Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

I would like to speak in this first contribution on clauses 8 and 10. Clauses 8 and 10, of course, are where the transitional governing body is established and the process for electing members to that body. This really is where the substance of this legislation is.

These clauses of the bill were subject to a number of submissions, and the bulk of the submissions that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard—there were 76 submissions from individuals and organisations and 1,076 form-based submissions—objected to the non-democratic mode that was being established under this transitional body. For example, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, in its submission, was opposed to having Government-appointed members on the council, whom the people of Christchurch are expected to trust have their interests at heart without any ability to know whether that is the case. This was just one of many submissions.

What clause 8 of this legislation does is establish that there be seven elected members and six appointed members. This is the part of the legislation where the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government are able to appoint these members to the body, rather than like in every other part of the country, where electors who are registered to vote get to elect 100 percent of their regional councillors.

I would just like to pick up on one of the contributions that the Minister for the Environment made in a previous part of the legislation. He seemed to in no way answer the call as to why a case for a different set of circumstances is required in Canterbury, and I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he has plans for rolling this out any further outside Canterbury because I do not think just the people of Canterbury should be concerned about this legislation. This legislation sets a dangerous precedent, which is that central government takes control of what should be a locally elected council and puts that in place.

This is not something the Minister will be unaware of because this is, of course, something the Minister did receive some advice on, and we know some of the updates the Minister for the Environment was receiving said the purpose of local government includes “providing democratic local decision-making and action. Long-term unconventional arrangements in Canterbury could create a precedent for further ad hoc local governance and service delivery arrangements.” So officials were warning Ministers that there would be a concern this is a precedent-setting set of circumstances that we are putting in place under clause 8 of this legislation on the transitional governing body. I am most eager to hear the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, talk more about that.

My colleague the member for Mana raised some of the Law Society’s submissions around this very fundamental aspect of who it is who is going to govern the region of Canterbury, its services, and its assets. The Law Society stated 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.” I would like to hear the Minister’s response to the Law Society’s raising that in its submission to the select committee, because I think we should not ignore the submissions that came before the select committee.

The select committee process was terrible. There was only around a week that was open for people to get their submissions in, and the process was truncated. It is not acceptable when a piece of legislation contains a clause such as clause 8, which is the further suspension of democracy in a region, that a Minister and a Government think it is OK to put that legislation through in a rushed and clumsy process. As I said in an earlier contribution, it is not like the Minister did not know. It had been 3 years since he had last cancelled elections in Canterbury. You would have thought he would have had it marked on his calendar—“Time to cancel elections again in Canterbury.”—and could have planned his time accordingly, but no. Instead, the people of Canterbury did not even get an adequate opportunity to comment on such a fundamental clause as clause 8 of this legislation.

I would also like to talk about clause 10 now, which is the process for electing members. Of course, once this legislation is enacted, what will happen is there will be a representation, the representation processes will go into place, and the boundaries will be established. In terms of the number of electors, some work has been done on this already. Clause 10 sets this out very clearly in the bill as “Seven elected members of the transitional governing body must be elected at the 2016 election—”. It goes on to say that they must be elected through a first-past-the-post system, and then says “One member must be elected by electors within the districts of the following local authorities (the South Canterbury constituency):”. It goes through and it names the mid-Canterbury constituency and the North Canterbury constituency, but if we look very closely at what Ministers were receiving advice on about the possible numbers in each of these constituencies, we see very clearly the Government’s agenda laid bare.

If you live in Christchurch City, under the Government’s proposed model you will have one regional councillor for every 90,475—no, not you, Mr Chairman. You do not live there. You are lucky enough to have an elected regional council. But for the people of Canterbury who live in Christchurch City, they will have one elected regional councillor for every 90,475 people. That is only four regional councillors for the whole of Christchurch City. But if someone is lucky enough to live in South Canterbury, their representation is somewhat more salubrious. They are going to have greater representation because there will be a regional councillor for every 59,770 electors.

I want to hear the Minister take a call and explain the discrepancies in what is otherwise just a good old-fashioned gerrymander. This is nothing more than the Government wanting to stop urban councillors coming in with what it might see as an environmental agenda and asking some questions around the big issues that need to be faced in Canterbury. It shows how short-sighted this Government is, and how out of touch and how arrogant it is. It says one of the justifications for putting in place this gerrymandered council is the need that we have around our water, but it also talks about the functions that have to happen in the recovery, and now the regeneration, of Canterbury. Well, a big part of that has to happen in Christchurch City, and a large part of that function needs to happen within the city. To say there should be only one councillor for every 90,000 electors is simply unacceptable.

