Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of this bill to spell out why it is that Labour will not, cannot, and will never support this legislation. Part 1 of the bill, which contains the preliminary provisions of this bill—that is, clauses 3 through 7—actually contains some pretty important elements of this legislation.

First and foremost is the purpose clause of this legislation, where I would like to turn my attention. This is, of course, the part of the bill that tells us what it is going to do. Clause 3 says that “The purpose of this Act is to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council that will—(a) operate during the 2016 to 2019 local authority election-cycle period;”. But it is subclause (2) that I would like to turn my attention first of all, where it says: “To this end, this Act—(a) replaces the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010; and (b) provides for a new governing body for the Canterbury Regional Council comprising a mix of elected and appointed members;”. This is, of course, what the Minister for the Environment euphemistically refers to as a mixed model of democracy. This, of course, is a Minister who thinks democracy is a little bit too risky and is something that we, as elected members, should exercise caution on before allowing it back into any part of our country.

The first question that I would like Nick Smith, the Minister in the chair, to address is an issue that was raised by officials in the regulatory impact statement. It is around the consultation document that lies behind the piece of legislation that preceded it. Why was it that it went out and really gave only a fait accompli of this one model, with there being a range of options that were not canvassed in terms of what the future of Canterbury would hold?

This is something that submitters on the bill raised. In particular, the Christchurch City Council, in both its submission on the discussion document that preceded this legislation and its written and oral submissions on the legislation before the Local Government and Environment Committee, raised particular questions about why it was that this is the path the Minister chose to go down and said that it was only one option. Treasury, of course, found the need to raise questions about this in the regulatory impact statement and said that it could not give the kind of advice it would otherwise if that had been practised differently.

So I am looking forward to hearing the Minister give us an explanation of why it was that only this single option was put forward in the discussion document, because it was not like the Minister did not know this was coming. It had been nearly 3 years since he had last cancelled elections in Canterbury, and he had had plenty of time to plan for the next phase and what came next. So that is in the purpose statement, and I would like to hear from the Minister.

I would also like to then turn my attention to clause 6 in Part 1 of this legislation, which is the clause that deals with the repeal of this legislation. It is actually only a few days after the sixth anniversary of when the Minister first sacked our elected representative regional council in Canterbury and replaced it with Crown appointees. When that council was first sacked in 2010 there were a lot of statements made in the media, and the Prime Minister was even moved to make some statements to say that it might be as late as 2013 before Canterbury could have representative democracy back in its region. But did that happen? No, it did not. What happened before the expiration of the 2010 legislation is, of course, the Minister just put in place another piece of legislation that extended the Crown appointees over elected representatives in the region of Christchurch.

So we have absolutely no faith that the repeal date of this legislation will, in fact, in essence, be what is stated in clause 6 of the bill. When the bill states that it is repealed on the close of the resumption day, we know that behind the scenes there have been moves by various Government agencies to make the situation that the Minister is putting into place permanent. We know, through Official Information Act requests, that the Ministry for Primary Industries was lobbying, asking that the situation where the Crown appoints half the regional councillors, in the case of Canterbury, be made permanent. I would like to hear from the Minister, in the Committee stage of this legislation, an absolute assurance to the people of Canterbury—should National still be in Government, but that will not be the case, because we will be able to take care of that, but more on that later—that in the Minister’s mind this is the last piece of Draconian legislation that takes away democratic rights from the people of Canterbury.

As we get more into the substantive parts of this legislation, in Part 2, we will talk more fully about what some of the problems are. But I want to know from the Minister that this is what he means this time. When you read through the documents, prior to the discussion documents being issued, I have no faith. I have no faith that in the Minister’s mind this is the end of the road. We have no cause to have faith in Canterbury, because we have had our votes stolen twice—not only in 2010 but by the subsequent legislation that came into play for the 2013 election.

At the time when votes were first taken away, there were jokes going around. Will Canterbury or Fiji be the first to have democratic elections? Well, the Minister can be proud to say he is presiding over a region that is standing firm and not returning to democracy. What is being proposed and defined in Part 1, in clause 4, “Interpretation”, in no way represents a return to democracy. The Minister seems to think he can be a little bit democratic, in the way that you might like to be a little bit pregnant. But a return to democracy means giving Cantabrians the right to elect their regional councillors. This legislation does not do that. It does not return Canterbury to what the rest of the country enjoys, and that is a democratically elected regional council.

The Minister needs to justify this, and I look forward to the Minister taking a call to justify this, because he has failed to do so to this date. There is simply no justification for this. The kinds of arguments that we have heard put up—that democracy is a little bit risky. The people who elected this Minister might like to be a little bit afraid that their elected representatives considered the system of representation under which he is elected is risky.

I am sure we will get into those debates more fully, in a more substantive part of this bill—the idea that this has to be done for the good of Canterbury. We will have a discussion about water quality in Canterbury, and we will see that in the 6 years since the commissioners have been in place, we have seen a decline in water quality in our region. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the justifications are, why he never went to the people of Canterbury with a broader set of proposals, and an assurance that, in his mind, this is the end of the road. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This bill, the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill, is an abominable bill, and the Green Party will continue to strongly oppose it. One of the first things that a Green Party in Government next year would do is repeal the bill and restore a fully elected regional council to Canterbury.

