Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a second time. Firstly, I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which put a lot of hard work into this bill, and also the people and organisations who made submissions. The committee considered over 1,100 submissions on the bill, and the result of that effort is a clearer and more workable piece of legislation. The most significant amendment recognises and reinforces the relationship that Environment Canterbury has developed with Ngāi Tahu over the last 6 years by allowing Ngāi Tahu to recommend two appointments to the transitional governing body.

This bill creates a mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury for a transitional period between the 2016 and 2019 local government elections. It will help the timely completion of a robust, clear, and effective framework for the management of fresh water and nutrient management in the Canterbury region. The main components of the bill are to establish a mixed-model governance body that has a majority of elected councillors and provides a pathway to transition to a standard regional council, with all councillors elected in 2019. It will continue the limited appeals process under the streamlined Resource Management Act planning processes, and repeal the special water conservation order and moratoria on resource management processes, which are no longer needed by the new governing body. This package of measures aims to ensure that the good work started by the commissioners in 2010 will be substantially completed prior to Environment Canterbury’s return to a standard regional council in 2019.

Before going into the detail on these measures, it is important to understand why they are needed. In 2010 the Government appointed seven specialist, temporary commissioners to lift Environment Canterbury’s performance. This followed unprecedented requests for urgent action from Cantabrians, Canterbury mayors, and the outcome of an independent report. The regional council was failing to manage Canterbury’s natural resources and serve its diverse communities. There was no operative freshwater planning framework, and internal divisions in leadership stood in the way of progress. Although the commissioners transformed Environment Canterbury into a highly effective organisation and used the alternative Resource Management Act processes given to them under the 2010 Act to good effect, the commissioners’ terms were extended in 2013 as there was still much work to be done. There was also a strong need for regional stability, particularly in light of the earthquakes.

When the commissioners’ term expires in 2016, after 6 years in office, this will represent a significant change. Such an abrupt change in leadership will bring inevitable challenges to the focus and momentum of ongoing work programmes. It is vital that this change is carefully managed so that it does not slow the progress made so far, especially in establishing an integrated planning framework and applying collaborative local solutions to manage fresh water sustainably.

During their term, the commissioners have also developed excellent relationships with stakeholders, which will need to be re-established once the mixed model is in place. The level of stakeholder confidence in the new governing body will contribute to the speed with which this can take place. In addition, a coordinated transition is vital to ensure that Environment Canterbury has the skills and experience to fulfil its statutory responsibilities and effectively engage with ongoing priorities, projects, and work programmes.

The bill provides for a mix of seven councillors to be elected from four constituencies across Canterbury communities, and the appointment of up to six councillors by the Government. The Government-appointed councillors will be chosen to complement the skills of those elected by the Canterbury communities. The bill will provide that all councillors, whether elected or appointed, will have the same roles and responsibilities at the council table. All councillors will have their pay rates set by the Remuneration Authority, in the same way that the authority determines remuneration for all regional councils.

The Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that two of the appointments to Environment Canterbury should be made on recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I support this recommendation given their guardianship role and the strong partnership that has developed between Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury while the commissioners are in place. It is appropriate to ensure that this partnership continues in the mixed model to recognise Ngāi Tahu’s significant and unique interests in Canterbury’s environment and the management of its natural resources.

The bill provides that the term of the mixed-model governance body will end on the day after the day on which the official election result is declared for the full council, following the 2019 local government elections. The bill provides that the mixed-model council will review the regional representation arrangements in Canterbury prior to the election taking place.

The bill carries forward the limitation on appeal rights on development and amendment to regional plans and regional policy statements relating to freshwater management. To achieve this, the bill provides that appeals can be made only by certain individuals to the High Court on points of law. This power, along with the rest of the bill, will be repealed on the resumption day in 2019. However, if a planning process remains incomplete, a transitional clause ensures that the limitation on appeals will continue to apply until it is complete.

The bill repeals the provisions in the 2010 Act that gave Environment Canterbury additional powers to make moratoria on resource consents. It also repeals, with some transitional measures, the special powers in the 2010 Act by which Environment Canterbury considered water conservation order applications. The Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill is a sensible next step for Environment Canterbury. The mixed model returns it to a level of democratic accountability while also ensuring that the skills and expertise exist to continue work streams.

The minimum alternative resource management powers have been retained to allow Environment Canterbury to complete the freshwater planning programme started by the commissioners, which we see as critical to the economic and environmental future of the region. In short, this bill provides for a low-risk and well-managed transition to a fully elected regional council for Canterbury in 2019, and the Government commends it to the House.

I am taking a call on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill to signal that Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing it vehemently, and we will continue to oppose it through all stages in this House. The reason is very simple: there is simply no justification for this legislation. The Minister Louise Upston has just given us the pap that we have become accustomed to hearing when it comes to this situation.

I just want to put on the record the very shoddy nature of the consultation period that went with this legislation. This is a piece of legislation that the Government has known was going to be required since it last cancelled elections in Canterbury. It had 3 years to get its act together, but, instead, we had rushed process, with submitters having barely enough time to submit let alone make their voices heard at the table. This simply is not good enough, and this was made very clear to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee, who sat through those hearings in Christchurch. I would have thought that the Christchurch-based Government members of that committee should hang their heads in shame for being part of a process that silenced the people of their region on such a fundamental issue as their democratic rights.

I have said that we are opposing this bill. The reason is very clear: there is no justification. So I want to go through some of the reasons that we have heard about why it is required that we once again cancel elections in part of our country. First of all, the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, came out and said that democracy was simply too risky. Well, this is a very surprising sentence to hear uttered from the mouth of an elected representative. I think the people in Nelson would be very interested to know that their member considers that democratic elections are just fundamentally a risky business and something that should be feared.