The role that Environment Canterbury has to fulfil in Christchurch City—its functions are now enacted under the Regenerate Christchurch legislation. It can be a proponent of regeneration plans. It has a very core aspect to play. So what we are saying is it is not people from Christchurch City who will be proposing those regeneration plans, because we are going to have under-representation of that core area of the region in this newly constituted body—no, we will have people all from outside Christchurch. So I am very much looking forward to the Minister’s call on how it is that that can be justified. I am also looking forward to the Minister taking a call and answering the Law Society’s criticism of what is being established under clause 8 of this legislation, because these are fundamental and important questions that none of us should take lightly.

Let us be very clear. We are standing in this Chamber debating legislation that will further—well, it will not further it, because the vote has already been taken away. But it will do nothing to put in place the democratic rights that the people of Christchurch and Canterbury should consider they have a right to, like any other New Zealander. This is a democratically elected body of people who are debating whether or not a Minister has the power to just override electors and appoint whomever he wants, because this is a Minister who is on the record as saying that democracy is risky. When we have a Minister who thinks democracy is risky, we have in legislation things such as clause 8, which take away the right of Cantabrians to elect their regional council. Thank you.

For the Committee to take seriously the protestations that are being made by Megan Woods when she says that this is an affront to democracy and that I am all these terrible things, she needs to ask this question: was it an affront to democracy when Helen Clark sacked the Auckland District Health Board? Did that make her a person like Rabuka? Does Labour, in fact, support, as the National Government does, Helen Clark becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I don’t think that’s in the bill, Nick.

—and, actually, a person who served this Parliament well? Well, Clayton Cosgrove needs to answer that question.

💬 Kris Faafoi: Is that in Part 2?

Because if it is an affront to democracy, and if the actions that the Government has taken in respect of Environment Canterbury are just the same, I would say to Mr Faafoi, as what Rabuka did in Fiji—if he wants to make that analogy, he has to answer the question as to whether it was OK for Helen Clark to sack the elected Auckland District Health Board. Was it OK for David Cunliffe to sack the elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Was it OK to sack the Rodney District Council? Was it OK to sack the Kaipara District Council? Because the key point that members opposite are not answering is that there is a fundamental difference between a National Government—a sovereign Parliament—and a subsidiary body.

In exactly the same way, I would put this to members: did democracy come to an end when a Labour Government said that it was no longer appropriate to elect electric power boards? We do not elect electric power boards anywhere in the country any more. Is it fundamentally opposed to democracy, the fact that we no longer elect port companies—that we no longer elect harbour boards, which used to be elected? Actually, this Parliament makes choices all the time about specialist bodies—whether they are managing water, whether they are managing health boards, whether they are managing harbours, whether they are managing schools, or whether they are managing a whole number of subsidiary functions—as to what is the best way to run them, and, in our view, quite appropriately.

I acknowledge the sensible contribution from David Parker, who actually acknowledged that the highly skilled commissioners—people like Margaret Bazley, people like Peter Skelton, people like David Caygill—have actually done a very good job of getting on top of the water issues in Canterbury.

Then the second issue is: why is this extension and this transition necessary? Well, actually, when this Parliament passed the Environment Canterbury legislation, we had no idea that 5 months later Canterbury would be struck by the worst earthquake and the biggest national disaster there has been in the lifetime of most parliamentarians in this Committee today. Actually, that earthquake did change things. For instance, a huge amount of the time and effort of the commissioners had to go into the earthquake issues rather than the water issues. The reality is that the building in which Environment Canterbury operated became completely unsafe, and the whole organisation had to relocate. So for members of the Labour Party to disingenuously claim that nothing changed after the Government’s intervention, which required more time to do the work, is to deny the history of Canterbury the significance of the earthquakes, which made the transition and the issues for Environment Canterbury all the more significant.

I also want to take issue with the simply wrong claims—he is wrong on so many occasions—from Clayton Cosgrove, who said a few moments ago that actually there will be more elected members from rural Canterbury than from urban Canterbury. That is not true. The legislation provides for four councillors to be elected from the city of Christchurch and three from the areas of South Canterbury, mid-Canterbury, and North Canterbury. Anybody who knows Canterbury would know that those are well-understood boundaries and that those are the logical areas to be able to bring in those three representatives, covering the areas of South Canterbury, of Ashburton and so on in mid-Canterbury, and of Waimakariri, Hurunui, and Kaikōura in North Canterbury. It is a logical way in which to bring those representatives in.

