Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee present its final report to the House on or before 30 January 2013.

The Canterbury region is of national significance. It has over 60 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater resource. It has around 34 percent of New Zealand’s hydro generation capacity and 70 percent of its generation storage, and accounts for in the order of 18 percent of the country’s overall hydroelectric generation. The region has huge economic growth potential and is a key driver in making New Zealand a more productive and competitive economy. It is vital that a clear vision is developed for economic growth and sustainable management of the natural resources in the Canterbury region. To do this, the Canterbury region needs leadership that is effective in its planning and decision making, leadership that works in a constructive and collaborative manner with councils, iwi, and other key stakeholders, and leadership that inspires confidence throughout our Canterbury community. This bill provides for the continuation—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that it is normal where there is an interest declared in a matter—and I understand that the Minister in charge of the bill is a major landowner and is affected by this legislation—for that declaration to happen at the beginning of the speech rather than later in it. I have been listening carefully and I have not yet heard him declare his interest in this particular legislation.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker has no knowledge of what anybody may have in terms of a pecuniary interest in any particular section. It is normally left to members to make those declarations if they do apply. It is not up to the Speaker to judge whether a member has that kind of connection.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, the interests of members are tabled in this House, and one of the reasons for that is for the Speaker, when asked, to be in a position to make a ruling on these matters. I know that there is a slight problem when there is a Deputy Speaker in the Chair, but I would have thought that this is a matter that should be the subject of an early, not later, declaration.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I stand by my comment earlier that it is for any member to make that declaration. Speakers do not have the pecuniary interests listed here at their desk.

As I was saying, this bill provides for the continuation of commissioners in Environment Canterbury, or ECan, over the next local body electoral cycle. It continues the limitation to points of law only on the rights of appeal to the High Court on Resource Management Act plans and policy statements, and provides for a ministerial review of governance arrangements in the Canterbury region commencing in March 2014.

No Government wants to roll over local democracy. My preference is always for local democracy to work effectively and efficiently. That is why we have set such a high benchmark for any such interventions. But when a council is ineffective, when a council loses the confidence of its community, including every one of its 10 mayors, and when a council puts at risk the region’s prospects for economic growth, something has to be done.

In 2009 the Government commissioned an independent report into the performance of Environment Canterbury. This report was commissioned after an extended period of serious poor performance, including an inability to deliver a clear strategic vision for the region, an inability to effectively manage and deliver a number of its core regulatory functions, and an inability to manage relationships with stakeholders in the region. This report found that the extent of the gap between the capability of Environment Canterbury and what was required of it to adequately manage freshwater issues was enormous and unprecedented. It said that the failures of Environment Canterbury required “comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being.” So in 2010 the Government intervened.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the seven commissioners, led by Dame Margaret Bazley, on the outstanding job that they have done in the last 2½ years. They have addressed Environment Canterbury’s systemic problems and reformed its decision making and conduct. In particular, I want to note their success in managing the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan to an operative stage and starting work on a second-generation land and water plan. I want to note that they have made significant progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, they have significantly improved relationships with territorial authorities, iwi, and other stakeholders, and they have dramatically improved compliance with statutory consent time lines under the Resource Management Act from 29 percent in 2007-08 to 92 percent in 2010-11.

When the original Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act was introduced in 2010 the responsible Minister noted: “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 systemic issues are resolved.” Although I did acknowledge the success of the commissioners, the fact is that the job is not yet complete. Subsequent to the original legislation the Canterbury region has been hit by four devastating earthquake events. Those earthquakes have placed a nationwide focus on the importance of rebuilding Christchurch and on the wider Canterbury economy. They have brought into sharper focus the need for a competent and consistent approach to planning for vital infrastructure. Getting the infrastructure planning right is crucial for both the earthquake recovery and continued regional economic growth. To give Cantabrians the best chance of a successful recovery the region needs strong and effective leadership. As Canterbury recovers from the earthquake it is vital that the relationships between agencies such as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, the Christchurch City Council, and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team are kept strong. Currently, those relationships are working effectively. To displace or interrupt these linkages would significantly affect Canterbury’s recovery.

Finally, the bill provides for a ministerial review of Environment Canterbury governance arrangements to take place in March 2014. It is important to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to democracy. The inclusion of this review in the bill shows that this Government is serious about providing the best long-term governance solution for the Canterbury region. This bill is about providing the Canterbury region with the stable and effective governance arrangements that are desperately needed to assist the earthquake recovery, and providing a platform for future economic growth. I commend this bill to the House.

This bill should be called the “National Party Deception Bill”, or perhaps the “Broken Promises Bill”, or maybe the “Destruction of Democracy Bill”. Instead it is called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It sounds reasonable, does it not? But it is part of a National Party plan, a pattern, and an agenda against local government in New Zealand. It is yet another attack on local democracy, and it follows a pattern that has emerged from the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee. I realise that bill is not the current Minister of Local Government’s bill, but he must have been worried to inherit a bill that was based on myths, false figures, and a handful of egregious examples.

Now we have this bill with its fancy title. But what is the reason for it? Well, why will the Minister not release the report that this bill is based on? We have got a regulatory impact statement. That is going to be the evidence we are going to use for this bill. But the Minister has refused to release the report. Why, Minister? What has the Minister got to hide? What has the Government got to hide that it cannot release a report that is making such a significant difference in an area that has already been struck with so many decisions that lack democracy? Where is the evidence for the need for this bill?

Even his own Government department’s regulatory impact statement states in paragraph 97 “given the progress made by the Commissioners, there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention, which was used in response to ECan’s previous serious and systemic dysfunction.” So his own regulatory impact statement says the extension of the commissioners’ term would continue to deny Canterbury residents the opportunity to vote for representation on Environment Canterbury, and it says there is no apparent reason for continuing with the current arrangements. Even the commissioners themselves, the very people appointed to run this organisation, said that they would prefer an option that was a transitional option, one that transitions back to democracy.