When the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, stands up to speak on the bill, I am sure we will hear a lot of cant and misinformation about the state of Environment Canterbury prior to his axing the regional councillors. He did it again in question time today. He talked about there being no red zones. Well, Minister, there were red zones and the elected regional council was in the process of reviewing the resource consents—the allocation of water takes from groundwater in those zones. Minister, there was already a Canterbury Water Management Strategy because it had been developed by elected councillors and the strategy finalised, before you axed them. There was already a natural resources regional plan, which although not operative was in a proposed state and was picked up by the appointed commissioners a couple of months after they were appointed.

I would like to explore in Part 1 the relationship between the Local Government Act and the bill, because clause 7 talks about the relationship between the Local Electoral Act and the Resource Management Act and this bill. The purpose of the Local Government Act is to provide for democratic and effective local government. Democratic local government is an important check on the power of the executive. It is a legitimate expectation in our society that we should be able to elect people at the local and regional levels to represent us, to make decisions about the rates that we pay, and how those rates are spent. There is $80 million - odd of rates in Environment Canterbury. But the second-class model that this bill provides, with seven elected councillors and six appointed members, means that nearly half of the people around the table will not be accountable to Cantabrians for the decisions they are making about the spending of taxes, in the form of rates. That is not democratic.

The purpose in this bill is not about improving democracy; it is mechanistic. It continues to deprive Cantabrians of a fully elected council. As one submitter, John Summers, said, it substitutes and provides a cheap fairground consolation prize with this notion of being able to elect only seven councillors. As Mr Summers said, history shows that power is addictive, not readily relinquished. The only bill we should be talking about today should be complete democracy, not this watered-down version that the Government is bringing to us, because by removing that fully elected council, we are removing a check on the power of central government.

Many submitters commented on this. The Law Society noted that it removed that underlying relationship between the citizen and the State at the local level by removing that accountability to ratepayers. Associate Professor Bronwyn Hayward, the head of the department of political science and international relations at the University of Canterbury, commented in her submission that this bill was implementing a form of governance that Canterbury University teaches students about in regard to developing economies where governance is at risk of corruption, gerrymandering, and undue influence on the democratic process.

This National Government should be ashamed that it is putting in place a regime in Canterbury that applies absolutely nowhere else in New Zealand. Even in Kaipara, where you had a $50 million to $60 million blowout in spending by the Kaipara District Council, and commissioners being appointed—this year, citizens in Kaipara will get the chance to elect their local council. Why do we have this mixed model, the second-class democracy that the Government is imposing on the region? Well, it is because of water—the fact that 60 percent of the water allocated for irrigation in New Zealand is used in Canterbury. This very partisan bill is enabling the Government to keep its fingers in the till and ensure that water management plans in Canterbury are amenable to irrigators, because, of course, it was Irrigation New Zealand that went crying to Government in 2010 when an elected council sought to improve the flow.

I am not at all surprised by the very defensive contribution from Eugenie Sage, because she was one of the regional councillors who sat on the governance body of the most dysfunctional unit of local government in New Zealand. She went on to say that it was the farmers or the irrigators who asked the Government to intervene in Environment Canterbury. Actually, it was the 10 mayors of Canterbury who unanimously came to the Government: the Mayor of Christchurch, the Mayor of “Waimak”, the Mayor of Selwyn, the mayor—the ten mayors of Canterbury. Mayors do not often agree and they unanimously expressed no confidence in the body of which Eugenie Sage was a member.

The second point I would want to make is that anybody who is engaged in the water issue in New Zealand knows that nowhere is it as important and pertinent as it is in Canterbury. It is where 70 percent of the irrigation in New Zealand takes place. It is where we have got our biggest challenges around water quality. It is also where over 50 percent of our hydroelectricity is stored in New Zealand. Despite all those factors, in 20 years of the regional council we still had no operative rules around fresh water.

That was a disaster for New Zealand, and it was absolutely right of this Government to say that our fresh water in Canterbury deserves better and that we need to get some high-skilled people to get on top of these challenges. I salute the work of Dame Margaret Bazley; of people the likes of David Caygill, who does not share my politics but does have a great deal of public service ability and dedication; of people like Tom Lambie and those other commissioners. When I reflect on the sort of extravagant language about those commissioners from people like Eugenie Sage, and what I have just heard from Megan Woods, I say that they are out of touch with the people who have actually done more to improve the management of water in Canterbury than anybody in a century.

I want to challenge Megan Woods on a very basic point. She used language saying that it was Draconian, that the votes of Canterbury were stolen by this National John Key - led Government. Did Helen Clark steal the votes of all Aucklanders when she sacked the Auckland District Health Board? Did the member David Cunliffe, whom, I think, Megan Woods was a strong supporter of being a leader—did he steal democracy when he sacked the Auckland District Health Board? Did her good friend Sandra Lee, previously from the Alliance, steal democracy from the people of Kaipara when she sacked that council? Was there a stealing of democracy when the Rodney District Council was properly dismissed? The report was overwhelming: Environment Canterbury had the worst record in processing consents, in statistics that were recorded, and intervention was required.