The two final points I wish to make are these. Members of Labour are saying that it is an affront to democracy and that it is totally wrong to have mixed-member Government bodies. They need to explain why the Labour Government legislated in this Parliament for exactly that structure for the district health boards that operate in every part of this country, and in Canterbury. If they really want to be true to the speeches that they have just given, they will make a commitment in their next speech that every district health board, including Canterbury’s, will be fully elected, because if they do not give that commitment, their contributions are no more than hot air and politics.

The very last point I would make is that members have asked the question of why it is that the further 3 years is required—that is, simply, why Canterbury? It has such huge issues over water—far more significant than any other region—that only two of the zones have operative plans. This 3 years—and it is very clear in the paper trail—will enable us to have a fully operative water plan for the part of New Zealand where the water issues are so huge and so significant.

The last point I would wish to make is that this provision in the bill says that the Government can appoint up to six commissioners. As I have previously said publicly, the most important issue for the Government is the continuity—the continuity of having those highly skilled commissioners, who have actually done a damned good job of sorting those things through. By having these mechanisms in this part of the bill, it enables us to retain the skills of those people, whom even Labour members acknowledge have been crucial to lifting the game in Canterbury. The Government reserves the right to appoint a lesser number, if they are not required for continuity, to maximise the point of say from the people of Canterbury.

I am tired of Minister Nick Smith repeating the comments about commissioners who were appointed in relation to district health boards. They were in place for a much shorter time than these appointed members will be on the regional council. Also, the Minister, again, is being rather mischievous in failing to recognise that district health boards derive all of their income from national taxes. They are Crown agents for the purpose of the Crown Entities Act, which sets out and prescribes their objectives and functions in quite limited terms. Because they are funded totally by taxes, it is then quite different when the Minister appoints representatives there to carry out the Crown’s objectives. Regional councils are different. They are funded largely by rates and through some funding from the National Land Transport Fund, in terms of public transport. That is what the fundamental objection to this legislation is. There is no comparison with district health boards.

I think the fact that the Minister keeps coming back to previous Governments having appointed commissioners to replace district health boards for a short period of time shows the emptiness of the Government’s justification for this legislation. It claims—and it has claimed in the discussion document that the Ministry for the Environment put out—that it is essential that we have appointed rather than elected members, because that seems to be the only way that the Government believes that you can encourage strong organisational performance and effective decision-making. What does the Minister and what does the Government think is happening in regional councils around the country, and in district and city councils around the country? For this Parliament, the electorate is trusted to elect competent people to undertake quite complex governance functions, to make decisions with big budgets on complex issues, and yet, somehow in Canterbury just because it is about water, the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury to elect competent councillors to be able to do that.

That is, again, because the Government has a very extractive agenda. It wants to promote more irrigation and more agricultural intensification. That is the real justification for this bill, and for the Ministers having such massive powers to appoint six members of the council.

In Part 2, under clause 15, the members may also be removed at the discretion of the responsible Ministers, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. Those powers are at their complete discretion. There are no constraints on Ministers, having appointed those six members, as to when they would remove them. That means that if the appointed members do not meet the satisfaction of Ministers, they can just be removed, and the Ministers do not even have to give any reasons. This is highly paternalistic and it is highly undemocratic—the powers that we are giving to Ministers in this bill to remove the ability of Cantabrians to elect competent members of their council.

The comments that Megan Woods made about the representation—one of the recommendations in the Creech report was that the representation of the city of Christchurch should be reviewed. That is not happening, and the city of Christchurch and Christchurch citizens will be very much under-represented in this new model, and that is why Opposition members have accused the Government of gerrymandering with this bill. It gives much better representation, in terms of the ratio of elected councillors to number of citizens, to those in the rural constituencies than to those in Christchurch. If we look across the country—under this mixed model with the appointed members, we will have one councillor per 90,000 people in Christchurch, and yet an average of one councillor per 82,000 people across Canterbury. In the Waikato there is one elected councillor for every 31,000 people, in the Bay of Plenty there is one councillor for every 21,000 people, and in Wellington there is one councillor for every 38,000-odd people. That is a much more effective and accessible method of local representation than this bill, which is having only one councillor for every 90,475 people in Christchurch.