But let us step back a little and look at the promises the Government made to the people of Christchurch. On 30 March 2010 the then Minister, Nick Smith, decided to get rid of the 14 elected members and replace them with seven appointed members. This bill, he said, would empower commissioners “to rapidly bring the region’s resource management framework into line” and solve the problems. That was said 2½ years ago. We accept there have been earthquakes in Canterbury, but what this Minister has done is to add another 4 years to the rapid change that was meant to happen in Christchurch. So we end up with around 6½ years in the transition back to full democracy in the Canterbury region. But let us just remind the House what the then Minister said. He said this: “but, whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” No ifs, no buts, Mr Carter, from your previous Minister. He said that, whatever the circumstances, the election would take place no later than 2013. I read the Minister’s response to questions from my parliamentary colleague Grant Robertson last week, where we saw the reinterpretation of what Minister Smith had said. A broken promise is a broken promise.

It was a promise that we now know was based on a lie. You see, the Government has a plan to reduce local democracy in local government. You need only to look at this bill to see ministerial muddling in just about everything. This bill is anti-democratic. There will be no election in 2013 as promised. The people of Canterbury went out and they believed the Government, which said there would be an election. They accepted what was happening, because there was going to be an election. There will continue to be no appeal of the commissioners’ decisions to the Environment Court—having it look at the decisions that have been made by those commissioners. There has been no consultation with the Canterbury community. The regulatory impact statement was very strong on this point to the Minister. It said to the Minister that it restricts the ability to present a community view, because there was not community consultation. In fact, even Treasury was upset at the lack of consultation. Treasury said that it did not believe there had been enough consultation with other stakeholders, particularly with Government departments.

So there has been no Crown-led consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and the communities. Well, did we not just have a debate around the lack of consultation and the roughshod way the people of Canterbury are being treated? Surely, Minister, if you live in the area and have any idea of what is happening in your community, you would know that one thing you would have to do was to go out and consult over this bill to remove democracy until 2016. So there was no consultation.

This bill, the Minister said, is going to provide effective, efficient, stable governance, and will support the earthquake recovery and provide leadership. Well, Minister, let me tell you what your message is to Cantabrians: none of them—none of them—are capable of providing effective, efficient, stable governance. That is the message to Cantabs—none of them are able to provide that. The next message is that they are all incompetent, conflicted, mentally unstable, or dumb, because none of them are capable of being elected to a body to continue the work that has been done by the commissioners. That is the message to Cantabrians. It also tells Cantabrians that none of them have leadership qualities. You see, everything I am telling this House is the reason why the Minister said we needed this bill, but no Cantabrian has those skills. They are not capable. It is not possible for them to do this job. It has to stay in the hands of a few commissioners. What an insult. I say to Cantabrians they ought to rise up and tell Carter he is wrong. He is wrong. Why does he not consult? Why does he not release the information? Why does he not give the people of Canterbury an opportunity to have management over their own affairs?

The bill enables the commissioners to adopt a second-generation land and water plan and fully implement it. Why not let the local people adopt the second-generation plan? This work should be completed by October 2013, and the work that is carried on should be done by the local people themselves. In fact, Minister, read your own regulatory impact statement, because the regulatory impact statement said the commission had addressed the systemic problems within Environment Canterbury. It said it had addressed the problems, and now we hear from the Minister that we must continue on with the arrangement we have.

This bill does require the Minister to review it in March 2014. Why not start reviewing it in October 2012 and ready this organisation for election in October 2013? If the real agenda is amalgamation of the Canterbury councils, put it on the table now, because I suspect that is the real agenda—amalgamation of the councils across Christchurch. It has been reported to us that this is the Government’s agenda, and delaying it until 2016 enables the Government to put in place a structure for amalgamation.

Well, Labour members say that this bill is unnecessary. The Minister could have come back with an arrangement as proposed by his own department, a transitional option, one that would have some elected and some appointed—something that Nick Smith, the former Minister, said on 2 July this year that he supported; that Federated Farmers supported; and that the Fish and Game Council supported. It would have been a short-term fix. It could not have been permanent, because unlike the district health boards, which get Government money, the money for the regional councils comes from local people, and local people should be making local decisions. We will not support this bill.

I rise to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. During the years that I was a councillor on the Environment Canterbury council, there was a gentleman called Murray Lane who used to sit in the back of every council meeting. He came to the meetings because he was a member of the Water Rights Trust and he was deeply concerned about the deterioration of water quality and water quantity in the lowland rivers of Canterbury. He actually became a real part of our council’s proceedings, and he would often hold up a yellow or a red card when he thought we were making the wrong decisions. But he was totally committed to seeing the council’s water plan completed, and he spent hours sitting in that council chamber as we worked our way through the process. In particular, he was a keen supporter of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and he contributed to the progress of that strategy up until the time of his death in 2009.

We have heard today that there were many reasons why the Canterbury Regional Council was disbanded and commissioners were put in its place. But it was managing the demand for water, the hundreds of consents, and trying to finalise the water plan that were the most challenging aspects of Environment Canterbury’s work. They sucked up huge time and resources affecting the whole organisation, so little progress was made. Since taking over Environment Canterbury, the commissioners have made real progress with water issues. They have notified the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan and it is now in an operative stage, which is a fantastic achievement, and they have started working on a second-generation land and water plan.

But, most important, and closest to Murray Lane’s heart, they have made real progress in developing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The vision of that strategy is something that all Cantabrians have bought into. The vision is to enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social, economic, recreational, and cultural benefits from our water resources within an environmentally sustainable framework. That is something that we all understand and that we all want to see in our province of Canterbury. The strategy is based on a community, collaborative process, with each catchment designated as a zone. The 10 zones have been established, stakeholders are engaged, and now, after a couple of years of really solid work, implementation plans have been agreed by seven of the 10 zone committees, and the others are very close. The next step is to bring all that work together and to create the land and water plan, and to give the decisions made by these stakeholders, by these communities, some statutory teeth.

This is why I support this bill. There has been so much time, so much energy, and so much work invested in this process from all stakeholders and communities across the length and breadth of Canterbury just to get to this stage, and I do not believe that we want to change the model now. If we had not had the earthquakes, this work could have been completed, so I do not want this work to become a casualty of that disaster. The bill allows for a ministerial review in 2014, and I am hopeful that, by that time, the work around the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will be complete, the community’s vision for sustainable water management will be ensured, and, in particular, the changes that Murray Lane was so committed to will finally be in place.

