Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a first time. New Zealand’s most important strategic natural resource is its fresh water. At nearly 80,000 cubic metres per person, we are to water what the Saudis are to oil. Better still, if wisely managed our natural freshwater resources are infinitely renewable. The problem is that water has been so plentiful that we have not had to be too sophisticated historically in terms of how we have allocated or managed that resource.

Nowhere is this debate as hot as it has been in Canterbury, where over 50 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation and 50 percent of our electricity storage water exists. People are flexing their muscles over water while the weakened referee—Environment Canterbury—is struggling to maintain order. Allocation decisions are ad hoc, water quality is deteriorating, and storage opportunities are being lost in the muddle.

Longstanding systemic issues relating to the performance of Environment Canterbury have reached a critical stage. Evidence of the failure has been apparent for over a decade and has been acknowledged by the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard. Concerns around Environment Canterbury were included in the Ministry for the Environment’s briefing to the incoming Government.

Based on these concerns, and on Environment Canterbury’s performance in the 2007-08 Resource Management Act survey of local authorities—which found that Environment Canterbury’s performance was 84th out of 84 and was complying with statutory timetables in only 29 percent of cases—I decided to fully investigate its performance. I also note the critical decisions that have been made by the Environment Court and by independent environment commissioners.

The review was undertaken, after consultation with my colleague the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, by an independent review group chaired by Wyatt Creech and including Doug Martin, Doug Low, and Greg Hill. I acknowledge the hard work they put into their report. The review unanimously found that Environment Canterbury—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Dirty-dairying convictions.

I notice Mr Norman and I give him some advice. In Jeanette Fitzsimon’s 12 years in this Parliament she tackled the issue and not the person. Mr Norman is taking his party’s integrity backwards by not focusing on the real issues, and those real issues concern the management of water in Canterbury.

The Canterbury community has lost faith in the ability of Environment Canterbury to deliver on its statutory responsibilities. Over the last couple of months I and the Minister of Local Government have met with Environment Canterbury, Canterbury mayors, chief executives, councils, stakeholders, and Ngāi Tahu. The views of the people of Canterbury are very clear to me—that is, it is patently obvious that, for a number of years, something has needed to be done, that the report by those independent reviewers is comprehensive and accurate, that Environment Canterbury is dysfunctional and is holding back the region both economically and environmentally, and that the report included sound recommendations for a way forward to deliver a step change in management of water in Canterbury.

Environment Canterbury’s relationships with freshwater stakeholders and Canterbury’s territorial authorities, as well as Ngāi Tahu, are compromised to a degree that undermines Environment Canterbury’s efforts to remedy those water management issues in Canterbury that are so critical. It is my take that there is a broad consensus in support of the review group’s finding in relation to the institutional governance of Environment Canterbury and almost unanimous support for strong central government leadership on this issue.

The review group recommends that the Government establish a stand-alone Canterbury water authority. The Government believes that further consideration is required before such structural arrangements are put in place, and I note that there is nothing in this bill to advance that proposal. The threshold for intervention in the affairs of local government is high. Intervention is considered only where there is serious failure. In respect of Environment Canterbury the Government’s intervention is required because of three things—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: They said no to irrigators.

First, the council has failed to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water. What surprises me about the intervention from the co-leader of the Green Party is that there is no question that water quality in Canterbury over the last decade has deteriorated, and if we are serious about taking some action about that, then we should move.

Secondly, Canterbury does not have a fully operative regional plan and policy framework for resource management. I find it extraordinary that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have an operative plan in Canterbury to manage its water, and this has resulted in ad hoc and unsatisfactory arrangements for managing fresh water. Third, in the view of the review group there is an enormous and unprecedented gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage water in Canterbury and the council’s ability to do so.

These problems straddle the roles of Environment Canterbury under both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. The existing powers provided under those statutes are not sufficient to address these problems. There is a compelling case for immediate and direct action by the Government. Intervention is required to address a failure of governance on the part of the elected council, particularly in relation to freshwater management. If we do not act, then the economic, social, and cultural well-being of Canterbury—and, in my view, New Zealand—will continue to suffer.

This bill provides the power to appoint and empower Government-appointed commissioners. These commissioners will provide the strong governance and leadership that is necessary to rapidly bring the region’s resource management framework into line and to solve these serious problems within Environment Canterbury. The appointment of commissioners is a transitional measure, and they will be empowered to rapidly address the institutional and planning problems that are preventing effective resource management governance and decision-making in Canterbury. The planned Environment Canterbury election in October 2010 will be deferred until such time as the commissioners have completed their task, but, whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systematic issues are resolved.

The commissioners will be tasked with making institutional adjustments to ensure that Environment Canterbury is able to manage its duties effectively. They will additionally be tasked with fixing the water problem. This requires an effective operational water plan. It is only through such a plan that Environment Canterbury can make strategic decisions about resources and lay the ground rules against which future decisions can be assessed.

The commissioners will be experienced, and today we have announced that Dame Margaret Bazley, one of New Zealand’s most respected public servants, will act as commission chair designate. The commissioners will have the power to appoint and delegate appropriate people with the necessary status and experience in resource management to decide on resource management matters. The commissioners will be required to draw on the wisdom and opinions of the mayors of Canterbury, and the bill makes specific reference for the key linkage between them and the other councils within Canterbury. Additionally, commissioners will be given unique powers and will operate under an altered decision-making framework for the duration of their appointments.

The Government wants to build on the collaborate work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which led to the strategy. This strategy has gained very broad support, and this bill enables statutory recognition to be able to be given to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I firmly believe that the Government’s response to the recommendations of the review group should capitalise on the momentum that has been provided by that strategy. I also propose to achieve that by requiring the commissioners to have particular regard to the vision and principles of that strategy.

In order to empower commissioners to expedite decisions on the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement, I propose that there be appeals only to the High Court on points of law, with no appeals on merit of the commissioners’ decisions. This differs from the current situation, where appeals on merit to the Environment Court are available. In the absence of an operative planning framework for managing water in Canterbury, the region’s water conservation orders have set the benchmark around which the natural resources regional plan has begun to be developed and consents have been granted.

There is a stark contrast in Canterbury in the way water resources that are subject to water conservation orders are managed versus the way that those that are not subject to water conservation orders are managed. I am concerned at the sustainability of the overall resource management outcomes. I consider that the attributes of the Canterbury region justify a move to ensure that the region’s water resources are managed in a more integrated way. I ask that this bill be considered by the House, as it is a fair and bold response to the challenges facing Environment Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.