This is undemocratic, Minister. The justifications that the Government has given show that it does not really trust democracy at all. Potentially, people in Christchurch may not turn out to vote because why would you vote for councillors around a table when almost half of the other people at the table can have a hot line to the Minister—when councillors can be potentially overruled by the Government appointees? The power is staying in Wellington—it is not being given back to elected members in Canterbury.

The other issue is just these excuses that the Minister keeps giving by saying that only two of 10 zone committees in Canterbury have developed sub-catchment plans to be part of the regional land and water plan. It is interesting, the double standard. Environment Canterbury, for much of its initial life, struggled with the issue of clean air in Christchurch. That was a major issue for the health of Christchurch people, resulting in additional deaths each year. The elected council focused on air, then it moved to water.

The Minister has been highly critical of elected councillors for their failure to develop an operative plan, though there was a proposed one, yet now the Minister is giving the same reason—the need for more time—as an excuse to continue the appointment of commissioners, as he was so critical of elected councillors. There is no consistency there. If only two of the 10 sub-catchment plans have been completed by commissioners, how can the Government then say they have done a good job if the commissioners were appointed to improve water management and if the commissioners were appointed to expedite the planning process? Well, they have obviously failed there if only two of these sub-catchment plans have actually been done.

That speech by Nick Smith—he is great at bandying words like “nasty” and various things around—was one of the most disingenuous speeches I have ever heard from that member. He effectively said that one of the reasons the Government extended it in 2013 was that “there was an earthquake”, and, yes, they had to relocate offices and those sorts of things. Well, that is not what he said, of course, in speeches to this House and other places in respect of the issues in terms of outstanding water consents and other issues at the time. So to treat Cantabrians with disdain, to treat them like fools, and to use their misery in an earthquake to justify his incompetence or to justify his extension—which he put down to the array of water issues and water consents at the time, not an earthquake—I think, even for him, is a bit low. It is a bit low for that member. It is called clutching at straws, and the Minister needs to read the Standing Orders, because it is our job to ask the Minister questions and it is his job to answer them.

In Part 1—and these are the same questions I put, because they are relevant to clause 8. I ask the Minister these questions again. Where is the justification for this extension? Why is it that unlike his colleague Gerry Brownlee, who promoted a piece of legislation as late as last week that gives wide responsibilities to leaders and community leaders in Canterbury—acknowledging that they were good enough, tough enough, and smart enough to step up to the plate, to work in partnership with the Crown, and to take greater responsibility for the earthquake—he brings legislation with a completely contrary view?

He is good at throwing around insults, but he is not good at actually answering the particular questions. And I put the question to him again: why does he not have faith? He says he has faith in the commissioners. They are skilled, and I agree with David Parker that they are commendable for many of the things they have done. But they, Minister, also have the opportunity, because they are citizens of New Zealand, to demonstrate, if they so wish, and test those skills and stand in a democratic election if they want to. David Caygill, for instance, a former member in this House and a former Minister, knows elections extremely well, and if he, for instance, wanted to test his mandate, he could stand. I know that he is a man of honour and integrity. Even he does not need to rely, to demonstrate his skills, on a mandate in accountability derived directly from that Minister and his Government.

But why is it—and if the Minister wants to answer, I will be quite happy to let him do it—that he does not feel there are sufficient numbers of Cantabrians who are bright, intelligent, and smart enough, and who are responsible enough to actually take all the positions, through an election, on a regional council? It is answered, I think, by the fact that many members have quoted him—he said democracy is risky. I think the Minister should reflect on that comment as a person who is elected to this House. He talked about Rabuka in his last contribution—Sitiveni Rabuka and the coup in Fiji. He introduced that. I suspect that at that time Colonial Rabuka viewed democracy as risky. But to bring in that theme as a justification for his stance, saying that democracy is risky, I think says an abundance about him. It is quite bizarre for a member who is elected to this House, who holds a ministerial warrant, and, I presume, believes in the sort of—well, at least in central government terms—constitutional arrangements that we have.

I would have thought—sorry, if you are going to say something, you have got to actually articulate, not mouth, the words. Noise has to come out of your mouth, Minister. No, no, speak up—say it again.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Always so nasty.

Oh, OK. That justifies my point, Minister, because that is your only defence. You are incapable, as a Minister, of actually—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry, he is—not you, Mr Chairman. He is incapable as a Minister of actually answering the questions. If you would like to answer them, I am happy to yield to you. Why is it that you simply do not trust the leadership within the community of Canterbury? Why it is that you use the justification that Environment Canterbury had to relocate its offices? That was one of the reasons the Minister had to go back on his word and extend it for 3 years—because there was an earthquake. I put it to that Minister that we had the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—

I am going to call—[Interruption]—Denis O’Rourke. But, just before I do, I say that when a member goes for the call, they call out and either I acknowledge them or I do not. All right? You do not just stand up and say something, because that is unacceptable.