I have said a lot of things in this House about what I think of the National Party’s policies and the direction that it is taking this country in—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: None of it’s been very nice.

It has been highly critical, Mr Williamson, and I believe those things strongly. But I never thought I would have to stand up in this Parliament and say to the National Party “Why are you denying a group of New Zealanders the right to have a say in how they are governed in their region?”. I never thought I would have to stand up in this House and say to the National Party “What is it about democracy that you do not like?”. That is what is here today. That is what is on the table today: the National Party denying a group of New Zealanders their democratic right to vote for the people who govern them. The people of the Canterbury region have been through enough. They deserve the right to elect the people who will make important decisions on their behalf, instead of this National Government deciding that democracy does not matter in their region. It is an unbelievable situation that the National Party thinks it is OK to take away the democratic rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders.

When we look at the reasoning that we have heard today from David Carter for why this should happen—

💬 Hon Member: Facile!

It is facile, and the reasoning that Mr Carter actually gave us today was about what was happening before 2010. We can argue, and we will argue, about that. But the question Mr Carter has to answer is this: when there was a problem, in his mind, with the way the council was operating previously, he put in place commissioners, but he cannot continue to mount that same argument. Different people will put their names forward. All sorts of people could end up being elected to the Canterbury Regional Council. It is not the same set of circumstances as it was, but Mr Carter continues to justify taking away democratic rights on the basis of what a previous council did. It is time for the people of Canterbury to be given back their democratic rights, and no case has been made in this House by the National Party for why they should not be given back their rights.

The regulatory impact statement makes absolutely clear what the problem is here. That problem is that this approach that the National Government is now taking is denying democratic rights. But, more than that, it actually defers the resolution of the problems that the Government thinks exist. Paragraph 87 of the regulatory impact statement says “It defers resolution of the current problems as it provides no clear exit mechanism from the intervention.” This Government does not know where it is going on this. It has got appointed commissioners in place, extended out to 2016, and no exit mechanism.

The Government even had on the table the option from officials to go to a halfway house—not quite democracy but at least on the way to democracy—by having a mixed body of appointed people and elected people. That was not ideal, in our view, but at least it was a step towards some kind of democratic process. Nick Smith liked this. He went and said to Federated Farmers that this was a good option. The officials said it was a good option, but Mr Carter said no. A Cabinet paper has gone up that goes against those officials’ recommendations. We would like to see it, Mr Carter. It would be good to release that some time, so we can actually see what the justification is. But instead, no. Mr Carter wants to deny us all the right to know what the justification was for going against the advice of officials. As my colleague Annette King has already said today, and as David Carter actually said during question time last week, it is clear that it is because it is part of a wider agenda. It is part of a wider agenda of getting rid of regional councils, of taking away representation at a regional council level from New Zealanders all across this country. But, no, Mr Carter will not release that paper to us.

There was another Labour politician who once said that if you ever wanted to find out where things were at, you should follow the money. Well, in the case of Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Regional Council that should be follow the water, because that is what you should actually do, if you want to see what is happening here.

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s where the money is.

Indeed, because that is where the money is.

Let us be absolutely clear what this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill does. This bill continues the process whereby the appointed commissioners control all the decisions about water. They control all the decisions about water, and individuals’ rights to appeal those decisions to the Environment Court are gone, under this legislation. The Government has extended the fact that the only things that are allowed are appeals on points of law to the High Court. So the decisions around water conservation orders are gone from the public process into the hands of commissioners. That is what this is about. It is about controlling that very valuable resource in Canterbury in the interests of certain people and not in the interests of the wider Canterbury region. That is disgraceful. Decisions about water are vital for the future of the Canterbury region. This Minister, with this piece of legislation, is continuing to exclude the people of Canterbury from their right to question those decisions in the Environment Court, and putting those rights in the hands of the commissioners. It is disgraceful.

But this is a pattern from this Government, going right back to my very first days in this House with the legislation around the Auckland Council. This Government is denying the democratic rights of New Zealanders right across the country when it comes to local government, but also in the way it is running other things. Take Work and Income. I would not be surprised—in fact, I would lay some money that at some point Paula Rebstock will become a commissioner for Environment Canterbury. That is when the people of Canterbury will know they are in trouble. Paula Rebstock is in running a board for Work and Income, and she is in running ACC now. At some point she will become a commissioner for Environment Canterbury, because she is the person who brings governance to these organisations—not democracy but governance. This is a disgrace.

Nobody underestimates the impact of the earthquakes on the Canterbury region, and every member of this House understands the importance of working alongside the people of Canterbury. That is why Gerry Brownlee’s comment in the House today directed at Lianne Dalziel was so disgraceful. Canterbury MPs of all parties have worked very hard on behalf of their constituents. But the fact is that once again this Government is using the earthquakes as a smokescreen for another issue. I challenge Government members to get up and tell me exactly what impact the earthquakes have had on whether or not the commissioners’ mandate should be extended. What exact things have not been done and not achieved by the commissioners because of the earthquakes? The threshold for denying democratic rights should be so high as to be almost impossible, not just because they have not quite completed the things that the Government wanted, or not just because the Government prefers to deal with commissioners than to deal with councillors.

When this first happened, Nick Smith said that one of the reasons that the Government went ahead with this proposal was that it was worried about the outcome of the election. I have said it before in this House: I was quite worried about the outcome of the 2008 election, but I did not advocate cancelling it. I did not decide it should be cancelled. There are countries all around the world where people cancel elections, and members on that side of the House have given dozens of speeches and comments about Fiji and other countries where elections have been cancelled or elections have been delayed. Well, I will lay another bet with you. I reckon there will be an election in Fiji before there is an election for Environment Canterbury. What does that say about those members on the other side of the House? They sit there and they judge other countries where elections do not happen, but this Government sits here and says “We’ll cancel an election for Environment Canterbury, because we didn’t like what was going to happen in that election.” What is more, it will carry on with this process of having commissioners denying the democratic rights of Cantabrians, against the advice of its officials, and against the advice of most New Zealanders, who would want to see their fellow countrymen and countrywomen given the opportunity of electing the people who govern them.