Megan Woods has asked for a reassurance—that is, whether there will be local body elections in 2019, the same as for every other regional council in New Zealand. I give that assurance absolutely, but I also say that if we really are concerned about the water issues in Canterbury, then we need to ensure that there is a smooth transition. That is why, actually, the majority of councils in Canterbury have supported the transitional approach that is taken in this bill.

I also want to reflect on an editorial in the Christchurch Press. I go back and read it from when I announced the decision to sack the councillors and to appoint commissioners. The editorial said this: “Voters will get to judge the merits of the Government’s moves at the election in 2011.” When we extended the arrangement, the editorial in the Christchurch Press said: “Voters will get to have their say on whether they support National in these interventions at the 2014 election.” Well, what is surprising, and where I think we feel how out of touch Megan Woods and Eugenie Sage are from public opinion, is that, actually, National got the best results ever in the history of Canterbury, holding seats like Nicky Wagner’s in Christchurch Central, because the voters knew that we had acted absolutely in the public interest and in the interests of fresh water with the intervention that we made at that time.

This bill is about taking a responsible approach to Government. It is ensuring that we maintain the momentum and a sensible transition around those crucial freshwater issues that are being developed in a collaborative way across Canterbury. For those who really do beat their chests in this Chamber, concerned about this country lifting its game about fresh water, they will back the commissioners and they will back the Government in its intervention, because every independent observer has noted that there has been more done over the last 6 years in respect of improving the management of fresh water than what there had been in the previous 60 years.

The fact of those red zones, the fact of those plans that have been put in place—well, Eugenie Sage strokes her head. Tell me, how many dairy farm expansions had been declined in the period when she was an Environment Canterbury commissioner? Do you know what the answer is? Absolutely zero—absolutely zero. In fact, if she looks at the record of the growth in the amount of dairy industry in Canterbury, it actually grew at its fastest and most uncontrolled rate when she sat on the governance body of that board.

Actually, the limits that have been put in place around nutrients is causing real tension, real pressure in Canterbury, but at last the issues of fresh water in Canterbury are being properly constrained. Those diffuse pollution issues are having limits put on them, which is absolutely proper. That is why I urge this Committee to look at the progress that has been made, back those commissioners, and ensure there is a smooth transition. Again, I would say that what the Government is doing is actually backed by the majority of the councils in Canterbury. That is why we should see this smooth transition through and ensure that the job we started in 2010 is properly completed, for the good of the people of Canterbury.

That contribution from Minister Smith was very interesting, because if you do look at what the record of the commissioners has been, it has not been about improving water quality. We have seen, in Canterbury, despite what the Minister says, a decrease in water quality. We have seen in Canterbury, some of—Te Waihora, Lake Ellesmere. The Waihora-Selwyn catchment drains into Lake Ellesmere. Te Waihora is New Zealand’s fifth-largest lake and it is an important taonga to Ngāi Tahu, and yet we had the chair of the commissioners writing to the Selwyn District Council encouraging the council to agree to an $8 million loan from ratepayers to subsidise the second stage of the Central Plains irrigation scheme.

The Minister can talk about the hundreds of millions that are being spent on cleaning up our lakes and rivers, but it does not make any sense to put more money into subsidising irrigation to intensify land use in a catchment where that drains to Te Waihora and that will increase nutrient pollution in the lake. At the moment we have got a major increase in nitrogen and phosphorous loadings in the lake. We need a 50 percent reduction in the current levels of nutrient pollution to get to a trophic lake index of six or less, which would help the lake to restore itself. We are not getting that where we get the chair of the commissioners not only in regulation but involved in promoting irrigation through encouraging the Selwyn District Council to fund the second stage of the Central Plains Water scheme.

What we have also seen in Canterbury is the decline in the number of swimmable rivers. We had the commissioners promising that 80 percent of rivers would be suitable for swimming by 2015. In 2010, 74 percent of monitored river sites were safe for swimming; yet, in 2016 only 67 percent are. The commissioners have not improved water quality—sure, in a few small areas, but across the region, no, because of the huge scale of intensification.

Yes, the Minister is right: intensification was increasing under the elected councillors’ regime, but there had been a failure by successive Governments to actually implement national direction through a national policy statement and national standards. Yes, we now have that national direction under this Government, but it provides an aspiration of wadeable rivers, not swimmable rivers. So we continue to see water quality declining in the region.

We had a lot of submitters talking about that—about high-country lakes that were previously rated clean and blue by the regional council in its monitoring and now most of them are rated just of moderate quality. You have had dairying expanding in the catchments of high-country lakes rather than being prohibited by Environment Canterbury. As one submitter, Penelope Snowdon-Lait, said: “Despite the small gains in pulling back pollution here and there, overall we are on a treadmill without hope under the current model.” This bill is not about improved water management, as the principal Act claimed to be, when we have seen a continued decline and deterioration in water quality.

The Minister said that all of the councils supported the commissioners replacing the elected councillors. This time, on this bill, the Christchurch City Council highlighted that there should not be a continuation of this half-pie model. Yes, the Minister is holding up his hands. Christchurch—in case the Minister did not realise, and I am sure he does—is the second-largest city in New Zealand. This bill halves the representation for elected councillors for Christchurch and it substantially reduces our overall representation by increasing the number of citizens who are represented by each councillor.

