s future. It is a standard, poor National budget

Mr Speaker, as I stand to speak in this House for the first time, I wish to pay tribute to what has brought me here. And to give some sense of what I hope to achieve as a Member of Parliament. Can I also Mr Speaker acknowledge your elevation and the speech from the Throne from the Governor General.

Like some other new members, mine is a migrant’s story.

In the early 1920s, my dad’s Uncle Mick fled grimy Liverpool determined to find a better life than England offered him as a working man. He landed in Wellington, working and saving until the Depression hit. Only with the first Labour government’s election was he able to put a deposit on a house and send for his wife and son. They had been separated 15 years. 15 years!

Uncle Mick later encouraged my father Jim and dear late mother Julie to come here. He said it was a great place to bring up a family – and he was right.

I still regularly thank my parents’ courage for having the courage to bring determination me and my five brothers and sisters to New Zealand when I was four years old. 

We were almost wholly bog Irish by extraction, Catholic and working class.

Fear of nuclear holocaust was another key trigger for leaving England.

As well as being early anti-nuclearists, my family shared other Labour values. We kids all got the opportunities afforded by a good Catholic and state education. And apart from a bit of teasing as our accents faded, we were treated to genuine Kiwi fairness. And tolerance. These values remain fundamental to the sort of Aotearoa New Zealand I wish to work for and live in.

I remember as a teenager making an unkind comment about someone being different. My father gently reminded me that our forebears had arrived in England from the potato famine; dirty, poor, speaking a strange language and professing another faith.  They were treated like scum because they were different. And, remember, he said, people are just people.

What was true more than 150 years ago for emigré  Irish peasants is true today in my electorate of Christchurch Central, which hosts 100 ethnic minorities. Just last week, one of my electorate office staff assisted four Ethopian orphans to arrive, somewhat wide-eyed, from Addis Ababa. An already resident family member is helping them start their new life in Christchurch. And so the cycle repeats.

I think every one of us who is given opportunity and succeeds owes it to the next generation to provide the same equality of opportunity, to ensure the same fairness and tolerance is provided to every New Zealand child, whether born in England or Ethiopia, Samoa or Shirley.

That must be the measure of a fair and just society. You don’t just take the opportunities provided to you and then pull up the ladder; you drop it down it further so even more can come aboard.

I want to thank the voters of Christchurch Central who supported me and Labour on November 8. I assure all everyone who lives in this wonderful eclectic and diverse electorate that I am here to represent them and their interests.

My first priority is to do all I can to help employers, unions and business groups to retain any jobs that now come under threat as the recession bites in Christchurch Central. It was sobering to read the maiden speeches of some illustrious predecessors – Sir Geoffrey Palmer, David Caygill and Lianne Dalziel, and be reminded just how recently high unemployment blighted my electorate.

Mr Speaker, I also wish to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Tim Barnett. Tim was legendary in his devotion to the constituents of Christchurch Central. He was also generous, accommodating and supportive of me as a candidate, right up to door knocking late on Election Day. Just hours before he flew out of the country, we bundled him out of the electorate office, still trying to pass on files and notes, He and his partner Ramon are now enjoying a well-earned break before taking on new challenges. I am sure this House wishes them well.

The Christchurch Central electorate is the jewel in the crown of Christchurch. It encompasses all of the splendour of Hagley Park, the city’s museum and hospital complex, our new, iconic art gallery, the country’s best Edwardian heritage buildings as well as new apartment complexes. If you haven’t had a recent holiday in Christchurch, then come and experience all it has to offer.

Christchurch Central is home to AMI Stadium and to the mighty Crusaders – so perhaps you might time your visit to see your home team play and be beaten.

The electorate includes some of the country’s wealthiest streets, but is also home to some of the nation’s poorest people. We have among the highest figures for those renting, living alone and on sickness and invalid benefits.