We have just had the Minister Louise Upston tout the other line that is sometimes heard, that such an abrupt change in leadership just cannot be had—so we can have only some of the people elected. Well, there is absolutely no logical basis for this comment. Both for this House and for local bodies we go through elections every 3 years in other parts of the country—except Canterbury, that is. There could well be a whole turnover of councils or of parties going out. This is the stuff of democracy. It happens. And that is why organisations have staff. Staff are very good at continuing the work streams that the newly elected members want to see continued—so that they are passed on. This is simply a bogus argument with absolutely no logical or intellectual merit, and is beneath anyone to advance as a case for having this bill in place.

We then had earlier on another justification: “Well, it’s just like the DHBs.” Well, there are two answers to that: look what the Government is doing to district health boards around the country at the moment and see whether they are organisations that this Government wants to hold up in some kind of esteem. The second answer is that it is illogical. They bear no resemblance. District health boards are responsible for the disbursement and the governance of centrally collected tax money. Regional councils are not. And this is where it gets to the crux. This is a very basic point about representation following along with taxation. Ratepayers in Canterbury do not have that most fundamental protection of having no taxation without proper representation. This, simply, is not good enough.

Then we have the other one “Well, it had to be done.”—the regional council that was in place in 2010 before it was sacked was simply so bad that the Government had to come along and save the environment. That is one that we often hear trotted out by members of this Government. That is simply wrong and has no basis in fact. Any scrutiny of the facts does not bear up that assertion. Let us have a look. When we had the commissioners, they came in and said that they were going to set a target of 80 percent of Canterbury water—rivers and lakes—being swimmable by 2015. This was their target—the new commissioners. They were already at 74 percent when they set this target in 2010. That is what our elected representatives had delivered us before they were sacked in 2010. But the commissioners came in and they said: “No, we’re going to do it better. We’re going to make it 80 percent.” Well, today in Canterbury 67 percent of our rivers and lakes are swimmable. We have seen a decline in water quality in our region. So anyone who has the audacity to stand in this House and say that we have seen environmental improvement because of this regime is simply not right.

It is not just us in Labour who get a little bit het up about this piece of legislation. We had submitter after submitter. In fact, the Minister Louise Upston said there were 1,167 submissions received on this legislation—1,152 submissions opposed this legislation. There was overwhelming opposition to this legislation. We had the Christchurch City Council, which labelled the Government’s move in this area as extraordinarily arrogant and said that Canterbury deserved more. I agree with our elected Christchurch City Council that we in Canterbury do deserve more. We do not deserve to be controlled by appointees of the Government in Wellington; we deserve to elect our representatives. There is no justification for the treating of Canterbury any differently to the rest of the country. When we have the Minister standing there and saying that it is part of a transition back—well, we heard that when the first legislation was put in place in 2010.

The Government then broke its promise and enacted another piece of legislation in 2013, and here we are in 2016. I have no faith in those members opposite if—God forbid—they are still in Government in 2019 that they will not still extend it. Why do I think that? It is because the Ministry of Primary Industries was lobbying in Cabinet papers to have this as a permanent situation. This Government does not want to ever give Cantabrians their vote back, and it has made that very clear, so have no faith that this is a transitional arrangement. If you look back in Hansard you will see the words “transitional arrangement” all through the 2013 legislation, so beware any falsehoods that are spoken on the other side.

We had a very good submission from the Law Society when it came and it gave a very considered and sophisticated submission. It said that “The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with core constitutional values. The justification for the proposed mixed-model governance structure is not sufficiently convincing and the need for the continuance of appointed Commissioners has not been demonstrated.” This cuts to the core of why we cannot and will not support this legislation. There is no justification; there is no need. No one has made a case and I am looking forward to hearing one made on the floor in this House today. There are plenty of Government members who sit on that committee from whom I am interested in hearing long and full contributions on the justification to the people in their electorates of why it is that their votes should be taken away from them. For elected representatives to do this is simply reprehensible. There is no justification for it.

I want to take the opportunity at this second reading to acknowledge one submission that was made. It was made by Christina Loughton, a Christchurch woman who has for a long time been an activist and has spoken on a number of issues. Christina has died since she made that submission, but she made her views very clear. She made it clear that she saw this as an affront to her and her fellow Cantabrians. She made it clear that she found this yet another arrogant and out-of-touch move from a Government that is intent on keeping power and not considering ordinary people. I ask Government members, and particularly the Canterbury-based Government members of that select committee, to vote with their conscience, to realise what they are doing to the people of their region, and to do the most basic thing that an elected member can do—that is, to stand up for democracy. Thank you.

Anyone listening to that speech and contribution from the current member for Wigram could be led to believe that the people of Canterbury and Christchurch are up in arms about this piece of legislation. In fact, that is not the case. At first reading, we were promised by that member that there would be tens of thousands of submissions on this bill. We were told that there would be an uprising in Canterbury and across Christchurch on this bill.

In fact, what we found when we got to Christchurch—because the Local Government and Environment Committee sat in Christchurch, and I want to acknowledge at just this point the gracious hospitality of the Christchurch City Council and the mayor, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who made the Christchurch City Council chambers available to hear submissions in—was that we heard from only a relatively small number of the 93 individual submissions received. What we heard from was, in fact, 42 submitters, because of those over 1,000 submissions more than a thousand of them were, in fact, form submissions generated by a third-party email harvesting programme that was sponsored by no less than the Labour Party. So what did arrive was not a tsunami of opposition; it was measured and it was useful to the committee in our deliberations.

What the previous speaker did not tell this House—because she was not in Parliament at that stage—but it is well known, is that the previous Labour Government back in early 2008, in fact, considered intervening to solve the conundrum that was a completely ineffectual and dysfunctional Environment Canterbury, and the Labour Government chose to neglect its duties to the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and it did nothing. It did nothing. It was scared of what might happen ahead of an election that it was so clearly going to lose, and it did nothing. It abandoned the people of Christchurch and Canterbury, and when its leadership was most needed, the Labour Party actually forsook its responsibility and left the people of Canterbury in the lurch.