This bill is an outrageous attack on democracy. There are no two ways about it. The Labour Party will oppose this bill throughout. I join my colleague Annette King in urging the people of Canterbury—maybe there were some problems with Environment Canterbury before the commissioners were put in, but that is no excuse to deny Cantabrians the right now to be able to elect the people who represent them. That is a fundamental principle of this House. It is a fundamental principle of New Zealand that people get to elect their representatives. It is called democracy. National is denying it to the people of Canterbury.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This euphemistically titled Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is about stealing democracy, broken promises, mistruths, misrepresentation, denying access to justice, and more water pollution. The Press described the Government’s decision to suspend regional council elections for another 4 years as “the most radical denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent times—a fact that disadvantages Cantabrians and besmirches the Government.”

Tomorrow is women’s suffrage day. New Zealand’s leadership in strengthening democracy and giving women the vote in 1893 is part of our national identity and national psyche. The National Government is trampling on that identity and our previously robust democratic tradition. As constitutional law expert Philip Joseph has noted, New Zealanders have unreservedly voted down proposals to extend Parliament’s life beyond 3 years. The principal Act in 2010 suspended regional council elections in Canterbury for a period longer than the term of any one Parliament. Now the Government is compounding that in this bill, which steals democracy for 6 long years. The Green Party opposed the principal Act and will be opposing this bill.

By 2016 Cantabrians will have paid more than $450 million in rates to the regional council, with no elected voice at the council table on how that rate money is spent. Cancelling elections until 2016 is occurring in this bill because the Government wants its hand-picked commissioners to promote irrigation ahead of healthy rivers and healthy aquifers. It cannot trust Cantabrians to elect a new regional council that would promote National’s agenda of capital-intensive dairying and irrigation development.

National members keep harking back to 2010. They keep giving the same tired excuses and recycling the same arguments that they gave in 2010 for the principal Act to justify this bill. It would seem as if the commissioners have been doing nothing for the last 2½ years.

This bill is about broken promises. In 2010 when National axed regional councillors, suspended elections, and rammed through legislation in this House under urgency, with no opportunity for public submissions and select committee scrutiny, it promised that democracy would be returned in October 2013. The principal Act explicitly provides for this in the sections that this bill is now amending.

This bill is about misrepresentation. Both Dr Nick Smith and now the Hon David Carter keep on claiming that Environment Canterbury councillors were not processing resource consents quickly enough. Yet information in Environment Canterbury’s 2009-10 annual report, which the Parliamentary Library has provided, shows that by the end of the 2009-10 financial year over 80 percent of all new resource consent applications were being processed in accordance with statutory time frames. Because commissioners took over 2 months before the end of that year, the bulk of that improvement in processing times happened under councillors who were elected, not under commissioners, as the Minister repeatedly claims.

Cantabrians should be very worried about Part 2 of this bill and its review of Environment Canterbury’s governance structure, membership, powers, and functions. The Auckland super-city model is not appropriate in Christchurch. A large unitary council would be remote from, and less accessible to, citizens, and much more bureaucratic than local councils representing their local communities. A super-city Christchurch unitary model would not reflect the distinct identities of Christchurch, of Selwyn, and of Waimakariri.

National just does not understand or respect local government. It regards local councils as branch offices of central government and subject to ministerial direction and interference, rather than as a separate and competent arm of government with its own constitutional mandate and its own relationship with electors. We have certainly seen that in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. Submitter after submitter to the Local Government and Environment Committee has strongly opposed National’s proposed changes to the purpose of local government and the removal of the well-beings from its purpose.

This bill interferes with the rule of law. As Professor Philip Joseph has noted, “The right of access to the courts is one of the fundamentals of a civilised society under the rule of law”. This bill, like the principal Act, undermines the rule of law not only by stealing democracy but also by restricting Cantabrians’ access to justice. It denies Cantabrians access to that specialist court, the Environment Court, by restricting appeals on regional plans and the regional policy statement to appeals on points of law, and only to the High Court. This compromises the quality of decision making under the Resource Management Act in Canterbury, because it is the Environment Court that has developed a sizable body of case law on how the Resource Management Act should be interpreted, and its scrutiny of councils’ decisions can substantially improve those decisions, just as the Environment Court did recently with Manawatū’s One Plan. The court upheld the strong rules in that plan to control erosion and control nutrient leaching from intensive agriculture.

In Canterbury the second-generation land and water plan is critical in both its policies and its rules around water allocation and nutrient management. This bill means that Cantabrians are denied the ability to appeal the commissioners’ decision on that plan to the Environment Court, and the checks and the balances that the Environment Court provides through its de novo hearings are outlawed.

Water conservation orders are the closest equivalent we have to national park status for rivers. This bill is about water pollution, because it perpetuates the gutting of water conservation orders that occurred in the principal Act. The Act did this by replacing the preservation purpose of water conservation orders with a sustainable management purpose. It removed them from the jurisdiction of the Environment Court and made the recommendation of the commissioners to the Minister the final sign-off, rather than the courts being the final sign-off. That change benefited dam proponents in the Hurunui catchment and it benefited TrustPower. Without this new bill the water conservation order provisions and processes in the substantive Act would have terminated in 2013, and we would have gone back to the situation that applies in the rest of New Zealand.

Continuing the gutting of water conservation orders is contrary to officials’ advice. It flies in the face of the statements in the regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, which considered that there was “insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for WCOs”—water conservation orders—“in the Canterbury region.” The Government has rejected this advice and continued with these weakened water conservation order provisions.

“Representative democracy and independent courts are the twin pillars of the legal system.”, Philip Joseph has said in a seminal article in the New Zealand Law Journal. “The abrogation or suspension of the former … has menacing implications.”, Dr Joseph said. That is what this Government is doing. It is stealing democracy. It is restricting access to justice so that its hand-picked commissioners can make sure that they shape the plans that will determine how water is managed now and in the future. Certainly, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy has been rolled out, but that strategy was developed by elected councillors, not commissioners. But it is the statutory plans that set in place the rules. They are absolutely critical. By denying the appeal rights to the Environment Court, the check that that specialist court can provide on the commissioners’ decisions is removed. By gutting water conservation orders we are putting Canterbury in a very different situation from the rest of New Zealand. And by trampling all over democracy the Government is saying it does not trust Cantabrians to elect a new regional council. It does not trust Cantabrians to elect councillors to make decisions about how their environment should be managed. The Green Party opposes this bill.