Some of the housing stock is shameful, best described as wooden tents. They are among the one million New Zealand homes that still  have no insulation or are not properly insulated. This is unacceptable for a first world nation in the 21^st century, especially in a city where winter day temperatures numbingly remain in single figures. To be warm in the place you call home Is a basic human right.

The Labour-led government forged an agreement with the Green Party to address this through a 15 year programme.

 I say to the new government that there are few other initiatives with so many benefits – lower power bills, less pressure on the health system from cold people getting sick, reduced demand on our energy system and on our planet.. The New Zealand Council for Sustainable Development has just reported that nearly $5 billion in energy savings can be had in the next decade through insulating every home; that’s $300 per household every year.

This is infrastructure every bit as beneficial as roads and broadband. And with building firms laying off staff in the face of recession, I say now is the time to insulate New Zealand homes, starting with Christchurch.

Another matter of prime importance to Christchurch Central is reform of the liquor laws. At weekends, our inner city’s numerous bars and cafes attracts thousands of people, locals and tourists alike. Unfortunately, many people arrive in a grossly intoxicated state. Often they are refused access to licensed premises. Despite a ban on drinking on inner city streets, people can buy alcohol from nearby dairies and supermarkets. Police and hospital authorities estimate alcohol accounts for 70 percent or more of weekend crime and injuries in Christchurch. I suspect it will not be greatly different in any other community represented in this House.

Liquor legislation remains difficult to get right, in part I think because it remains a conscience vote for members, a residue from the strong pro-temperance push early last century. As further liquor legislation looms in the course of this Parliament,  I suggest it is timely, for parties to consider whether such law changes should become matters of party policy.

I am very pleased to have water quality among my Labour spokesperson duties. Water will be a defining issue for our future as climate change hits and demand increases. Christchurch currently enjoys perhaps the best quality drinking water in the world. Meanwhile Canterbury accounts for two-thirds of the nation’s irrigation. Much new demand has been driven by corporate-scale dairy farming, with Canterbury farms twice the size of the national average.

I am far from being opposed to development – I was instrumental in setting up an economic development trust in Marlborough – but we must have development that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. Dairy farming is already a key contributor to making it dangerous to swim in many Canterbury streams and rivers, let alone drink their water. Effluent is a real problem but more sinister are the poisonous nitrates from urea fertiliser which can take decades to seep into water supplies.

When water allocation is on a first in, first served basis with little real cost to the user, we simply encourage rampant growth where the environment is always going to come second. We need a new allocation model for water that recognises its primary importance to every New Zealander, not just the landholder who owns a thin mantle of soil above an aquifer or adjoining a river. Water is a common good. It belongs to every one of us and we should all have a say in who gets it and what it is used for.

My other shadow portfolio is broadcasting. My working life began as a broadcasting journalist. I still regard Radio New Zealand as a national taonga. In an ever digitising, increasingly commercial and converging world, it is imperative to retain state-owed radio and television to deliver New Zealand content and develop our sense of identity.

Mr Speaker, I come to this House with strong, established beliefs in its traditions and its democratic values.

For 12 years, I sat up there in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. I am not sure if that makes me gamekeeper turned poacher, or vice versa.

I believe I am the first former Gallery member to be elected to Parliament since Sir Frederick Doidge in the 1930s.

While never shy of expressing strong opinions as a journalist, I always retained a healthy respect for Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, not least for the onerous workload I am only now truly able to appreciate.

I wish to acknowledge my former profession but observe it is increasingly difficult for journalists to do justice to their calling in an ever more commercially-driven environment. To give just one example; there is now virtually no coverage of candidate meetings by major media outlets in main centres. How can media be a public watchdog when the chain keeps getting shorter?

Many embark on the journey to get to this House – some of us more than once – but rather fewer arrive. I am here now because in early 2002 I went as a newspaper editor to a Marlborough mussel factory. Helen Clark opened it and she made everyone in that audience, me included, just so proud to be a New Zealander. I got a lift back into town with her. A fortnight later, I was the Labour candidate for Kaikoura.