What happened at our select committee was that we worked through this transitional piece of legislation. As Louise Upston, speaking on behalf of the Minister, said in her speech a few minutes ago, we have come out of that process with, I think, an even improved piece of legislation that we are submitting to the House for second reading today.

Environment Canterbury has gone from being perhaps the worst-performing council to now one of the best. Decisions have been made and progress has been made on all the important water decisions in particular that so affect the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. What has been more important is that the relationships that were so broken have been renewed, refreshed, and new credibility has arisen from that process.

This is a piece of legislation that will take us through a transitional stage from the local government elections to be held later this year through until the next local government elections in 2019. Right and proper, as part of this transitional process, is that a majority of Environment Canterbury councillors will, in fact, be elected at the election in 2016 later this year. I think that Environment Canterbury has made huge progress in the period of time that the commissioners have been in place. I think they have done a terrific job and this is a transition that will mean that the knowledge, the understanding, and the credibility that has been built up over the last few years will be maintained through until 2019 when full elections will take place.

One of the matters that the select committee did change, from the first reading, was the one relating to the nomination of Ngāi Tahu representation. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague and friend Nuk Korako who has, I think, very strongly advocated on behalf of Ngāi Tahu. They came to the select committee seeking three nominations. In the original piece of legislation, at first reading, the suggestion was that they should nominate one. The committee, I think wisely and sensibly, has recommended that they nominate two. I was pleased to hear the Minister Louise Upston say that she supported that process when she was speaking earlier on.

This is a very good piece of legislation for the people of Canterbury and Christchurch. In fact, it is part of a suite of Canterbury legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has been guiding through the House in recent months. It forms an important part not only of Christchurch’s future pre the earthquakes but post the earthquakes as well. It is an important part of the building blocks of getting Canterbury back to where it needs to be. I am very supportive of this second reading debate. I support the legislation and I commend it to the House.

If any legislation demonstrates the arrogance of this Government and the litany of broken promises that it now reigns under, it is this legislation. In 2010, when Nick Smith announced to the country, through this Parliament, that he was removing the right of Cantabrians to vote for their regional council, he said things that were not accurate about the reasons for that removal of our right to vote. He said that it was because of the regional council’s inability to function properly, which is code for “the irrigators had not won”. He said that in 3 years’ time our right to vote would be restored. He repeated that, 3 years later, when he continued to remove our right to vote and said that it would be restored in 3 years’ time. And 3 years on, the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, whom I frankly used to think better of, said that this is a transition to democracy. We have heard it before, Mr Simpson. We heard it 3 years ago, and we heard it 3 years before that.

Cantabrians are not prepared to be lied to by Cabinet Ministers about something as fundamental as our right to vote. We might vote for people whom the Minister does not like. In fact, I could guarantee that I would be voting for people whom the Minister does not support politically. We are in different political parties. Is that not what democracy is all about? I did not vote National in the last election, and I am unlikely to ever do that. But I support the National Party leading our Government—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right.

—despite my opposition to it, because that is what a democratic process is about. But Mr Bridges and his cronies in the National Party think that we do not deserve that right in Canterbury. I think he is wrong.

Mr Simpson criticised the lack of submissions on this bill. There were 1,167 submissions on this piece of legislation, with a very truncated period of time for the calling of submissions—less than half the usual period that is allowed; less than half. It was rammed through the select committee process. The submitters were laughed at by members of the National Party on the committee. Submitters were distressed at the way they were treated at the select committee. There were 1,152 submitters who opposed this legislation, in totality. They said they did not support it and did not want it progressing through the House. So how many does that leave, out of 1,167? Do the maths, Mr Simpson. It leaves 15 submitters who supported it. That is 15 out of 1,167. So what does the National Party do? It says: “Who cares?”. Who cares about democracy? Who cares about the submitters? Who cares about a proper process? Not the National Party members. All they care about is ramming this bill through and, once again, for another 3 years, denying Cantabrians the right to vote for our regional council.

Every other region in the country has that right to vote. When Nick Smith tried to explain it to Canterbury, he said: “Wow! Full restoration of democracy.”, as if it was an unheard of thing. Hello, this is New Zealand. He said: “Full restoration of democracy. We can’t have that, because it’s too risky.” It is too risky to allow people in Canterbury to vote for the people whom they want to make decisions around the regional council table.

In opposing this legislation, I want to put on the record that Labour has always tried to work constructively with the Government on earthquake-related issues. This is not about those issues. I commend the committees that have been doing work on other parts of our recovery and rebuild, and working constructively. This is not what this is about. This is about irrigation. This is about the battle over water in Canterbury, and what is the healthiest way of progressing.

That is something that the Environment Canterbury commissioners themselves promised to address. In 2010 they said: “We will have a target of ensuring that 80 percent of rivers in the Canterbury region are safe for swimming.” That is well above the National Government’s aim for water quality in New Zealand. At that time, 74 percent of our rivers were in that category—safe for swimming. In 2016, 67 percent of rivers in our region are safe for swimming. So where is that ambitious goal of 80 percent, compared with a decline in the quality of our water in our rivers in the 6 years that we have been denied our right to vote? Where is the drive? Where is the action for improving the quality of our water? The commissioners whom the National Party appointed—good people, all of them, actually—made a commitment to reach a target of 80 percent, when the current level was 74 percent, and now it is 67 percent. They are going in the wrong direction.

When my ancestors came to this country—well-inhabited though it was already by that time—they came because they thought New Zealand would offer a better opportunity for them and their children and grandchildren. And they were right, because New Zealand was founded by people who had a vision of a better future: a place where people would look after each other, an egalitarian society—it seems to be an old-fashioned term nowadays but I still like it. I still like the idea that we live in a country where it does not matter where you were born, if you work hard you will be able to achieve your dream. That is the country I grew up in. That is the country that my ancestors came here for. Some of our ancestors came by water, some by air; people are still coming because they see New Zealand as a country where people can have the best life. That is a dream that I want to continue to aspire to.

