Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

This is the part of the bill that establishes, firstly, a process for moratoriums being imposed in parts of Canterbury, and then moves into the water conservation areas. There is support for the idea of moratoriums, from me at least, because they are a mechanism that can address issues of water shortage in red-zoned areas around Canterbury. There are a number, most particularly concentrated around the Selwyn district. The past history of this is that Environment Canterbury has, over the last few years, started to say no to more water allocations in such areas. It has been a frustrating period for Environment Canterbury because at times the commissioners it has appointed have heard the arguments of people with the capacity to buy the science and the law to push an argument that says that even in a red-zoned area there should be more capacity for more water to be allocated. Even at times the Environment Court has overturned Environment Canterbury decisions on such matters.

Moratoriums would be useful in that respect, but there is an enormous caveat on all of this. When people have had access to water and want to expand, and in the past have been able to expand by seeking more water, they will obviously not be too enthused about a moratorium being imposed in a particular area. I look, for example, at the Synlait dairy company based in Dunsandel. It has started in just the last couple of years to produce milk powder for export. It has plans already to quintuple production. It took an idea to the sharemarket last year for a share float, and that did not go at all well. A former National member sits on the board of that organisation, as members opposite would well know. Where will it go next for its money? One of the suggestions is that it might come back to the Chinese offer for investment in New Zealand’s dairy infrastructure.

Putting that to one side, the point is that moratoriums are a useful exercise but they will, I am sure at times lead to more demand for water if there is a wish for expansion. That could, indeed, put more pressure back on new allocations.

Going back to the original premise, this bill is around enshrining the wish, as stated by the Government, for rapid new water allocation—water projects, on the ground, in place, next year, in Canterbury. That is a statement of fact from the Prime Minister. The problem around that is the environmental constraints to ensure that new water is allocated in a way that gives back some of the water quality that Canterbury has lost over the last while. That is the balance we want to see. Moratoriums—moratoria, if you wish—are a mechanism that can assist, but that has to be part of an entire balanced process. If moratoria go in place and lead to rapid decisions about new allocation, or assist that process, then that raises enormous questions about where the checks and balances are in this legislation or anything forthcoming that will put new environmental constraints upon those who get new water. It is simply not there in the bill.

Part 3 also deals with the issue of water conservation orders, which are mechanisms to protect some of the great waterways of our country. They are in place in Canterbury; they are on the Rākaia River, the Hurunui River, and, from memory, on the Rangitata, although I could stand corrected on that one. Perhaps the local member might assist. The Hurunui River is the last of the Canterbury rivers that is, effectively, untapped from lake through to sea. The Environment Court was due, in a month’s time, to consider this issue. That is an appropriate process. There are a whole range of wishes around the Environment Court decision. Obviously people with a strong conservation ethic say we should leave the Hurunui entirely alone. There are those of the farming community who want to see the south bank dammed and used for irrigation. The point is that these decisions need to go through a process. They need the checks and balances upon them. They do not need rapid allocations made, because the long-term consequences of rapid allocation will see, without the environmental checks and balances put in place, more deterioration of our waterways.

There are real concerns and it is good to acknowledge that Part 3 has two references to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, both in reference to introducing moratoria and in reference to water conservation orders. There is a requirement that Environment Canterbury commissioners consider the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The problem still arises from the fact it is just “taking note of”. There is no requirement to implement it, and this strategy, which has been drawn up over the last 3 years and has been patiently negotiated for the future of Canterbury, had a table that included representatives of Fish and Game, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Farmers, the irrigators, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries, Ngāi Tahu, and the councils. All of those parties patiently negotiated this strategy, and it embodies conservation as its first principle.

There is an acknowledgment from those parties, and I note again that Federated Farmers and irrigators are part of that water management strategy. The first principle was the environment, followed by customary uses, community supplies, and stock water. Those were the first-order priority considerations. The second-order priority was around irrigation, electricity generation, recreation, and tourism and amenity. It was envisaged that these principles would be worked through by the local community, with Environment Canterbury, to try to ensure that those priorities were upheld. But what this bill does is say goodbye to that collective approach, and goodbye to Environment Canterbury, which was the driving force behind this strategy. It introduces commissioners installed by the Government, for a 3½-year period, to implement an agenda, which is really the Government’s agenda. It is explicitly around rapid water allocation.