I first of all want to refer to clause 8, which is the one that provides for the mixed elected and appointed council—seven elected and six appointed—and I just want to say this. I think that is a risky kind of a council to establish. It is likely to create tensions between those who are appointed and those who are elected. We are likely to get a them-and-us attitude, and it is not going to be positive for an organisation that should actually be representative of the people and not of the Government. So I will leave that there. I have said that I think it is a bad idea. I have said that it is likely to be dysfunctional, and I think it will be.

I want to go on and say this about clause 8(1)(a). In the first version of the bill it referred to only “7 elected members;”, but now it refers to “no fewer than 4 and no more than 7 elected members;”. So it is envisaged that there will be, in some circumstances, fewer than seven elected members at a particular time, although under clause 8(1)(b) there will be up to six appointed members and there could, therefore, be at any particular time a majority, in fact, of appointed people and not of elected people. I presume the reason why this clause has been drafted in the way it is is that it would provide for deaths or resignations of elected people, and that is fair enough. But why is it not drafted to preserve the majority of elected people over appointed people at all times?

The Ministers could suspend any particular appointed person or persons in order to maintain a majority of elected people, and that is what should have been done in the bill. Otherwise, the Government, and the Ministers, are accepting the possibility—in fact, almost the inevitability—that there could be, at a particular time, a majority of appointed people over elected ones, because many councils have either deaths or resignations for some reason or another during a 3-year term. So I think that is a problem in the bill that simply has not been addressed, and perhaps the Minister in the chair would like to comment on that.

I want to move on, however, to the reference in clause 11(2), which deals with appointed members and the need for skills. It seems to me that this is one of the main reasons why the Government believes that there needs to actually be appointed members at all. But when you look at it, this is what it actually says. It says that those skills are: “(a) the management of fresh water;”. Well, that is not exclusive to appointed members. In fact, there are many, many very skilled and experienced people in Canterbury who could be elected to represent the need for a skill in the management of fresh water. Clause 11(2)(b) states: “local authority governance and management;”. Actually, you would find more people with those skills amongst elected people than you would amongst appointed people. So that does not hang very well. Subclause (2)(d) refers to knowledge of “the Canterbury region and its people.” Again, I would have thought that elected people would have greater skills than appointed people, as far as the knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people is concerned.

So these reasons really do not make much sense and do not justify the need for appointed people at all. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. What he has said is that what the Government wants is continuity. Well, what is the magic about continuity? The real issue is not continuity; the real issue is having a mix of skills. In fact, that is what the bill says, not what the Minister says. If continuity was the issue, why is that not in the bill? In fact, what is in the bill is about skills, but, as I have just said, that does not actually make sense in justifying the need for appointed people, at all. So I think the Government’s whole argument actually crashes to the ground right there.

I want to go on and mention this. Clause 11(4) refers to the validity of appointed members not being affected if they do not actually have those skills. Well, if you are going to have that subclause there, why is the whole thing there at all? In fact, why are there any appointed members at all, if they do not have to have those skills, by authority, under subclause (4)?

I also want to talk about subclause (1A), which relates to Ngāi Tahu representation. This is where we in New Zealand First depart from all of the other parties in the Committee. We think that having Ngāi Tahu representation, especially as many as two members, on Environment Canterbury is wrong in principle. We think that having any appointed members is wrong in principle. We think, quite apart from that, that the appointment to an elected body of people, or even a partly elected body of people, based on their race or on their ethnicity is fundamentally wrong. We would oppose the bill for that reason alone.

There should be no appointed people on elected bodies. It compromises the effectiveness of those bodies and it compromises the fact that they are democratic and should operate democratically. We would support, however, an advisory body of Ngāi Tahu people, the views of whom, for example, must be taken particular notice of by Environment Canterbury in making its decisions. But actual membership by appointment to an elected body is wrong, and New Zealand First would definitely always oppose that. We know that other parties do not have that position, but we do.