One of the features of my work in 2005 and up until 2010 in my electorate office was dealing with complaints from water users about the performance of Environment Canterbury. I am sure my other South Canterbury colleague, Jo Goodhew, would have the same view. In fact, we used to talk about the fact that one of the frustrations of our work as representatives in South Canterbury, North Otago, and Canterbury was the frustrations that our constituents had with the performance of Environment Canterbury. It was a systemic problem that our constituents faced, and it was beyond me as the local member of Parliament to be of assistance to those constituents in their dealings with Environment Canterbury, because the problems were so great within Environment Canterbury. The problems were systemic, and they were having an adverse impact on the local economy of South Canterbury.

With respect, I say to the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, that I utterly reject the contention she made that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill is about promoting irrigation ahead of healthy rivers. I invite that member to visit the Ōpuha dam and have a look at the subsequent water-quality improvements that have been made in that catchment. I also invite the member to travel a little further south to the North Otago irrigation scheme and the North Otago Irrigation Company, and have a look at the innovative farm management plans, which put a very strong focus on water quality. So it is that, with respect—because I know that member is very genuine in her desire for water quality—I reject the assertion she makes.

Canterbury, which does include, for me, South Canterbury and North Otago, is of national economic significance, and has huge economic growth potential based on the use of water. Crucial to this economic growth is the efficient management of Canterbury’s water. Of course, we all know, or we should do, that the Canterbury region has 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater resource and 34 percent of New Zealand’s hydro generation capacity, and most of it is within the Waitaki electorate, which is why I care so much about it. So in 2010, following an extended period of poor performance by Environment Canterbury, which I have already talked about, the Government replaced the Environment Canterbury councillors with commissioners.

Divisions within Environment Canterbury had impaired the effectiveness of planning and had impaired the effectiveness of decision making, and, most crucially, the local communities, including the local authorities, had lost confidence in their elected representatives, which I would have to say is an understatement. An independent review found that Environment Canterbury granted consents without any proper framework, and it granted consents to take water from catchments that were overallocated, compounding the problems for water users within that catchment. The report came on top of the 2007 Resource Management Act survey, which said that Environment Canterbury had failed to process more than two-thirds of resource consent application within the statutory time frame. That level of poor performance has a very significant impact on the farming communities, on local authorities wishing to renew water consents, and also on large water users. Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked the worst out of 84 councils in New Zealand. The review group also stated that the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury required comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to enhance both regional and national well-being. That view was supported by all 10 of the region’s mayors.

The disruptions caused by four separate earthquake events have made the Canterbury situation truly unique. The level of disruption was not envisaged when the original legislation was passed. The rebuilding of Christchurch and the wider Canterbury economy, including South Canterbury and North Otago, of course, after the earthquakes has brought a much sharper focus on the need for a competent and a consistent approach to planning for vital infrastructure for the future.

The commissioners have been highly successful. The complaints into my office and into my colleague’s office have all but dried up. What the commissioners have achieved has been significant. They have managed the Natural Resources Regional Plan into an operative stage and started work on a second-generation land and water plan. Am I allowed to say hallelujah? I think I will, anyway, because that plan is hugely significant to all water users in the region. The commissioners have made significant progress on the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and that has been through innovative, collaborative processes, and the development of zone implementation plans. I have attended the launch of several of the 10 zone committees. They are effective, they are working well, and they are making good progress in the use of water in the catchment. There has been dramatically improved compliance with statutory time frames under the Resource Management Act. There have been significantly improved relationships with the territorial local authorities, with iwi, and with other stakeholders, through collaboration and a joint work programme with Ngāi Tahu. There has been the establishment of a strong partnership, and this is crucial, with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to facilitate earthquake recovery. I think also critical to the residents of South Canterbury, Canterbury, and North Otago is that it has made a commitment to improve air quality through Environment Canterbury’s Clean Heat project, which provides assistance for clean heating and insulation, and, critically to my constituents, an education campaign on the proper use of woodburners.

I want to finish by noting the comments of Irrigation New Zealand: “Rural communities now have more opportunities to be involved in water management through the collaborative approach of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We are starting to see real gains through the zone committee and we don’t want to go back to the nightmare situation that ratepayers suffered under previously.” I commend the bill to the House.

New Zealand First opposes the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. First of all, looking at the title, it is not very temporary as far as these commissioners are concerned, and I do not think it is really very much about improved water management either. The bill does two things. Firstly, it extends the commissioners’ special water-management powers for a further 4 years, and, secondly, it delays the date for an elected Environment Canterbury to 2016, therefore making the period without an elected council over 6 years.

I want to say straight away that I supported the original move in 2010 to remove the elected council and to replace it with commissioners. I did so with very great sadness, but there were longstanding political and management problems. I cannot do any better to sum it up than the statement in the supporting documentation, which says: “ECan was clearly unable to perform and exercise its duties and powers, most critically those under the Resource Management Act 1991... There were longstanding problems due to entrenched political divisions, competing and adversarial approaches within ECan, institutional and technical deficits and ingrained organisational culture issues.” I for one can testify to the fundamental truth of that. It is no help to Canterbury or to anyone else to deny—and Canterbury people knew at the time—that that was the truth of the situation.

But we do need to move on. I was at that time, and still am, the chair of the Central Plains Water Trust, so I was well aware of the water issues that took such an important position in the thinking of Cantabrians in 2010, and actually still do. But in 2010 there was great concern about some of the irrational behaviour of Environment Canterbury on irrigation issues, and I personally believe they were mainly management deficits, as stated in the regulatory impact statement. The council itself, however, was very hostile indeed to all irrigation development, and that was driven by wound-up public and political perceptions about dairying, rather than by a robust policy and planning process.

The Central Plains Water Trust was, and is, about sustainable farming, not just about dairying, and that is the way that New Zealand agriculture must move in the future. The development of a sustainable farming protocol, with contractual arrangements to back it up, was what that particular project was about, and still is. It established a trust to ensure a community scheme so that the water rights could never be alienated, and so that it would always be a community scheme. Environment Canterbury I found, and we on the trust found, virtually impossible to deal with—firstly, because of unreasonable political hostility. You simply could not talk to the people. Then there was the them-and-us mentality. We were treated as enemies when we wanted to collaborate, and that was not good enough, I think. This also extended to council management, which sought to change plans for the Waimakariri River, even while the Central Plains Water Trust Resource Management Act process was being finalised. Talk about pulling the rug out from under one’s feet.