We are very proud in New Zealand of being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. We are very proud of that fact. We show off about it, and so we should. So for that pride to be dented by the Government’s deliberate removal of our right to vote is something that the National Party members should be hanging their heads in shame about. We boast about being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. Well, women in Canterbury are now being granted so generously by the Government half a vote: we get to vote for half of our council. So are the National women members going to boast about that around the world? Are they going to say: “We were the first to win the right to vote but now we have got only half a vote for a regional council.”? That right to vote was given to everyone in New Zealand regardless of gender, regardless of their wealth, regardless of their property. It was something that very few other countries had; in fact, some still do not. Democracy and the right to vote—the requirement to pay taxes in exchange for a right to representation—is something that should be at the heart of this Parliament.

Removing that right is something that should happen in extreme circumstances and it certainly should be done only with the understanding—not necessarily the support, but the understanding—of people whose rights are being taken away. There must be an extraordinary reason for taking away New Zealanders’ fundamental rights. But the Minister not only has taken them away but has misled us about re-granting those rights. Nick Smith said in 2010 “I’m taking this right away.”—not half of it, in total; we did not have any vote for a regional council. He might have thought we were a bit stressed because of the quakes and that he was doing us a favour. Well, he was wrong, because he took away a fundamental right that every other New Zealander had, and we deserve that right back. He said: “You’ll get it back in 3 years’ time.” Three years later he misled us again by saying: “I’m sorry, I’m not ready. It’s too risky. I’m taking away your rights again for another 3 years. You’ll get them back in 3 years’ time.”

And tonight in this House, ramming this bill through in the last hours of the Parliament, we hear Mr Simpson from Coromandel, where they get every single right to vote, telling us that in another 3 years we will get our vote back. Well, that is not good enough. It shows an arrogance—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

I stand to speak in favour of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill and I am looking forward to being able to retort some of the shrill hyperbole that I have had to listen to over the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. Let us actually start this conversation by going back over a little bit of history. Prior to 2010 the Environment Canterbury set-up was appalling. Members on the other side talk about the importance of participation, but they had councils across that region that would not talk to each other, could not get together around a water plan, were not progressing the natural resource framework for their region, and they talk now about it being denied them. It was a complete stuff-up of a set-up—and I say that deliberately—and they know it and they should bow their heads in shame.

Since 2010 we have put in commissioners who have applied phenomenal experience and competency to highly technical and difficult issues of natural resource management in the Canterbury region and they have created a framework zone by zone, community by community, and Māori participation by Māori participation. Everything that they call for on the other side, we have created under the leadership of environment commissioners who have brought incredible skill and expertise: Dame Margaret Bazley, the Hon David Caygill, Professor Peter Skelton. These people have assisted the community in developing a framework that will resolve natural resource issues in the community.

To hear members on the other say that somehow the elections are cancelled—well, there are seven directly elected councillors whom this bill enables. But what we are doing is sensible, common-sense management when you have, essentially, a board in the form of these commissioners with the capability that they have brought to this region in the middle of a process to identify water use, which is completely progressing with their oversight. To completely separate them from that process is ignorant, and that is why I am hugely supportive of this model. There will be direct elections. I think those members need to read the bill. There will be direct elections—seven, and those seven will be augmented with the skills that we have seen be applied to the Canterbury region over the last 6 years.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Oh, please sir, thank you.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, we’re so grateful for half a vote.

They can cry all they want, but at the end of the day what counts is outcomes for Canterbury and under this Environment Canterbury regime we have delivered outcomes for Canterbury. We have put talent in place, capability in place—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have cautioned members about using the word “lying”, and Speaker’s ruling 48/1 is very clear. I do not want to hear it again. It has happened on a number of occasions. That word is out of order and unparliamentary. I do not want to hear it again. [Interruption] The member will stand and withdraw those comments and apologise for them.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. May I explain what the word was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. [Interruption] We have ruled on that. Todd Muller has the call.

In conclusion, I stand very much in support of this bill. I acknowledge the leadership of both Minister Nick Smith and of Scott Simpson, who has been appallingly maligned. He has, I think, assisted a very effective reflection on what the appropriate way forward is here, and the Local Government and Environment Committee, by majority, was very supportive of what we now bring back to the House. It is sensible for Canterbury, it is transitional, and it takes the best of the current model, welds it to direct elections, and has a transition through to a 2019 outcome, which will be fully elected. I believe it will deliver a fantastic result for Canterbury and I am very, very pleased to be able to support it. Thank you.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. I think it is extraordinarily rich for the largest geographic area of any region of New Zealand, one that has got the second-biggest population—second only to Auckland—to be patronised by Government speakers saying that all we deserve is a half-pie democracy and seven elected councillors. The Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill halves the number of elected councillors in Christchurch: we used to have eight; we will get four under the bill. It means there is only one elected councillor from South Canterbury, one from Central Canterbury, and one from North Canterbury. We have got this nonsense that the Government members have been coming out with about how we have had such a wonderfully performing set of commissioners. If they have done such a marvellous job in the 6 years since 2010, why are we not getting regional democracy back now? If they had been so highly effective, as the Minister Louise Upston said, if they had been one of the best-performing councils, why have they not, already, in that 6 years, corrected the issues that the Government claims were present in Environment Canterbury prior to 2010.

There is absolutely no justification for this bill. It is all about ensuring that members appointed by Ministers in Wellington can continue to dominate Environment Canterbury’s policy-making agenda to ensure that water is provided to the irrigators. It was very interesting, with submissions, to see the 15 individuals and organisations who supported the bill—a mere 15 out of 1,167. Those who supported the bill were Irrigation New Zealand, Federated Farmers, the Waitaki Irrigators Collective—all of those—

💬 Matt Doocey: Six out of 10 councils.