I come back to the questions around the clauses relating to moratoria. Speaking personally, I support moratoria as a mechanism but one cannot believe that moratoria will deliver on their own. There are problems around the build-up that occurs, and we saw that in Marlborough with two moratoria imposed on the issuing of further licences for marine farms. All it created was a huge backlog and a floodwater when the moratoria were lifted. We have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the issues are addressed, and they need to be addressed across the divide of both the environmental and the economic issues. We cannot have one superimposed over the top.

In Canterbury we have lost the capacity to swim safely in lowland streams. That is something every member would, at least in theory, uphold as a principle, or God-given right, that we have as New Zealanders to take our children and our grandchildren to the streams and the rivers and know they can safely swim. But even in the rivers of Canterbury now—the bigger waterways—it is not safe at times to swim in those rivers.

💬 Colin King: Even if it’s over our head?

In places like the Ashley River in the electorate of the member for Kaikōura, and he should be noting this very carefully, it is not safe to take one’s dog to the Ashley because it is quite likely the dog will get cyanobacteria and die, as a result of blue-green algae. I note that blue-green is the theme that National picks up in terms of environmental issues. It has a blue-green caucus. Blue-green algae is toxic. The worst toxin known through the algae family is blue-green. I also note that when we mix blue and green we get brown. That is an outcome that is in prospect with this bill because it does not have the environmental checks in place. It is not delivering for Canterbury, it is simply enshrining the Government’s agenda. That is not appropriate and not acceptable. If the Government is going to push this bill through under urgency, here in the Parliament at a quarter to one in the afternoon, it must give alongside this new environmental strengthening protections that make sure that water is improved, not put in place an agenda for rapid allocation, which will simply see further degradation.

Mr Chairperson Roy, in giving me the call you have made a very challenging decision, and you handled it impeccably, if I may say so. I had a bit of a Harry Potter moment when we were moving from Part 2 to Part 3. I am not sure whether Mr Chair is familiar with the train station that Harry Potter and his fellow students catch the train from—and I do not want to tell you the whole of the Harry Potter story because that would ruin it for you, if you have not already read it—but there should be a “Part 2.5” between Part 2 and Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, because there is a big chunk missing. I tell members that a lot of people in Canterbury will be very frustrated by the missing information, particularly given the fact that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, has steadfastly refused to take a call. I thought that as part of his regime of getting up and bouncing around that he is so highly regarded for he would at least stand up, take a call, and provide us with the information that we have been seeking through our questions. But he has not done so. I think he should look at what is missing between Part 2 and Part 3.

Part 2 chucks out all the councillors. Part 3 provides some existing powers for Environment Canterbury, which is not even a legal entity after the start of this new regime. Well, I want to know what will happen to the stuff that is already started. What will happen to the stuff that our elected regional councillors have already started? Who will pick up that work? How will we download the brain cells of our existing regional councillors on to the as yet unknown, non-appointed commissioners so that they can have some competency in carrying on the work that has been started? If we are going to pay them $2,000 a day of my ratepayers’ money, they had better be giving us good quality.

Let me give members an example. In terms of the additional functions and powers that are being given to these $2,000-a-day, ministerial-appointed commissioners, I cannot see anywhere in Part 3, or anywhere else in the bill, a description of what will happen to the draft annual plan that Environment Canterbury issued less than a week ago. What will happen to that draft annual plan? It was issued on 27 March, and the public in the whole of the Environment Canterbury area got a copy of it. We were told that there would be public consultation. Well, that is a bit of an innovation for the Minister. He will not have tripped over that particular set of words very often in his lifetime. In case he is not aware of it, I tell the Minister that public consultation is where proposals are taken to the people so that they have an opportunity to read, think, and talk about them within their communities. Then they have a say, and the Minister gets to hear it—or, in this case, the councillors get to hear it—and then decisions are made. But what happens if there are no regional councillors any more, as is the case here, because we have just passed Part 2, which is “How to sack your regional council 101”? We have until 30 April to make submissions on the draft annual plan for Environment Canterbury, but it no longer has councillors who can hear the submissions.