I was then privileged to work for Helen in the Prime Minister’s Office.

But the greatest privilege of all is entering this House, being part of a strong Labour caucus and I hope being of service to my electorate, this Parliament and nation.

Being able to do that results from a harmonious and hardworking Labour team in Christchurch Central ably led by campaign manager Pam Wheeler and secretary Coral Hodgson. To them and many others I can’t name, thank you.

I wish to acknowledge my National opponent at the election in Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner, and say I hope we can work together on issues of importance for Christchurch.

Finally, I want to acknowledge my wife Philippa, who is here in the Gallery today with friends and family, and with whom I have shared every step of this journey. And to thank our daughters Hannah and Rachel and my sister Julie, for their love and support.

Sadly my mother passed away in August and my father is too frail to travel but I know they are with me here today.

In the same way as they and my Uncle Mick came here to give others’ opportunity, I come to this Parliament to help ensure my daughters’ generation and those which follow, can enjoy all the opportunities that this blessed nation of Aotearoa/New Zealand can and must provide to all its people.

Comments by Brendon to the Save Zimbabwe meeting, June 21

More than 20 years ago, Philippa and I were privileged to visit a very special country; a country with the best climate in Africa, the most productive agricultural economy, the best chance of getting things right for all it’s people.

It wasn’t that long after the sun had set on Rhodesia and rose on Zimbabwe.

White people grumbled a bit to us about foreign exchange restrictions but there was an air of goodwill, of hope, of expectation.

We felt safe. We took local buses and trains and even hitchhiked. We walked the hills of Inyanga; camped at Mana Pools; fished at Kariba and were fascinated to explore the ruins of Great Zimbabwe, built by an advanced culture centuries before.

Food was plentiful and cheap. We bought steaks the size of dinner plates for a dollar.

There were security issues in Matabeleland – our train from Bulawayo to Victoria Falls had been shot at the previous week – and we met people who whispered about the North Korean Fifth Brigade being ruthless against supporters of Joshua Nkomo.

But Zimbabwe was still feeding its people; President Mugabe still had the support of most of the population; the sun still shone for everyone..

Not any longer. Now he can only control his country – if it is him who has control – through the military and the police.

Today we learn that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai may pull out of the June 27 presidential run-off election, fearing it will be a charade.

Even a growing number of African nations, who’ve long stayed silent on the Mugabe regime’s brutality and excesses, have said they do not believe the poll would be free and fair because of the violence and intimidation going.

At least 70 of the MDC’s supporters have been killed since Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe in the March 29 vote.

Tsvangirai has been detained five times while campaigning.

The MDC’s secretary-general, Tendai Biti, is being held on treason charges that could carry the death penalty.

Mugabe blames Western sanctions for inflation that makes the currency worthless between printing it and taking it to the shops; 4 our of 5 people are unemployed and Zimbabweans suffer shortages of food and fuel.

None of this will surprise the Zimbabwean community here in Christchurch. You are in many cases here because of past repression and injustices.

Tragically, we may be on the cusp of even worse to come. The UN refugee agency UNHCR is making contingency plans in case a large number of Zimbabweans are forced to flee further violence around next Friday’s poll.

What can New Zealand do? Well our government has been adding its voice to international calls for an immediate end to state-sponsored violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe.

We’ve acknowledged that Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party have been conducting a deliberate campaign of violence; that it lost the March elections

We moved six years ago that the Commonwealth suspend Zimbabwe.

We’ve offered residency to Zimbabweans living here regardless of their health status

We’ve compensated New Zealand Cricket over the cancelled tour here by the Zimbabwe cricket team.

I am sure our Labour-led government will continue to do all it can to influence events in Zimbabwe – and to continue contributing to relief and humanitarian initiatives.

And similarly, we must all do what we can; to remember those who’ve already been victims of violence under the Mugabe regime and stand in solidarity with those who continue to fight for the freedom and justice, so that the sun can rise again on Zimbabwe.