In 2007, when we had elected councillors, in Christchurch there were between 37,000 and 39,000 citizens for every councillor. Under this bill we will now have 90,475 citizens represented by one councillor. The number of councillors representing the city of Christchurch is halved, from eight to four, and they are having to represent almost double the number of citizens. That is not democracy in action, and that is why the Christchurch City Council made a very strong submission calling for a return of an elected council. We have not heard a justification from the Government, either in the discussion document it put out—

Just following on from what Eugenie Sage was saying, I wanted to say, first of all, about Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill, that the purpose is stated as being to establish a transitional, elected, and appointed mixed Environment Canterbury, but, actually, it does not say anywhere why. Nor has the Minister for the Environment, or any other person from the National Party, yet explained comprehensively why there needs to be a mixed, elected, or appointed body. The bill itself certainly does not say that, even in the purpose clause. Furthermore, clause 3(1)(c) refers to “a majority of members of the Council to be elected”, but that majority is usually only one—so it is the least-possible, paper-thin majority that is possible, and as we will see when we come to discuss Part 2, there will not necessarily always be a majority of elected people either. But that is something for us to discuss later. So, really, this is not just a hybrid; it is a hybrid that may actually not be in any way at all democratic. In fact, you cannot really describe a body that is partly elected and partly appointed as democratic anyway.

The point is that the crux of the whole bill is just this: there actually is not any need after 6 years for any appointed members of Environment Canterbury at all. As I have said, there is no justification in the bill and nor has the Minister described why that should be necessary in any way that I have heard to be comprehensible and meaningful. When you look at the objectives of the 2010 appointments—fundamentally to make sure that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy was developed, adopted, and given effect to—then you could say that today, as we speak, that has actually already been achieved. So, again, it has been achieved. I mean, I live in Canterbury and I am the chairman of the Central Plains Water Trust. I actually take notice of these things, and what is there is already so well entrenched that it would simply not be possible at all for that to be done away with, either in practice or by any process.

There is no reason any longer for the continuation of any commissioners. I would like to hear the Minister comment on that. A return to democracy is in fact essential after 6 years because Environment Canterbury has already lost its credibility as a representative body for the people of Canterbury—it has already lost that. The years have been too long and too difficult for it to be seen in that way anymore. So it is a very serious thing when that happens, and it should not go on for another 3 years—to make 9 years in total. It is wrong also to treat Canterbury differently from any other region for such a very long period of time.

I will say this. I agree over one thing with the Minister: in 2010 it was necessary, I believe, for Environment Canterbury to have been replaced by appointees. But, in fact, 9 years will be far, far too long for that to continue without any really robust reason for that. As I have already said, without a fully elected body you cannot regard the new Environment Canterbury—the transitional one—as being in any way democratic at all, because it is simply not possible for it to operate in that way with so many appointed members.

New Zealand First is committed to an effective local democracy, which means elected people. It is one thing to dismiss elected councillors way back in 2010 but it is another thing altogether for it to go on for 9 years—that is a tremendously long period of time. In fact, the time should have been the shortest possible time because in the Cabinet paper prepared at the time of the Creech report, it actually said this: “the explicit intent is for the Commissioners to withdraw and to be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.” As I have already said, that in fact has already been achieved. The Government has not explained why the appointment of commissioners should continue to be necessary after 6 years, and it needs to do that if it is to have any credibility with this bill at all. So I would ask the Minister to actually stand up right now and give us a full explanation of why that is necessary.

Denis O’Rourke, in his closing comments, made a very interesting and valid point. He called on the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, to justify why, after sacking Environment Canterbury in 2010 then breaking his word, along with the Prime Minister, in 2013 when he said he would reinstate full democratic elections, he is extending out further transitional provisions and enabling the Government to appoint a large component of councillors—up to six, I believe, with seven or so elected councillors—mainly from, of course, as the Minister knows, rural areas. One could make a rather interesting series of conversations about gerrymandering and other things. I could perceive where a number of those elected Environment Canterbury folk will stack up, as opposed to those who are appointed. But Mr O’Rourke made the point—and it is a fair question, which I put to the Minister as well: why the extension?

In 2010 the Minister in the chair sacked Environment Canterbury. In 2013 he said: “No, we will reinstate them.” Then he extended it again. He broke his word—absolutely broke his word. It has been reported on time and time and time again within this House. Then we move right through to 2019 and the Minister expects us to stand up and take him at his word again—take another sort of Nick Smith Lotto ticket—that he will not come back and pull the wool over Cantabrians.

The other interesting thing about this bill is that last week, the Minister might recall, his colleague Gerry Brownlee, with a lot of consultation and a lot of cooperative effort, to give him credit, decided to take on board the concerns of Cantabrians and submitters in respect of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in order that Cantabrians take the power back, to a large extent—with Crown input, which is appropriate—and take control, if you will, in partnership with the Government, in respect of regenerating Christchurch. I think that was a pretty good process. The Minister listened and he accepted that we have got smart people in Christchurch and Canterbury who are chomping at the bit to shoulder more responsibility in these big issues—and they are huge issues—in respect of the earthquake in Canterbury. The political forces across the aisle acknowledged submitters, and political parties listened to them, and it was agreed that Cantabrians were smart, were responsible, and could be masters of their own destiny.