For all of those reasons, I would say that this bill should not be passed. But, again, I would just repeat this: the Minister has said that continuity is the big deal. He has not said why, really, when in fact that is not in the bill at all. What is in the bill is the need for skills. In the bill, the skills required are specified, but, in fact, you will get those skills through the election of people, and probably better through the election of people, than you would by appointment. I would like the Minister to try to say why, having regard to all of that, we actually need appointed members at all. Why not just go straight to an elected body this year and be done with it?

I move, That the question be now put.

What this Government will not say is that the justification for the extension of non-democracy in this bill is the continuation of central government’s control over regional government. That is what this Government will not say. It is pathetic to over and over again hear members of this Government—including the Minister in the chair today, the Hon Nick Smith, and the Prime Minister earlier today—get up and say that just because the previous Labour Government did something at some point in the past, then that is justification for whatever it is doing now, in the present, with no rational discussion around it, no evidence base, and nothing that is actually sensible to go with it. It is just saying “Look, Labour over there.”, then: “Ignore what we are doing here.” It is pathetic, and it happens almost every day in this House.

We know that there is a terrible process that has gone into this bill—my remarks in my contribution will be directed to clause 10(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)—that has not allowed the public proper time for submissions on the actual bill. We know that the submitters were overwhelmingly opposed to this bill, and that is why we are describing it as an affront to democracy.

I want to take us back to look at when this bill actually came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and at some of the information that informed it, with direct reference to clause 10, “Process for electing members”. The regulatory impact statement, which was prepared by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment, noted in the summary that public consultation on what actually appears in this bill was confined to only the proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure, rather than the range of options. There were, I think, three options in the original regulatory impact statement, but the actual public consultation was confined to only this mixed-model governance structure. The questions in the discussion document encouraged comment on the other solutions. Some submitters did so, but those ministries said it limited the ability to present full community views on other options. They also said—and this goes directly to the Minister’s comments when he spoke before—that although this mixed-model governance structure is based on a 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 government context.

That is the point. Although the Minister gets up and says “Oh, well, Labour did something in the past and, by the way, it’s based on a district health board model.”, the thing is that it is uncertain as to whether or not that would work for a regional council.

When the original consultation occurred, there were 13 submissions received from local authorities—nine Canterbury councils and the Horizons Regional Council, the Waikato Regional Council, the Otago Regional Council, and the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. As you would expect, six of those nine submissions received from the Canterbury councils—and, of course, these are the ones that are going to get representation under this mixed-model governance structure, as is referenced in clause 10. Of the seven elected members, three of them are going to be from those regional Canterbury councils. They supported the mixed-model proposal, but only five supported it as it was set out in the discussion document. The Ashburton District Council was concerned about the ratio of elected members—

I rise to take a short call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I would like to speak to two points specifically. One is, I think, that the concept of this undermining and removing of our democracy—even more than being an affront to it—has been quite well canvassed, but I do want to talk about that a little bit more. I would also like to talk about the concept of subsidiarity. In terms of local government in New Zealand, there are two core concepts that govern the ruling of local government, and they are democracy and subsidiarity, which is the localised decision-making and devolved powers. That is quite commonly understood as good governance, and this legislation is messing with that, to put it bluntly.

With this bill, the responsible Ministers from here in Wellington will get to appoint six members representing the perspectives of those two appointing Ministers from being based here. Neither of them are based in Canterbury, and there is no requirement for at least four of those members to be of that area. Of course, two will be nominated by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and that is a provision that the Green Party actually supported. But there is no question that this bill is a compromise on the core principle of subsidiarity, which is that local decision-making is more likely to produce better results, and that people who are embedded in a community and who are accountable to the community they are representing are more likely to produce better governance.

I do want to point out, too, that in Part 2 the Ministers have the discretion to remove appointed members at any time, and that includes the members who have been nominated by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. The Ministers would be required to only consult before they do that. Really, that is a lot of control. It is also, I would suggest, a removal of the stability for the area, that there cannot be—we know at the moment that people are elected and that it is actually quite a disincentive for people to leave while they still have a position because they know they will be forcing an election if they leave before their term is up, whereas this legislation is enabling Ministers to remove somebody if they are not doing what those Ministers like and to just put somebody else in. We have no guarantee of the people’s control, but we also do not have a guarantee of stability, whereas one of the Minister for the Environment’s arguments for this entire transitional model is to ensure continuity. Actually, for us, there is no guarantee of that continuity. This legislation, I think, gives us less assurance of continuity than if we had elected members.