The best hope, however, was, and is, for a consensus under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and that especially concerned, and still concerns, storage. Environment Canterbury wasted time on impossibly impractical proposals like in-ground storage, and there was a need for a balanced approach by Environment Canterbury, not a dictatorial one. The commissioners, I think, have done that and they need to be commended for the approach that they have taken, which I think is a balanced one, which achieves environmental protection while facilitating sustainable use of water for irrigation.

However, although I did support the original decision to insert the commissioners, that never meant that it was right to delay the elected council’s reinstatement beyond 2013. The decision to add another 3 years to elect a new regional council is, firstly, unnecessary. Everything that the commissioners needed to do has already been sufficiently done. Secondly, it is unhelpful. The strategy of which I spoke now needs community buy-in and active support. It is unlikely, I think, that appointed commissioners can do that, and I think that is best done by local people, especially elected people. Thirdly, it is, of course, as others have said, an affront to democracy. In Canterbury, along with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, the Christchurch Central Development Unit, and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and so on, there is altogether too much central government and not enough community governance. Community representation may be inconvenient for a National Government, but it should understand that there is now a real sense of loss and grievance by Canterbury people concerning their lack of elected representation and lack of a say in how the city and the province should be governed.

The perception now is of Government manipulation for its own ends. There is justified concern about commissioners with powers about the Rākaia River water conservation order. Although that order probably does need amendment in a way that balances the protection of the natural character of the river with sustainable use of water, it does need public input as well, because the decision has to be made about where that balance should be. The commissioners are perceived as tools of central government, not of the community, and the Government, in particular, is perceived as having commercial imperatives through shareholding in TrustPower, with its Rākaia River and Lake Coleridge interests in power generation.

So what should the Government now do? I would have to disagree with the statement in the regulatory impact statement that says: “there is a risk ECan will revert to its irreconcilable and long-standing political divisions that emerge from the representational split of urban and rural populations and Christchurch interests and those of the wider region. Political divisions could return and prevent ECan from acting as an effective decision-making body,”. Well, if that was true, we would never get another Environment Canterbury elected in Canterbury, and that is really just not good enough. So the Government should, right now, go ahead and carry out comprehensive consultation with the people of Canterbury about the future of regional governance there.

There are many options that should be put before them. Should it be fully elected, or part elected and part appointed? Should Environment Canterbury be reinstated as it once was? Or should we establish one or more unitary councils? We do not know what Cantabrians think about that. The National Government should find that out before it starts making decisions about this. That consultation should be carried out now, and the new council, whatever it may be, should be elected normally in 2013. Those are the ways that the wishes of the people of Canterbury and the people of Christchurch City can be carried out. At the same time, there needs to be a review of the Christchurch City Council itself. People in Christchurch City believe that to be necessary too, and the same process should be applied to them.

What form of local government there should be, both at regional and city council levels in Canterbury, is not really a choice for a particular party that happens to have power in a particular Parliament. It is for the people themselves to decide. We have got to stop using this issue as a political football. If we want Environment Canterbury, as it will be in the future, to have the confidence of the local people, then there is only one option, and that is to carry out that consultation and then to do the election as planned in 2013. That is what the Government promised. That is now what it should do—

Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I call Colin King.

It is a pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I have to address the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke, and thank him very much for his definition of why the Government needed to step in and do what it did. I am the MP for the Kaikōura electorate. In the southern end we have three district councils and one environmental council, and I can tell you that the Government’s decisions in the first place to remove duly elected councillors and replace them with commissioners, and then to progress the extension of those commissioners for 3 years, have been unanimously received in a positive way.

The Opposition cries foul and a breach of democracy, but the duly elected mayors and councillors of those three district councils are in favour of what the Government is doing. They say “What a lot of rubbish!” to the Opposition. They have enjoyed more democracy since they have had the commissioners in place than they ever enjoyed under Environment Canterbury, which totally ignored them and never spoke to those councils. I had to ask: “Well, what do you mean?”. They say that the commissioners have changed the culture. The councils now sit down with Environment Canterbury officials and they work these things through. Those three district councils are happy with the decision of the Government.

So now we find that things are beginning to head in the right direction. There have been some outstanding achievements during the installation of those commissioners. We have seen the superb work of the water zone committees. In the Hurunui we now have an agreed water storage project, which is 20 years overdue. It is now being notified. So that is a very positive step. We have now got a draft version of the Kaikōura regional water plan out for consultation and receiving submissions. This has all been done in a very democratic way. We are looking forward to taking on board those submissions. There is total, wide community support and it will be enduring.

I would like to read an excerpt from an email that I received from somebody in Christchurch. It says that they believed that the reason why the commissioners were put in place was purely to grab water. I have to say that when you read that email you can fully understand why there was paralysis within Environment Canterbury. Those who were considered to be the duly elected representatives used Environment Canterbury as a tool to prevent economic development. So we are very happy on this side of the House to support this bill. We see it as a way forward, as very positive, and we are very thankful that the Government has had the wisdom to take this step. Thank you.

That was a very interesting speech by Colin King on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It was a very interesting speech in its so-called definition of “democracy”. In Mr King’s small world, in the last 2 or 3 years since the commissioners have been in place—unelected, accountable to no one in Canterbury, accountable to their paymasters in Wellington, unelected but appointed—apparently the province of Canterbury has enjoyed uninterrupted democratic activity—

💬 Andrew Little: That’s what George Speight said.

Yeah, that is what George Speight said. Well, I do not know; I think George Speight might have been a bit brighter than that. Apparently, democracy goes something like this in Mr King’s little world: if local authority - elected folk—those who are left in the outer reaches of the province, those who have not had their democratic rights cut asunder from them—are happy interacting with the commissioners, then this is nirvana in respect of democratic practice.

I invite Mr King to do a couple of things: maybe talk to Peter Dunne, because—I mean this in all seriousness—Peter Dunne, I think, graduated from the political science department with a Bachelor’s degree in political science—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Master’s.