Yet fast forward to a week later and we come to this bill, and now, of course, we get a whole historic litany of justification: firstly for why it was that the Minister sacked Environment Canterbury, then, secondly, why it was that he broke his word in 2013, but there is no explanation as to why this bill does what it does, because what this bill does is continue to perpetuate the fact that Nick Smith broke his word—9 years, it will be. It just perpetuates that issue. There has not been one explanation from the Minister as to why Cantabrians cannot rule their own roost and why they require to be babysat by commissioners, who are unaccountable commissioners—and I will not get into quality or lack of quality. I think there are many things the commissioners have done that are pretty good, but the point remains that they are answerable to that Minister and they are answerable to this Government.

In the old days you could go to an Environment Canterbury councillor, like an elected MP, and say “Look, I’ve got a problem”, and you could hold their feet to the fire. The truth is that those commissioners are not responsible to the people of Canterbury, nor accountable to the people of Canterbury. They are responsible to that man sitting in that chair and his Government, like those whom he will appoint to babysit the component of elected—mainly rural, but elected— Environment Canterbury councillors who will be elected in respect of this piece of legislation. So we have got Gerry Brownlee, who says “Listen to the people, Cantabrians are smart. We are going to give them what they asked for. They are smart enough, they have the spirit to actually start shouldering a major chunk of the responsibility, or greater chunks of responsibility, in Canterbury”, and then we have this guy, who says “Oh, no, no. They’re not smart enough; they cannot be trusted.” By the way, not only can we not trust those elected but also, of course, by default, the Minister is saying he does not trust the people of Canterbury to elect from their number smart, professional people who will actually do the job. Nick Smith does not trust the people of Canterbury. That is, effectively, what he is saying, because—[Bell rung] Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Sorry; I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

A day late, a dollar short—nothing changes. I say to that Minister that he should actually give an explanation as to why he does not trust the people of Canterbury, because, as I have just said, before he tried to jump in with one of his usual efforts, by not allowing full elections—full elections where all Cantabrians can elect leaders from among their number—he is, effectively, saying that he does not trust those constituents to elect smart people. That is, essentially, what he is saying.

It would be really good to get an explanation—not the histrionics we have heard in the speeches about what went on in 2010 and the justifications for breaking his word in 2013. No, no. The Minister purports that this is a forward-looking piece of legislation. Well, I invite him to look in his crystal ball and forward-look and give us an explanation as to why he does not trust the constituents whom Mr Doocey and other members—Ms Woods and others—represent in Canterbury. I invite him to tell us why he does not trust them and why he thinks that the people they will elect, the small component they will elect, will not be smart enough, will not be up to it, and will not be trustworthy. There is a question for the Minister. There is a forward-looking question, and I look forward to the answer—not histrionics.

There is such a contrast between this piece of legislation and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, so maybe he should elbow his colleague Gerry Brownlee, who does reside in Christchurch and who does understand the people of Canterbury, and he demonstrated that last week. Maybe he should give him one in the ribs and say: “Gerry, why is it that you trust the people you represent but I sit in Nelson and I don’t trust these Cantabrians? I know it is not a rugby thing, but, why don’t I trust them? Why don’t I trust them? Why do I know better?”. This Minister is great at telling us why he knows better than anybody else, why he knows better than his mate Gerry Brownlee—who does trust his fellow citizens—and why he knows better than the people of Canterbury. He has demonstrated that he has broken his word. He has demonstrated that he cannot justify this continuing. I ask him now to demonstrate why he does not trust Cantabrians.

I can totally relate as to why the people of Waimakariri twice rejected Clayton Cosgrove as their member of Parliament, with the sort of nastiness that we got from that contribution. Megan Woods asked earlier whether I could give an assurance that there would be local elections in 2019. I responded in good faith to Megan Woods’ response, and then the next Labour member comes along and says: “Well, I don’t want to get an assurance anyway, because I wouldn’t believe it if I got it.” One, it shows you the level of disunity within the Labour Party, but, secondly, it shows the lack of good faith.

The question that Mr Cosgrove asked, and which was also asked by Mr O’Rourke, was in terms of why we need this transition. There is a very simple reason. There are eight water zones in Canterbury. Two of them now have a fully operative set of plans around water. Six of them are halfway through the process. We have commissioners like Peter Skelton, a former Environment Court judge, who ensure there is a great deal of legal scrutiny and appropriateness for us to have a single-track process, without appeals to the Environment Court, to get water plans in place in all six of those zones. The reason Government members want to see, quite simply, a continuity of those commissioners, and see this work done, is that every water zone in Canterbury needs an operative plan. They are two out of eight through that process, we need to see it through, and any member of this Committee who is genuinely concerned about getting robust rules in place for water will want to see that piece of work completed, as is provided for in this bill.