I do want to just again speak to that point of democracy. Although the Government has provisions in here that focus on skills and expertise, it has to be pointed out that there are council staff who could provide skill and expertise alongside the voice and the decision making of democratically elected people. There have also been changes—which we did not necessarily support—to the Local Government Act that enable the Minister to appoint observers to sit alongside councils, so that the Government can have that assurance if it has concerns about the functioning of a council. That could also provide that so-called continuity. No justification that makes any sense to me has been made to say why we need to have six out of 13 members appointed. I have not heard any case to say why the people of Canterbury do not deserve their democracy back.

I am pleased to make a contribution on Part 2. I want to just pick up on the points that Mr O’Rourke make in relation to clause 11(1A) and (1B). Those provisions give Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two members to this transitional body. I do want to commend the majority of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their support of the insertion of those provisions because, notwithstanding the deep concern that I have around the principle of full democracy for the people of Canterbury, I do support the principle of mana whenua representation at the regional council level on Environment Canterbury.

I do not necessarily want to try to lecture Mr O’Rourke—we have different views and we represent different constituencies—but it is fundamental, and this was recognised by the committee itself, that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is the tribal authority over 80 percent of Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island. It has significant interests in the management of Canterbury’s natural resources. It goes without saying that Canterbury is part of who we are as a people. The landscapes, the mountains, the rivers, the land, the coast, the sea—all of that is just part and parcel of mana whenua.

There has long been jurisprudence and, most recently, Treaty settlements that affirm those rights. That has been continued in the positive relationship the Crown has—no matter which Government is in power; no matter which parties—to ensure that we promote and support those Treaty relationships. So I do support the insertion of those provisions.

But my question, I guess, is: where to after 3 years? What will mana whenua representation be, at a regional council level, after 2019? At the moment, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has been intimately involved in the first phase of commissioners, through the requirement that there be expertise in tikanga Māori and also knowledge of the Canterbury area—well, you can only really go to Ngāi Tahu for that. That has been reaffirmed in the provisions in clause 11, which I have been referring to.

But where to from there? There is now a precedent that has been set, a wonderful precedent, whereby the mana whenua have been recognised to appoint representatives on to the regional council, on to Environment Canterbury. I am sure that every other iwi up and down the country will now be wanting to have the exact same rights, and rightly so—rightly so. If it is good enough for those from Ngāi Tahu to be able to appoint two out of a hybrid type of transitional body, every other iwi will have the right to assert that they have the exact same status. They can actually add their contribution to enhance the decision making that goes on at that level, and that is all Māori have ever wanted.

We want to be equal partners in the decision making that goes on at all levels of Aotearoa. This provision does that to an extent, but it sets a very, very strong precedent for every other iwi and every other regional council across the country as to what can happen. We have seen this in the recognition for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu through similar legislation, like the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation and the legislation that we passed just last week to regenerate Christchurch, as well. It has carried on into—

I move, That the question be now put.

No, I am not going to accept the closure motion now because to date there has been, I think it is fair to say, fierce debate and debate with slightly different alliances and with members of parties with different points of view. I do not think that we have had much repetition, and, actually, the speeches have mainly been relevant.

Mr Chair, I hope that I can continue the relevancy that you have just commented on. I do want to pick up where my colleague Rino Tirikatene finished his speech, because he did want to make one point. The point around clause 11(1A), and potentially a question that I have for the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, is that, yes, it is an improvement on this piece of legislation that two of the members appointed to the Environment Canterbury board must be recommended by Ngāi Tahu. The principle on this side is that we do not agree with having Government appointees to this board and so we will not be supporting that, but the inclusion of Ngāi Tahu representation is an improvement.

Mr Tirikatene talked about a precedent being set here. Actually, I think the precedent was set in a piece of legislation that went through this House last week, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, where we saw much more consultation from the Government with the people of Canterbury. It was not just with Ngāi Tahu; there was also an onus put on Regenerate Christchurch to seek wider input about things that it wants to do in Christchurch. My question to the Minister is: why is there not the same spirit in this piece of legislation? I think the Local Government and Environment Committee made a good start to it by including Ngāi Tahu within the realms of clause 11, but why did you not go further? Why did you not use the template used by Gerry Brownlee in the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill to include and to allow more of a local voice, when you had started that process with clauses 11(1A) and 11(1B)? Clauses 11(1A) and (1B) operationalise the ability for the Government to appoint up to six members to the Environment Canterbury board—something for which a case had been made in Part 1, an argument that we disagree with.

As the Chair has said, there has been a lot of fierce debate within this Committee. There has also been debate by people who have submitted, and also some facts have been pointed out by officials around the dubious nature of not putting this out to a wider vote, a complete vote, for Cantabrians.