—and the rural councils; not the Christchurch City Council, which represents the majority of the population in the region, Mr Doocey, but the rural councils. All of those interests want water to be easily available for irrigation. They want a light hand in terms of Environment Canterbury’s regulation of land use so that water pollution can continue and we do not get high standards of environmental management. That is what this bill is about; it is about ensuring that the pro-irrigation agenda and the weak commitment to water quality and environmental management continue.

The Green Party strongly opposed this bill at its introduction and we continue to oppose it. Public submissions were strongly against the bill, but, once again, the Government has failed to listen. Mr Simpson talked about only a few submissions. When the Government ran such a truncated process of submissions and consultation on the review document, when the Government has shown that it is intent on proceeding with suspending democracy, why would people bother when their views have been consistently ignored?

Submitters opposed the bill because they recognised the importance of local democracy: it provides a check and a counterbalance on the powers of central government and the executive. As one of the submitters Professor Emeritus Chris Kissling said in his submission, and I would just like to quote from it: “This bill is a denial of democracy in a country that prides itself on being democratic. … Continuance of central government appointed commissioners can be likened to the reservation of 25% of the new parliament in Myanmar for the military under their military dictated constitution. They do not trust their people. Neither does the National Government in New Zealand trust its Cantabrians. Here it is a dictatorship without guns but still a denial of constitutional propriety.”

Every other region in New Zealand gets to vote for a fully elected regional council, and there is absolutely no reason why Canterbury should be any different. It is interesting that in Kaipara we had a district council completely fail to implement its legal and its accountability responsibilities: it had a wastewater scheme that totally blew out, costing over $53 million. There was a major doorstop-sized report by the Office of the Auditor-General into that failure to implement its responsibilities. It was what the Auditor-General called a story of poor governance, poor decision-making, and inadequate management of both the organisation and the project. That led to commissioners being appointed there, yet in Kaipara people will be voting for their council again in October. In Canterbury we had no investigation by the Auditor-General, no massive blowout of the regional council’s budget, and yet people are being denied their right to vote.

This is setting a precedent for the undermining of local democracy throughout New Zealand by having a second-class, hybrid model. The Minister has claimed previously that it is like district health boards. District health boards are fully funded by the Crown, they do not receive any rates funding—yet around this table, come October, there will be six appointed commissioners. I suspect that this hybrid model will discourage people from standing. Minister Upston said that the commissioners and the councillors will have a similar role around the table. We know that commissioners have been meeting regularly with Ministers—they have got a hotline to Ministers—so will the appointed commissioners also have a hotline to Ministers? It will be a second-rate form of representation for those who are elected because they do not have that hotline to Ministers. Yet Cantabrians are being expected to pay the salaries of these appointed commissioners. Government puts in its yes men and women but it does not pay their costs. So that is a double denial of elected accountability.

This bill is a total crock. It strikes completely the wrong balance, because it denies Cantabrians our democracy. It shows that the Government does not trust the citizens of Canterbury to elect a competent regional council to manage land and water, pests, the coast, and air. One of the other major problems with this bill is that it means there is a different standard of law—different provisions applying—in Canterbury from around the rest of the country. We do not have the right to appeal regional plans to the Environment Court, which people in Nelson and Marlborough and Tasman and Southland and the Waikato have. Why should two different sorts of law apply to different regions? Again, it is because the Government wants to ensure that its appointed commissioners dominate the plan-making process to ensure that there are provisions in those plans that are permissive about irrigation and permissive about land use, so that we allow this region of New Zealand, which is responsible for 60 percent of the water that is allocated for irrigation in New Zealand, to continue to have a weak regulatory regime. This is not about good resource management; it is about being pro-irrigation and it is about denying democracy so that the Government can continue to influence regional plans in Canterbury.

We oppose it; submitters oppose it. The Government is being arrogant in the way it is ignoring public sentiment. It is undermining democracy, which is consistent with what the Government has done throughout this term to increase the powers of central government, and to put its thumb on local government and seek to dominate local government. There is no justification for this bill, and that is why we have heard so many short speeches from Government members, so many comments and so much criticism of the previous council, and yet there is a failure to recognise that in 6 years commissioners should have fixed any of those problems, if they existed. They obviously have not been able to do that, so how can the Government continue to justify commissioners, if they have not fixed the problems that the Government claimed were there? This bill is a crock. It denies democracy to Cantabrians. The Green Party opposes it.

New Zealand First dissociates itself from and disagrees with the positions—and, I think, rather extreme positions—taken by all of the three other parties we have heard from today. We think that there has been far too much prejudice, far too much puff, far too much emotion, and not nearly enough common sense. But New Zealand First cannot support this bill in the way it has been presented here today.

Nine years is clearly far too long before a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury, and 6 years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done their work. We think, actually, that the commissioners have done a good job. They have overseen the establishment of an excellent Canterbury Water Management Strategy, on the basis of very comprehensive public consultation, but enough is enough. That job—the commissioners’ job—is substantially done and the strategy is now firmly in place, providing order and direction. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. It is time for the commissioners to leave. Their job is done.

The Minister claims that a partially appointed council is needed so that the commissioners can complete their work. Well, that is poppycock because there is little or nothing left for them to do. And there is no way of going back, now that the strategy is in place. For example, stage one of the Central Plains Water scheme—by far the largest in New Zealand—is already operational, and construction of stages two and three will commence this year. That is how far we have gone over the last 6 years. Other schemes are being properly processed under the strategy, and environmental parameters and limits have been set, including nutrient allocations.

Central Plains Water established its benchmarks almost 2 years ago, against which its performance will be closely monitored, not just by Environment Canterbury but by a variety of other parties as well. It will be required to comply with the principle of continuous improvement, and so will all of the other irrigation schemes that may start in the future. Most particularly, all such schemes will, now and in the future, have to apply the matrix of good management, under which sustainable farm practices will be mandatory.

So, as I have said, we have come a long, long way in the last 6 years. There is nothing, really, left for the commissioners to do. With diversification as well as intensification with modern irrigation schemes, it is important that those requirements for good management are in place, and they are. They will, in time, transform New Zealand agriculture, with positive outcomes for the environment, and that is what farmers also want. It is not just the Greens, and it is not just environmentalists; it is also the farmers themselves.