Forgive me, a Master’s in political science. I am sure—and I mean this in all seriousness—that the Hon Peter Dunne, of what A grade university—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: A good university.

Sorry?

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: A good university.

—a great university; the one I went to too—could give Mr King a lesson on the definitions of “democracy”. Because I have to say to the member over there, Mr King, that “democracy” means that you get a say, you get a vote—hopefully every 3 years—and you have representation with taxation, as it were. That is the sort of tried and true definition of “democratic discourse” in a democratic nation. I invite him to maybe grab hold of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I am sure he can dust a couple off there. He may not have progressed to the internet and some of that sort of amazing technology we have got now. I invite him to dust off the Encyclopaedia Britannica and have a go: look up “democracy” under “d” and learn about it—learn about it.

💬 Andrew Little: Apparently you can google it.

Apparently you can google it. But I say that this is all about a simple thing. This is about a Government that came to power, took action, stripped out the right for Cantabrians to have a regional council that is voted in, and then made a promise. I refer back to the great quote of that great genius Nick Smith, who said “Under any circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than the election scheduled for late 2013.”

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Broken promise.

Broken promise. There is another word for it. It has been used a bit liberally this afternoon. I think we know what it means, and every Cantabrian knows what it means.

What we are faced with in Canterbury is a rather extraordinary situation. We gave the Government wartime powers in respect of the earthquake. Gerry Brownlee got wartime powers. There was some controversy about that. We on this side voted for that because we believed that it would be appropriate to get things done. Sadly, we now wonder whether Mr Brownlee will ever dust off the warrant and actually use those powers in an appropriate way.

We have a city council that is in great difficulty, apart from—and I will mention a few names here, hoping not to destroy their political careers—Tim Carter, Yani Johanson, Glenn Livingstone, and others. They are elected people on that council who are trying to get some cohesion there but are left wanting, sadly, by the mayor and the chief executive of a dysfunctional council. Then we have a regional council, of course, that exists, in effect, in name only, in terms of its lack of democratic principles. I mean no disrespect to the commissioners, because the commissioners are doing a job, but the question is whom they are responsible to. You see, in the old days, Mr King—through you, Mr Speaker—you could ring up a regional councillor like Jo Kane, the former deputy chair and a good person, and say “Hey, we’ve got a constituent who’s got some problems. Can you sort them out for us?”. The councillors may not have been able to kick a goal, but they were accountable to the constituency that elected them.

The problem with the commissioners—not a personal problem with them—is that they are not accountable to people like us who live in Canterbury. They are not accountable to the local communities. They are accountable to this Government, and because of that the Minister of Local Government and this Government will bear the responsibility for this situation. They made a commitment. They made an absolute commitment that in 2013 democracy would be restored to Canterbury.

It is interesting, as Annette King said, when you have a look at the regulatory impact statement to see who was against this. Well, there was very little opposition to the proposition of restoring, through a transitional phase, democracy to Canterbury. The commissioners proposed option one. Option one—to inform Mr King—was where you elected and appointed a combination of the two, which would be a transition to full democracy. The commissioners were in favour of that. The Department of Internal Affairs was in favour of that. Treasury said in the regulatory impact statement that there had been virtually no Crown-led consultation with stakeholders, Government departments, or the communities; therefore, it was hard to provide proper advice on this. Very few people or agencies were opposed at the very least to option one, which was a transitional combination of appointed and elected folk to transition to democracy. But, oh no, the Minister and the Government know best.

So what do we have in Canterbury in terms of participatory instruments to allow the community to have a say? Very little. Sadly, as I have said, we have a dysfunctional city council. Secondly, we have an appointed and soon to be reappointed, if this legislation goes through, regional authority. And we have the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, which, of course, with wartime powers and a Minister with wartime powers can, effectively, do what it wants. It has done some good things—I accept that. It has made some blunders.

We have already debated this afternoon—and I will not go there again—the sad state of affairs in respect of the Draconian decision to cut across everybody, in terms of our schools and the communities that sit alongside those schools. So the question I have got is why the broken promise? We have heard a lot about water and a number of esoteric things, but it comes down to this: it comes down to a Government—every one of those members sitting there, goggle-eyed, from Canterbury and other places—that stared the constituencies in Canterbury in the face and said “You’re gonna get your democracy back in 2013.” Now, without the support even of the Environment Canterbury commissioners, whom that Government and that Minister appointed, they roll over the top and say “No, no, no. It’s gonna be a total of 6½ years from the time we put in the original legislation. Basically it’s another 3 years—2016—before you get a go.” I say that that is wrong. I say that not only is it wrong that the promise was broken but it is wrong that this Government has not even fronted up to the constituencies and the community, consulted with them, and provided a justification as to why this legislation should be before us today. It is the usual slipshod stuff—that is, punch a piece of legislation out, make an arbitrary decision, consult with nobody, do not take the advice of your officials, your appointed commissioners, the Department of Internal Affairs, or anybody else, and just make it happen.

I have got to say to Minister Carter—a longstanding member of this House, who has a member of his family, Tim Carter, on the Christchurch City Council, who, along with others, I say is doing an outstanding job—and others that Cantabrians are getting to the point where they have had a gutsful of being driven over by the proverbial political steamroller, either in the form of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery or in the form of the Minister of Education, and now in the form of the Minister of Local Government, with no consultation, not even the meekest reference to engaging with the community. They are getting a bit tired. They are getting a bit stressed. They have got enough to cope with, and they would not mind if occasionally somebody in the Wellington offices of the Beehive actually said “You can have a say—you can have a say. You can be the masters, perhaps, of your own destiny. And, by the way, they in Wellington in Government feel that there is leadership capability in Canterbury, there are smart people and innovators in Canterbury, and there are entrepreneurial and socially entrepreneurial people who could take control of an organisation like Environment Canterbury, show some acumen, show a high degree in world-class management, and actually run the show.” Because last time I checked, I do not think that all roads of intellect and a monopoly on all knowledge and all good ideas emanated from the Minister of Local Government’s office or the ninth floor or the seventh floor of the Beehive.

💬 Andrew Little: Have you got any evidence for that?