I mentioned some passages of the regulatory impact statement in my Part 1 speech, but I think the departmental disclosure statement in this instance is helpful here. It talks about concerns that the officials had about the objectives of the reform around the Government appointees in clauses 11(1A) and (1B), saying that these “contain clear trade-offs between perceptions of efficiency and environmental stewardship, and local democratic accountability.” It goes on to say that “These are difficult to balance without objective information about previous and potential regulatory outcomes, so the assessment of options largely relies on subjective valuations.”, which the Government obviously thinks rests on its side of the argument. It goes on to say that “The fact that no alternative options were consulted on, and that proposals from stakeholders have received limited consideration, suggests that the full range of feasible options has not been examined.”

In plain English, that is saying that the inclusion of clause 11(1A) and (1B), which allows the Government to appoint up to six commissioners to the Environment Canterbury board, is something that the Government has blindly done and that it did not look at any other options. It did not look at full democracy—it did not look at putting it out to the people of Canterbury. It made up its mind at the very beginning to put in this clause 11(1A) and (1B), which says that three members must be appointed by the responsible Ministers no later than 28 days after the transition day—I think that means when the other six members are elected—and that they can appoint three more under clause 11(1A) and (1B).

I would also like to pose to the Minister another question, around the intention of the appointment of board members. During his speeches from the chair he has said that it is about continuity, but back in 2010 it was something a lot different to continuity. If I can quote the Minister, he said: “The extent of the gap between the capability of ECan and what is required for it to adequately manage freshwater issues is enormous and unprecedented.” Fair enough—the Government can have that concern. He went on to say that “A very large backlog of outstanding issues needs to be addressed before water management in the region reaches”—

I have got three points that I want to raise with regard to Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill on this, the governance structure in the mixed model. They are three points that nobody else has raised in this Committee. The first point is that this legislation will undermine individual participation and the right of people to participate. The second point I would make is that this legislation will undermine local democracy and undermine the role of local government. The third point I would make is that this legislation will undermine our environmental protection.

Before I get on to those three points, I do want to say that I am happy to stand with my colleagues from the Canterbury region—Dr Megan Woods, Clayton Cosgrove, Poto Williams, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and Rino Tirikatene—to oppose this bill. It is important that we oppose this bill, and I will tell you why. I do not know very much about Canterbury. I do not know about Christchurch—I have visited it, and I have got contacts there—but I do know when I see injustice being done. The source of injustice is not the people of Canterbury; it is the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, and I will tell you why. I like the Minister—on a personal level he is a nice man—but his politics give all of us politicians a bad name, and I will tell you why. It is because this is the third time that we are in this House repealing previous legislation and enacting other legislation to continue his control over Canterbury.

That is the first point: this legislation and this mixed-model Government structure undermine the right of individuals to participate. I will give you an example: Father Paulo of the Samoan Catholic Church in Christchurch. I asked him the other day: “Are you aware of what is happening with your local council, with Environment Canterbury?”. He said: “No. We just do not participate now because the Government has taken full control.” He is actually right. The Government has taken full control because the make-up of this governance model is not completely as it should be—of representatives elected by the people. So in so far as Father Paulo and other communities in that area are concerned, they have been kept from participating because the Government has sent a very clear message—and it has been a consistent message since 2010, 2013, and now 2016—that it is in control and that the public of Canterbury does not have a role to play in this, and that it is this Government and it is this Minister who will determine how Environment Canterbury will be run. So that is the first point.

The second point, as I said, is that this legislation actually weakens local democracy and it weakens the role of local government. I point to the regulatory impact statement where it says that this is a “New and untested … structure, and could generate uncertainty”. Local government plans way ahead in time—not from 3 years to 3 years. In fact, we gave it a piece of legislation where we said to it: “You have got to plan long term.” We are not giving local government any certainty, because we are saying now what we said back in 2010-11, which was “You will have this model up to 2019.”, but there is no certainty at all.

Let me give you another example. The regulatory impact statement says that there will be “Significant change in local government powers; risks of blurred or unclear accountability”. That is the risk identified by the regulatory impact statement. The Minister said earlier that this is the same model that we use for the district health boards. That is like comparing apples with oranges. This is local government, which is run on the rates or the taxes that are paid for by the citizens of that area. The district health boards are funded from a ministry of the National Government. What will happen here is you have got two sources of accountability.

I move, That the question be now put.