New Zealand First did support the appointment of the commissioners in 2010 because actions by the then Environment Canterbury simply undermined perfectly valid and proper applications for water consents, threatening an orderly process for consents for takes and uses of water for irrigation that we had then already in train, without having a strategy in place for over 15 years—over 15 years—and without properly consulting councils, communities, or the public. No wonder, then, that the district and city councils at the time supported and pushed for the appointment of commissioners—they were right to do so—but not for 9 years. That is far too long. If the commissioners could not do what they set out to do within 6 years they should never have been appointed, but, in fact, they have achieved that. They have done enough; it is time for them to go.

Local government is fundamentally about representative democracy. Where commissioners are needed—and they were needed in that case—the term must be short. A mixed—elected and appointed—Environment Canterbury is the worst of both worlds because neither is it genuinely representative of the people of the region, nor would it be an entity with any political independence. A worse system could not possibly be imagined. Inevitably, a them-and-us attitude will develop on that council, and that will not be positive.

I note that Ngāi Tahu are to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments, out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First policy is that no such appointees should be made to elected councils or other elected bodies. We think that is a very good policy that reflects what most people in this country think. To have such appointments compromises democracy in the same way that democracy is compromised by the appointment of the other commissioners. It is not necessary for Ngāi Tahu to have any appointees at all. Māori are already elected in satisfying numbers to councils all around the country—that is a fact. New Zealand First opposes the bill for that reason, as well.

The bill does nothing to sort out the real issues with Environment Canterbury. There have always been four problems we have had to deal with. One is that in 2010 there was a lack of a properly developed strategic plan for fresh water in Canterbury. Environment Canterbury’s process then was nothing less than shambolic. It did not reflect local values or needs, and it did not bring local councils or communities with it. It needed to go, it should have gone, and it did go.

Nobody really ever had any confidence that that elected Environment Canterbury would actually get anywhere with a water management strategy for Canterbury. Applicants for water consents had to operate in a vacuum—and that was the fault of Environment Canterbury—up until 2010. Thirdly, to make matters worse, its management acted like a law unto itself, would not listen to people, and gave very poor advice, in my opinion.

Fourthly, and lastly, there is an inherent problem of an urban versus rural schism in Canterbury because of the urban population dominance of Christchurch, with urban attitudes and little understanding of agriculture and rural issues. That is something that this bill simply does not address. New Zealand First thinks that we need a much more comprehensive review of how regional governance should be carried out for the future in Canterbury. That has not happened; it does need to happen.

In the end it is wrong to treat Canterbury as different from other regions for so long. The Government claimed that a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills is needed, but you get that through elected regional councils. You see it all around the country: good people elected because they have the skills. So all this nonsense about the skills required for management of fresh water, local authority governance, tikanga Māori, and knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people—these are all things that elected people can deliver. The reasons given by the Government are no reason for a continuation of any appointed commissioners for Environment Canterbury in the future.

New Zealand First cannot support the bill. It cannot support this unelected body going on for so long. It will be dysfunctional, it does not address the real issues, and it is time the Government stopped and took a long, hard look at what is really needed for Canterbury. I would encourage the other parties to abandon their extreme positions, adopt some common sense, and look at what the region really needs for both environmental sustainability and good, productive, sustainable agriculture in the future.

It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in its second reading. Can I first start off by saying I was fortunate to attend the Crusaders-Blues game on Friday night. It was great to see the Crusaders out there beating the Blues. We know that when Canterbury rugby goes well, New Zealand rugby goes well, and good luck to the Crusaders. I know I will be out there barracking for them for the rest of the year.

Can I also acknowledge members of Parliament from all sides of this House for their continued support for Canterbury, post-earthquake. But I would put a challenge to the Labour Party, which is constantly saying that it is in support. How come its top Canterbury-based MP is No. 10 in its caucus? It has got fewer than two dozen MPs in its caucus, and yet you have to go down halfway to find its first Canterbury MP.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: I couldn’t even name who that person is.

Ha, ha! I challenge Labour to put its first Canterbury MP up high and show its support for Canterbury.

Really, Labour’s position on this bill demonstrates it is the “Two-position Party”. What I am saying about that is that Labour was against the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill because it did not like the power the elected representatives—the Ministers—had, and it wanted to give more power to the appointed members of the Regenerate Christchurch board. That is in stark contrast to its position on this bill, where Labour members are now claiming they do not want to put power in the hands of appointed members. The “Two-position Party” strikes again, on the referendum, on free-trade agreements, and now on Canterbury legislation.

What this bill is about is confidence and stability, and this bill is going to provide confidence and stability to Cantabrians. When you look at the legislative process, the bill was referred after its first reading to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we had a range of submissions with differing views. We have made a few amendments, and now it is coming back into the House. That shows it is a good bill, and we are proud to support that. When you look at the departmental report, it said the bill meets the policy intent to provide appropriate mechanisms to continue the progress made under the current commissioners while acting as a transitional measure to a fully elected council in 2019.

What we know is that the good work of the Environment Canterbury commissioners has taken one of the worst-performing regional councils to now being one of the best, and I know constituents in my electorate of Waimakariri trust the process Environment Canterbury has taken. It has taken the noise out of water quality and nutrient leaching discussions, because it is a collaborative process in the zone committees and zone implementation plans. That is why Cantabrians are supporting this bill and that is why they are supporting this Government. They trust this Government and its confidence and stability. I support this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.

It is quite difficult to follow that last contribution and hear that this bill is about confidence and stability, and to follow on from previous members on that side of the House telling us that the commissioners are offering incredible skills, that it is sensible, common-sense management, and that, really, those opposing it are ignorant. Well, in response to that, and at the risk of being called shrill, I would like to quote the Law Society and its submission on this bill. It said: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power. … The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of New Zealand’s core constitutional values, namely, a ‘free and democratic society’.”