Well, Gerry Brownlee will be around here somewhere I am sure. He provides enough evidence of that. I just say in all seriousness that people are actually entitled to have a say, or, at the very least, if this crew is going to march forward and punch this legislation through, then the Government has a duty, Mr King, under our little democracy, to make the case and justify the position to the people of Canterbury. It has not made the case, it has not justified the position, and this bill is a disgrace. Yet again, the Government thinks it knows best, and the boot goes in to Cantabrians.

Like most who have ever lived in Christchurch, I have fond memories of the beauty of the city’s landscape and heritage, and feel deeply for all Cantabrians over all they have suffered and lost since the first earthquake struck that region. But it is a regrettable fact that the former Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked worst of 84 councils in New Zealand just over 4 years ago, while it is widely acknowledged that the current commissioners have been highly successful and effective in tackling the systemic problems they have been tasked with correcting. I commend them for that progress and wish them further success in their vital work, as set out in this temporary extension of their role in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Seldom in our history has there been a time or place where sound and effective regional governance has been more critically needed.

I understand this is a 5-minute call. I call Sue Moroney. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes.

I would like to say that it is a pleasure, because it normally is, to rise to speak to a bill, but in this case it is the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill at its first reading, and Labour is deeply opposed to this bill. Never has there been a more important time for the good people of Canterbury to take control of their own futures. Never have they needed that so much. And what are they getting from this Government? They are getting this bully Government marching in and telling them that it does not trust Cantabrians enough to actually let them have their own elected representation in Environment Canterbury. That is what this Government is doing.

I actually visited Christchurch yesterday. I know that the people of Christchurch have had enough of things happening to them, being done to them, and not having control over their lives. This is the very time that Cantabrians want to take control back over their lives. They have had enough meted out to them. This is the time when they want to have more control. That was actually expressed to me yesterday in a meeting that I was having with early childhood education providers in Christchurch, where they were telling me the impact on them of being pretty much sidelined and kept out of the grand Christchurch education plan that the Government landed on them last Thursday. What they were saying to me, and it is relevant to this bill, was that they had had enough of being treated like second-class citizens.

The early childhood education sector, in education, is being treated like a second-class citizen by this Government. It happened again to the sector in Christchurch last Thursday, where all the discussion was going on around schools, and early childhood education was just an afterthought. They said to me: “We want to have involvement, we want proper consultation, because we have some great ideas.” And they did. They have got some great visions for what they want in their city, but this Government keeps coming along and pulling the carpet out from underneath them. This bill is yet another example.

This bill tells Cantabrians that they cannot take control back over their lives—that this Government will specifically prevent them from taking control back over their lives by not allowing them to have a vote on who controls decision making over Environment Canterbury. I cannot stress enough just how important it is for this Government to start listening to the people of Canterbury. It needs to actually hear what the people of Canterbury are saying, rather than being on its high horse down here—up here, from Canterbury’s perspective—in Parliament, telling Cantabrians what is best for them. Here we go again, with this bill. I will not even call it a nanny State; it is a “manny State” Government—a “manny State” Government—that now has a consistent track record in telling Cantabrians and other New Zealanders what is in their best interests, because this Government just knows best. It knows so much better than the people of New Zealand and, in this case, the people of Canterbury, that it will take democracy away to prove that it knows better. That is exactly what is happening with this bill.

Tomorrow we celebrate Suffrage Day in New Zealand. It is 119 years since Kate Sheppard, who I think was a Cantabrian, actually got out on her bike, went around with a whole heap of other women and good men, and got the voice of Cantabrians to actually fight for the right of women to have the right to vote in this country. That is happening tomorrow. What would Kate Sheppard think of this Government? What would Kate Sheppard think of it putting a bill through Parliament today—the day before Suffrage Day—to take away the right of Cantabrians to vote for their local council?

I rise to speak to the Government’s bill to extend the suspension of democracy in Canterbury, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. When the principal Act, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act, was first introduced in 2010, many of us in Christchurch were cynical that democracy would be restored in 2013. The joke in Christchurch was that Fiji would see democracy restored before we would in Canterbury. We were cynical despite Nick Smith’s heartfelt reassurances that we would, in fact, have our votes back in 2013.

Why were we so cynical? It is because those of us who have been involved in water issues in Canterbury saw this Act’s real goal as being all about removing roadblocks to the extension of irrigation in Canterbury and the extension of large-scale water storage schemes. That is what this second-generation plan will help provide for, and that is not in place yet.

Democracy has been a barrier to these plans being developed. Why? It is because the people in Canterbury are apprehensive about more proposals for intensive farming, for irrigation, and for water storage. They are rightly so, because we in Canterbury love our rivers and our waterways. We value our drinking water. Christchurch is the only large city left in the world that can drink pure, uncontaminated water straight from the tap, untreated. This water shapes our identity in Christchurch.

We are concerned right now, and have been for many years, by the existing irrigation and intensive farming that are polluting our rivers. We are directly impacted by these. Just 3 weeks ago in the township of Darfield there was a really serious outbreak of gastroenteritis, with more than 150 cases of serious vomiting and diarrhoea. This was directly related to intensive farming. The Canterbury District Health Board’s medical officer of health Alistair Humphrey, has said in a statement: “Intensified farming now means that a lot of water is contaminated with animal faeces, especially the Waimakariri after heavy rains.” The intensive farming that we have now in Canterbury is already not being well managed or regulated, and it is already polluting our water, and it is already making people very sick.

It is impacts like this that make people want to have a say in how water is managed, because they will have to live with the impacts of it. That is why it is so concerning that the bill does not allow appeals to the Environment Court on the merits of the commissioners’ decisions. This last bit is probably of greatest concern to me, because we have no recourse to a vote, and we have no recourse to the Environment Court. So what can we do if the commissioners make a decision that will allow more pollution of Canterbury’s water?

I am proud to take a call in this first reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. The issues of the bill have been well canvassed, but I just want to say that we need to look back at one of the issues that was raised by the review panel. It said that the institutional failure required comprehensive and rapid intervention, because Canterbury is so important to both the regional and national well-being. That national well-being is even more important given that the issues relating to the earthquake, and the economic recovery required, both for the region and the country overall, are vital. That is all I am going to say on this bill. I commend it to the House.

I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill be reported to the House on or before 30 January 2013.