It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. Clause 3(2)(b), I think it is, sets up the mixed-model arrangement for the Canterbury Regional Council, where there will be seven elected members—up to six members appointed by the Government—but still not a complete return to the democracy that we had in 2010. That—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is perfectly proper for the member to want to have a debate about those governance clauses, but they are not covered in Part 1. The clause that he has quoted is the incorrect number, and the contribution he wishes to make should be made during the correct part of the debate.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, can I point you to clause 3(2)(b) of the purpose clause, which states that the legislation “provides for a new governing body for the Canterbury Regional Council comprising a mix of elected and appointed members;”?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I take the member’s point, and it is one of a number of points covered in this first part. However, I also take the point the Minister has made, which is that they are far more focused on in future parts. So I am not suggesting that the member has contravened the rules just yet, but I just bring them to his attention.

Thank you for your clarification and for the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith. Well, because this Act sets up the new governing body for the Canterbury Regional Council comprising a mix of elected and appointed members, which is pointed out in Part 1, I would like to point out to you some of the risk factors that the officials saw in the setting up of this mixed model. These are helpfully on the front page of the regulatory impact statement, which is provided for members on the Table, if anyone from across the way might want to look at it.

The first point that the officials raised around this mixed model, which is mentioned in Part 1, was that “Public consultation was confined to a proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure, rather than the range of options in the RIS.” The question that I would like to pose to the Minister in the chair is why the narrow focus on this mixed model and not a good look at the range of options, as contained in the regulatory impact statement, that were posed by the officials. If the Minister would like to take the opportunity to talk to that point, which was raised by officials around the narrow focus and almost the dumb-minded intent of just looking at one option, I would appreciate it—if the Minister could take a call and explain that to us.

Helpfully, the officials go on because they have concerns around the mixed model that we have here. They go on to say in the regulatory impact statement: “This [model] still limits our ability to present full community views on other options in this Regulatory Impact Statement which were not described in the discussion document.” I would like to point out the point that Clayton Cosgrove, I think, made, that around the Regenerate Christchurch legislation that went through this House last week, Gerry Brownlee worked with all parties in this House to get a compromise that everyone was happy with in order to let the people of Christchurch have their voice around the rebuild of that very important city. Yet a different approach has been taken with this piece of legislation and there will not be an effective view around Environment Canterbury. That is another question I want to pose to the Minister: if Minister Brownlee was quite happy to take that approach with the Regenerate Christchurch legislation, why in this legislation under this regulatory impact statement has the Minister not taken a similar approach?

Again, the officials—we are talking about the mixed model, which is pointed out in Part 1—go on to another concern: “While based on the District Health Board model, the proposed governance model has an element of uncertainty as to its effectiveness as it has not been used previously in a local governance context.” I think that shows that the officials shared some of the concerns—or many of the concerns—that we have on this side of the Chamber as to whether this mixed-model approach will work for Christchurch. When we were debating the Regenerate Christchurch legislation last week there was unanimous feeling around this House that we had to get legislation around Christchurch right. That is why Gerry Brownlee took that approach and that is why, I think, the Minister needs to explain, when there are concerns around the effectiveness of the model that he is proposing for Environment Canterbury, why he is taking this approach to take a different approach. Why is he not taking the approach that Minister Brownlee has said will make sure that his legislation is effective for Christchurch, but this Minister says it is different?

The officials helpfully go on to say: “The appointment of councillors is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government.” In English, they are saying that there is going to be no local voice for those people when it comes to this piece of legislation. You would wonder, and I would hazard a guess, that Mr Smith might get up and say: “Well, that is a bunch of lefties—

I move, That the question be now put.

Just before I was interrupted by the buzzer, I was raising the point that there is a concern for some that there is unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government. That was on the front page of the regulatory impact statement. In essence, it was that Christchurch would not have a local voice. You might think that the Government might say that that was lefties, tree-huggers who do not think they are getting listened to in Christchurch. But, funnily enough, it was the Law Society that submitted at the select committee that it was the local voice that was being taken away.

So I will take this opportunity to quote directly from the submission from the Law Society because I think it very much succinctly encapsulates many of the concerns that we have on this side of the Chamber around the lack of democracy that is contained within this bill. Its submission said—and I think this is also very much its submission that it made on the 2013 amendment Act: “Underlying the reasons and the Amendment Bill is a concerning idea: that effective leadership, at a regional level at least, is best achieved through a non-democratic and non-representative institution.” The Law Society says: “This is misguided. The failure to involve citizens in regional decision-making that affects them so directly, and to draw directly on their knowledge and expertise, often has adverse and unexpected consequences. History has long shown the perils of non-democratic leadership, a matter that the New Zealand Government has railed against within the Pacific region.”

So to have this quasi mixed-model arrangement for Canterbury has been pointed out by many, many bodies, as well as political parties, as not being the best fit for Christchurch. I think in a city where we need to get the rebuild right, where we need to get some of these issues around resource allocation right, that the people of Christchurch are entitled to have their voice. The people of Christchurch should not be fooled by the fact that the Government says this is a transition back to democracy. It is still holding back full democracy, which they fully deserve. They fully deserve it. They do not deserve some mixed model of: “Well, you can have seven and we’ll appoint six.” Their votes should have exactly the same effect as votes for the Wellington region, where I will get to choose the members who will be on the Greater Wellington Regional Council.