I am deeply offended to be listening to the members on that side start their speeches by offering congratulations to the Crusaders while this House is continuing to remove the core constitutional foundations of this country for Cantabrians. It is absolutely offensive, and if you call me shrill for being upset at the removal of democracy, I will take it because the only thing that validates our ability to stand here in this House is people’s right to vote for their leadership. To say that the skill and the management of Environment Canterbury was not doing its job—it is not this House’s job to decide that. It is the job of the people, who are paying their taxes and are electing their representatives, to decide that. That right has been taken away from the people of Canterbury by this National Government, and what this bill does is give them back a half-pie democracy.

We are told that the people of Canterbury support this bill. Even with the truncated select committee process and ability of the people to put in submissions, there were still 1,169 submissions, of which 15 supported this bill. That is not support for this bill. There is not support for the ongoing denial of democracy in Canterbury. We hear that the purpose of this bill is the management of the resources and that Environment Canterbury was incompetent and it had to be removed. There has been no investigation. There is no actual evidence of that. We have heard from the Minister that Environment Canterbury was incompetent in managing water. Well, actually, it was going through a process, and all of the work that it did was used by the commissioners 2 months later, I understand, after they were appointed, to put in place a plan for water management across the district. There is no actual evidence of that incompetence. Although I have heard from different members that they thought there was incompetence, that is actually a political point to be debated during an election process. It is for the people of Canterbury to decide.

I am passionate about this because I think democracy is a core value and is something we have fight to protect—although, actually, I am ashamed to think that we still have to fight to protect it—but also it is important because we know that democracy is one of the things that helps us protect our environment. Without our environment, we are nothing, and this is so starkly true in this particular case. What this is about, ultimately, is a fight over the rights to our environment—the protection of the water in Canterbury. The 15 submitters who supported this bill were those representing the interests of irrigators. It is the irrigators and those who want to exploit the resources against the people and the environment, and it is absolutely a shame to see this Government taking away the rights of the people to protect their environment, because, you know, with no environment, there is no economy and none of us survive.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I rise proudly as Labour’s spokesperson on local government. I also rise proudly as a member of this House, the New Zealand House of Representatives. We all—121 of us—journeyed to this place in a well-established, well-maintained, and a well-protected democratic system, so if it is good enough for us as members of this House to be elected to come here, then why is it not good enough for the good people of Canterbury to have their say? That is the question that I pose to this House. If it is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for Canterbury people?

I join in solidarity with my hard-working colleagues who are based in the Canterbury region: Dr Woods, the Hon Ruth Dyson, Poto Williams, my own colleague Rino Tirikatene, and, of course, Clayton Cosgrove. We are very clear in our caucus that when we discuss matters of importance to Canterbury, these fine, hard-working MPs will go down in history for standing up for the democratic rights of people from Canterbury. It is sad to say that the members on the other side will go down in history for removing that democratic right of the people of Canterbury to have their say, and I think that is the travesty with this bill. It does not give the people of Canterbury a say. After listening to the contributors from that side of the House on why this is an important step, I say it is not defensible.

Canterbury, as we all know, has been around for a long, long time, and it has produced some very, very amazing New Zealanders. I have got no qualms in saying that the leadership down there is more than capable of taking care of these issues, and that is what goes to the heart of this bill. This bill aims to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during the 2016-19 local authority election period. It replaces the governance arrangements that have been in place since 2010 under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It is intended to provide for a majority of members of the council to be elected by the people of the Canterbury region, and it is also to provide for some of the modified resource management processes that have operated under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to remain available to the council in order to further progress issues relating to the management of fresh water within the Canterbury region.

This bill is about irrigation, and this side of the House has called it for what it is. The bill is about water and its management in Canterbury. There are differing points of interest around managing Canterbury’s water. These include those within the urban community who have intense interest in the quality of their waterways for clean drinking water and recreation, along with a strong sense of identity with Canterbury’s braided rivers. Councils all over the country manage to resolve issues around contested resources. It is not the case that this cannot be done in Canterbury. The region is not unique. In 2010 the new council set itself a target of ensuring that 80 percent of our rivers in the region were safe to swim in—80 percent. At that time 74 percent of rivers fell into this category, and we have heard that as of today that number has declined to 67 percent.

My closing statement is about what Labour will do when we are in Government. Labour will restore local democracy and the right of communities to have their say on decisions affecting them. We believe in participatory democracy on appropriate major and strategic decisions, and we believe in appropriate consultation on detailed and technical issues. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for local government organisations, and we will restore local democracy to all communities. I stand in solidarity with my colleagues. We will be opposing this bill because it removes the rights of all Canterbury people to have their say in their democracy. Kia ora tātou.

Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare, huri noa i Te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and acknowledgments to you all in the House.]

I first want to say what a sad day it is for Canterbury and Christchurch, particularly when I hear the two representatives who are from Christchurch with their very, very determined but unfortunate speeches against this bill. It is, as I say, a very, very sad day because when we look at this legislation, this actually is about the continued stability of the present Environment Canterbury governance in Canterbury, but particularly in Christchurch.

We have just heard a speech that was about democracy, but when we look at this—back in 2010, Environment Canterbury had one of the worst track records in New Zealand. When we talk about democracy, the majority of Canterbury mayors—there were 10 of them who actually went to Wellington, and these mayors were democratically elected to ask for help. They asked that commissioners be put into Environment Canterbury. That is what happened. When we look at the issues there, the first one was major issues with stakeholder relationships—stakeholder relationships with all of the councils in Canterbury and stakeholder relationships with mana whenua. That was a huge one.