The paragraph in the Local Government Act that covers this matter states that the purpose of the annual plan is to “contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.” As Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide will be very familiar with those words, because he is the Minister in charge of that legislation. I want him to tell me how an unelected, ministerial-appointed commissioner can have any accountability to the local community. We do not even know who the commissioners are. We did not vote for them; we voted for the ones the Minister has just sacked. So how can section 95(5)(d) of the Local Government Act be complied with? We do not have any local accountability from our elected councillors; we do not even have elected councillors. What will our community think of commissioners setting the Budget for the coming years when they have had no public input? The commissioners do not even live in our region. The provision of the Local Government Act to which I have just referred is being ignored, not because the Minister cannot be bothered with it, but because he has actually voted to have his own legislation ignored. Part 2 of this bill specifically states that the Local Government Act—

Just to answer the question of the Hon Ruth Dyson, and to settle her concerns and those of her constituents, I say that the long-term council community plan that has been released stays in place, and the consultation continues. It is exactly as set out.

I wish to address Part 3, and, in particular, clause 34, which comes under the heading “Imposition of moratorium” and is called “Power to impose moratorium on specified applications.’” It begins “(1) ECan may,” and on that point I allude back to a point made earlier by Brendon Burns. I attempted to get the same point across before our debate on Part 1 was cut off. The reference to “ECan” is very sloppy drafting. Throughout the bill, the text is littered with references to “ECan”. Indeed, it is defined in the interpretation clause, but it is a poor use of legal drafting. It is almost as bad as clause 9, which is about elected members ceasing to hold office, stating that this provision applies “no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It so clearly has been drafted in haste that considerable time is required for revision to be undertaken.

But when I look at clause 34 and the imposition of a moratorium, I ask myself why an unelected body would be granted such powers when the elected Environment Canterbury council was not granted those powers. The answer we are given, both in the Creech report and, now, by the Government, is that Environment Canterbury was insufficiently efficient in applying the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and in granting consents. On the basis of that, I was disposed to undertake some research to compare Environment Canterbury with the other 11 regional councils and the three unitary authorities to see how the others had done. A great deal of concern and apprehension have been expressed in the Chamber this morning about which other regional councils may go under the guillotine on the basis of the same rather loose, subjective, and partisan criteria that have been brought to bear upon Environment Canterbury.

When we look at the other 11 councils and the other three unitary authorities, we emerge with three general observations. The first is that some councils have a regional water management plan, and other councils combine it with a land and water management plan or a more holistic resources management plan. The second observation is that in every case there seems to be a lengthy process for the introduction of the plans that involves introduction by the council, followed by a request for submissions, a hearing, and an appeals process, before the plan becomes operational, either completely or in part. The third observation is that water and resource management plans are “living documents”, and appear in many cases to be constantly subject to updating and variations.

We need to take those three observations very much into account when we reflect on the dissolution of Environment Canterbury, because it was said to have come in 84th out 84 councils, as I said in the second reading debate. That is misleading, because it came in essentially 12th out of the 12 regional councils. Let us look at those 12 councils and the three unitary authorities to see where each stands. By my count, of the 15—12 plus three—six have not notified complete water plans. They either have not proposed anything, as in the case of three of those bodies; have simply made a statement of water intent, as in the case of one; or have simply notified a plan in parts, as in the case of two bodies, Marlborough and Tasman. So the Canterbury, West Coast, Tasman, Marlborough, Gisborne, and Auckland councils either have not proposed a plan, have simply made a statement, or have simply made a plan in parts. That is 40 percent of the total 15 regional councils and unitary authorities.

So to answer the question of Mr Chris Hipkins and others who spoke earlier today as to which council is next, the short answer is that any one of those other five councils should watch out, because the guillotine might be coming its way. Thank you.

I begin my comments on Part 3 with my usual statement, which I am getting sick of making. The Government’s decision not to include the regulatory impact statement in bills that are tabled in this House makes for very poor-quality debates, because we have to go and find the regulatory impact statement, which is not in the bill itself, in order to address some of the concerns that the regulatory impact statement might contain. I am glad that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for Regulatory Reform, because I think that was a bad decision, and I really want his Government to think about overturning it.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is a very good example of why we need the regulatory impact statement in front of us, because the regulatory impact statement states: “There are significant risks associated with the Review Group’s recommendation to temporarily suspend planned triennial elections for regional councillors (scheduled for October 2010) and to transfer the functions and responsibilities of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) elected councillors to government-appointed commissioners”—

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.