A political impasse around resource allocation is not a good enough reason to take away democracy from Canterbury and that is what this is all about. It is not about people not getting on. It is not about taking away democracy. It is not about a rebuild. It is about this Government saying: “Well, we can’t get what we want done under the democratic votes that happened in Christchurch under that frame because there is an impasse.” So instead of letting democracy sort that out and waiting for the next election, potentially, and putting forward its case—even if our side of the equation lost that democratic argument, that is democracy. But instead of saying “Let’s let democracy win and put our case.”, it says: “Well, to hell with democracy. Let’s get rid of the people who were elected on to this board, to make sure we get the result that we want.” I think that New Zealanders around this country, regardless of whether they are from the Canterbury region or not, will be very, very concerned that this is the third time—not the first, not the second; it is the third time—that we are implementing this legislation to take away their local democratic voice.

The Government may have genuine concerns around resource allocation in Christchurch around water rights but changing the democratic functions of Environment Canterbury is not the way to fix this problem. We told them that in 2010, we told them that in 2013, and now it is going to be 2019 before the people of Christchurch get to elect a full board of Environment Canterbury. Nick Smith is to blame for that because he says that democracy should not win and that his Government should win because they want to get a certain outcome. In this House, and as has been pointed out by the Law Society, we do not want that to happen in the likes of the Pacific but it is fine here in New Zealand. I think the Minister should explain himself as to why he thinks it is not OK in the likes of Fiji, and we encourage democracy in Fiji, but it is OK in Canterbury. Get up on your feet and answer that question.

I am pleased to take a short call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill and to speak to the point around this being a transitional governance arrangement that will be providing a mixed model of democracy for the people of Canterbury.

I want to restate the point that the case was never made or accepted by the people of Canterbury for the removal of their council. Although the Minister is acknowledging my point, nodding enthusiastically that that is true—in saying that, although there were issues over the water management and the Government’s perception was that things were not happening quickly enough, the people of Canterbury never got to say whether they shared the Minister’s view that that was a problem, because the Government removed their board and did not give them that democratic right to intervene and make a decision on that. Although the Minister has spoken in this Committee and said “Well, now we have plans in place that we did not have before.”, my understanding is that the bulk of the work that led to the production of those plans was done by the previous board that he sacked.

I would also point out that where the Minister has said we cannot get rid of these appointed officials because the status of water in Canterbury is critical to that area—we absolutely share that view, in the Green Party. However, it is concerning when waterways have actually become more degraded under this model of governance than they were previously, and when we have just seen recently in the media that, in a very water-resource constrained area, 40 billion litres of water are now going to be able to be sold and sent offshore via a resource consent that, I understand, was approved by this governance board, which the people of Canterbury are understandably very upset about.

What I am seeing is that no case was made. There was no chance for the people of Canterbury to approve or express their view of the Government’s perception, and there was no improvement of water quality. Of the 1,169 submissions on this bill, only 15 supported it. The people of Canterbury have said, very strongly, to this Government, to the Minister, and to this House that they do not want this. The strong thread through the submissions was that people want their democracy back. They want to be able to vote for the full board, and they do not support the belief that there is any value in this mixed model. That is a view that is shared by the Green Party.

I would again restate a quote from the Law Society, when it was submitting on this bill, around the cause of it: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power. … it [is] one of the ‘unalterable fundamentals’ of our legal system (the other being independent courts). The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of [our] core constitutional values, namely a ‘free and democratic society’.” What this bill is doing, although you are saying it is a transitional arrangement, is it is an ongoing attack on the absolute fundamentals of this society, of what most people in New Zealand thought was an accepted precept of how we work together and how this country functions.

For the Government to say “We don’t like it because we’re not getting the outcome that we want.”—well, you know, I could stand up and say: “Well, I don’t like the way that the Government is working and the results that you are getting. I’d like to appoint some independent people that I think would do a better job.” I am not elected, I have not been given that power, but neither were you, Minister. You have been elected into a position here, not in that community, and that community has a democratic right to say how its resources are used.

It is my pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of this bill—but is it actually a pleasure, because here we are, yet again, debating legislation that is denying the people of Canterbury their full democratic rights to elect a full regional council. Every time this subject is raised in this House, I am reminded of the stone cairn that stands in Cathedral Square in Christchurch. That stone cairn was erected back in 2010 by the thousands of Cantabrians who were very concerned and aghast that this Government was going to be stripping them of their democratic rights, stripping them of their elected regional councillors.

That was a very passionate act by the people of Canterbury. The stones in that cairn stand so high; it is probably as tall as I am. The stones in that structure are drawn from many of the rivers that are in the wider Canterbury catchment. That cairn marks the loss of democracy. That cairn was erected in 2010, and here we are in 2016 debating more legislation that will extend the stripping of the rights of Cantabrians for another 3 years. So from 2010 to 2019 the people of Canterbury are being denied their right, their democratic right, to elect their regional councillors.