Then we heard from the New Zealand First member. In fact, it took those members 15 years—that is how long it had been going on—to bring forward a strategy about fresh water. They call that an issue now. The situation here is the fact that since the commissioners were put in in 2010, even the staff at Environment Canterbury breathed a sigh of relief that they would have governance that was stable and that they would have governance that would get on with the job and would then be responsible for the confidence that we see in Cantabrians today. This bill makes perfect sense. This bill will give Cantabrians, and particularly people from Christchurch, the assurance that there is a continuation of stable governance within their regional council. This is particularly around fresh water, and also about Regenerate Christchurch.

I just want to finish with one thing that the New Zealand First member said. It was about the fact that we did not need a transitional governance structure, but that is wrong because if we are going to continue to have confidence in Canterbury and then also in Christchurch, particularly, there has to be that transitional arrangement. The status quo at the moment is doing an excellent job, so why just get rid of it and bring in other members? This transitional plan is an excellent balance, with seven elected and six appointed. That balance will continue to be the really important part of the continuation of stability around fresh water in Canterbury and around the Christchurch regeneration. I totally recommend this bill, and commend it to the House. Kia ora.

It is unfortunate that the previous speaker, Nuk Korako, has chosen to rewrite history in his speech. There is definitely no doubt that democracy has been diminished in Canterbury when, after this period of time—6 years of commissioners—they have not achieved what they set out to achieve. After 6 years, has water quality improved in the Canterbury region? It has been a big no—a big no. Not just a small no but a big no.

The Government has asked us to trust it with our water quality in the Canterbury region when we know that right across the country it has failed repeatedly at restoring water quality to any condition of which we could be proud. And it is asking us again to trust it with another 3 years, when 6 years of failure is its legacy to the people of Canterbury. Six years of failure and another 3 on top, and what will happen after that point—what will happen after this 3 years? Will it then decide that it needs another 3 years to fiddle with Canterbury’s water quality? It is not good enough for the people of Canterbury to have this imposed upon them. We deserve to be able to elect the people whom we charge to have our best interests at heart, and if they do not do a good job, then, like any other democratic process, the people will speak and other people will come in to take that role from them.

This process has been designed to force this bill through without appropriate scrutiny from the people of Canterbury or by the Local Government and Environment Committee. When you hold a process of consultation over the summer period when people are away from their home environment and on holiday, and when you truncate the select committee process, this does not speak to a process where you are wanting to completely and fully engage the community and fully consult with the community. That has been the problem all along from the very beginning, when the commissioners were put in over the top of elected representatives. It has taken the voice of the people completely out of the process.

I want to challenge what one of the previous speakers said—that the people of Canterbury want this—when, overwhelmingly, the submissions that were made to the select committee said the people of Canterbury want to return to a fully democratic process where they can elect the representatives for Environment Canterbury to do the things that they need them to do, and not to have this. It is half-pie. Half-pie is half good, and half good is not good enough. We want full pie—we want it to be completely good.

💬 Jan Logie: We deserve full pie.

We absolutely deserve it. Our community has been through enough and we have had Ministers with special powers—war-time powers—able to make decisions in our city for long enough. This is another example of this Government’s heavy-handedness in Canterbury. It is a cautionary tale. It is a cautionary tale because this could be any city council around the country. It could be coming to you there in Auckland; it could be coming to you here in Wellington. It could be coming to you soon. If the Government decides that a fully elected city council is not operating in the Government’s best interests, well, look out. It can put in some commissioners. It can take democracy away from the people, and that is not good enough.

We have opposed this bill vehemently. My colleagues have spoken very passionately about the aspects of this bill that we oppose. I just want to reiterate: it is about the loss of democracy and it is about the loss of the voice of people who, for the last 5 years, have been engaged in a process where they have not been completely consulted on the rebuild of their city or on which buildings can actually be demolished. They are not full participants in decisions around earthquake recovery, and here, yet again, the power to control one of the most precious resources in our country is taken out of the hands of the people of Canterbury. The select committee process was truncated. The ability for people to actually be heard, with submissions overwhelmingly in opposition to this bill—all of this has been ignored by this Government. I, for one, join my colleagues on this side of the House to vehemently oppose this bill.

I stand, as the last speaker on this side of the House, to support the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I want to point out that word “Transitional”—transitional, because that is what happens when you want to retain a stable governance process. It has always happened, year after year—transitional ways of being able to keep the old heads in with the new heads. It is simple. It is very, very simple. It is not about taking away the democracy of Cantabrians. It is about—

💬 Poto Williams: Give it back, then. Let’s give it back.

No, it is not, because I can say that the Cantabrians will get a chance to elect seven councillors to Environment Canterbury. They will get that opportunity. So that is not taking away the democracy of a region. Retaining six of the members appointed by the Government is about retaining that stability in there. It is what transitional arrangements are all about—it always has been. When I hear members say “Watch out because this could come to your area. The Government could step in and do the same thing to your area with your regional council.”, that is a load of rubbish. This Government stepped in because it was asked to step in.

This Government was asked to step in because the previous regional councillors were not doing their job. They were seen to be severely, severely incapable of doing their job. That was actually spoken about here tonight—not by this side, but by New Zealand First—by the member Mr O’Rourke. He actually said it. He said it was a good thing—it was the best thing to do—because they were not firing. They were not doing the job that they were supposed to do. If they had done the water development plan as they were tasked to do and done all the work that they were tasked to do, and the management of Environment Canterbury as well, then the Government would not have come in at the request of all of those mayors.

It is shameful that the other side is ridiculing this process and maligning the chair of our select committee. I must say that he is one of the best select committee chairs in this House. I can tell you that right now. They are also maligning the commissioners, who have done a good job. They took a broken regional council and they fixed it up—it is not an easy thing to just go in and fix it up—and started to move along the path that the previous regional councils were tasked to do that they did not do.

So as I stand here today and I look across the House during the second reading, I have no qualms in supporting the second reading of this bill to the House. I look forward to the third reading and it passing into legislation, because the new council—when it comes into force with its six appointed members—will have 3 years in which to train up and to support the new councillors so that Cantabrians can then get back to electing their full Environment Canterbury constituency of councillors. Thank you.