We have heard from the Minister Nick Smith. He trots out the same excuses and justifications all the time. He will make disparaging remarks about anybody who has a contrary view to his. But what we need to remember is that whatever body the council may be—and we are now talking about a transitional governing body—at the end of the day the water issues in Canterbury, in the wider Canterbury region, are not going to be fixed by this body. They are not going to be fixed by bodies beyond that time. Hopefully, it will be an elected body, though, that will advocate for, and represent, the people of Canterbury to ensure that there will be some better managed water in the region. But we are talking about issues that are very complex. In essence, we are talking about not having enough water and a lot of competing interests who need that water. That is not going to be fixed overnight.

So I raise the hypothetical question: what if, come 2019, the plans are still not in place? What say this transitional governing body still has not completed the work that it was charged to do? I know that Dame Margaret Bazley and David Caygill are outstanding public servants and are highly esteemed—highly esteemed—but that is a monumental task they have before them. They have made some progress, but what say they have not completed the task? What then? Do we come back to this House and put through more legislation to push it out even further: “Oh, we need more time. The people of Canterbury—we can’t trust them to elect. We need to have this transitional period for a little bit longer.”? So it goes on and on and on. We have seen this from 2013, and here we are in 2016 with legislation that goes all the way out to 2019.

No matter which way you want to construct things, or proscribe things, or prescribe an outcome for the people of Canterbury, ultimately we have to take the decision back to the people and let them have their say as to who will represent them on the regional council.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am going to hear from the Hon David Parker. He is on the select committee.

I want to address two of the issues that the Hon Nick Smith raised. Firstly, I heard him say that Environment Canterbury was the worst regional council that there has ever been. I know that my colleague Eugenie Sage is, quite rightly, defensive of the prior council on which she served. But I think I do agree with the Minister—and there is truth in both these propositions.

It is right that it was wrong that all those years after the Resource Management Act, Environment Canterbury still did not have an effective water plan in place. It is also true that the most recently elected council, of which Eugenie Sage was part, had actually made more progress towards the creation of a water plan than any of the other prior councils. So I can understand her taking umbrage at some of the generalised criticisms that were made by Nick Smith. Can I say that I do not think you should have taxation without representation. It is a basic precept of democracy.

💬 Denis O’Rourke: Fundamental.

Fundamental, thank you. It is fundamental. It has been so long already that we have had rates being imposed by a council that is not democratic that it is just time to go back to a fully democratic one. I think it is good that David Caygill is actually one of the commissioners standing for the council. All of them could do that if they wanted to continue on in that role, and, actually, I suspect that some of them would get elected, and you could have that continuity in that way.

I want to mention another thing. I am bit tired of Dr Smith pretending that nothing was ever done before he walked the Earth, when in actual fact there was a national policy statement waiting to be implemented mere weeks after the change of Government. Nick Smith shakes his head, and the excuse he normally gives when he speaks is that it was illegal—that the national policy statement that was prepared by the Principal Planning Judge of New Zealand, Judge Sheppard, was somehow in breach of the Resource Management Act, but he has never been willing to release the legal advice to that effect. And if it was illegal because it was prescriptive in what needed to be done in terms of controlling intensity of land use, which is the main reason why water quality has continued to get worse, why did they not change the law then, rather than changing the law now in the Resource Management Act legislation that has just been given a first reading in this House a couple of months ago?

In reality, that is what needed to happen. Actually, what needed to happen was that someone needed to say that things that are clean ought to stay clean and things that are dirty ought to be cleaned up over, say, a generation. And because we know that it is increases in land use intensity, with more irrigation, more fertiliser, more livestock effluent adding the nutrient and faecal chloroform load on waterways—that is what needed to be controlled and has not been. Even now, it is not controlled properly.

I know that the plan we now have in Environment Canterbury is a lot better, and I am actually pleased that the Minister did appoint those commissioners and clean out a lot of the crap that we have in plans that is unnecessary and makes them complex, as it makes them more readable instruments that actually do what they are meant to do. But even in Canterbury we have still got declining water quality. I was out just a matter of weeks ago fly fishing in the back country of Canterbury. I was there with a friend of mine who uses a fishing guide. The fishing guide said that in the last 3 years he has stopped using rivers like the lower stretches of the Ōpihi and other mid - South Canterbury rivers that are continuing to get worse year by year. I was going to say day by day, but that is not right—year by year. The big difference has been that in the last 3 years it has got so bad that he no longer fishes them. He can no longer take people along there to fish them. We saw those photos on Q+A in the weekend. Some of those rivers are being sucked dry, the minimum flows are not high enough, and the water quality controls are not good enough.

I am ready to trust our democratically elected environmental people to do their job. I would also note that the good work that these commissioners have done actually has not been because of the national policy statement. That is actually not what has caused them to do what they have done. They have done that notwithstanding the national policy statement.

Lastly, before I sit down, I think the so-called collaborative processes that we have got under the Land and Water Forum have failed. I know the Land and Water Forum has done some good things, but they are actually lowest common denominator outcomes. It cannot agree on things like pricing. This Ashburton thing where billions of litres of water are going to be bottled at profit with no price imposed—on the Land and Water Forum some wanted to, but they could never agree.

I move, That the question be now put.