Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

I would like to take a call and, in the time-honoured tradition, talk specifically to the title of this bill. The title that the Government has given this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill, just seems a little bit absurd. We are now debating whether we should have bespoke governance arrangements in place for Canterbury for 9 years. The Government thinks this is a transitional arrangement. Where I come from, nearly a decade is not a transition. We call that semi-permanent, if not permanent. I think the “Continued Denial of Democracy Bill” would be a better title for this bill, rather than the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I think “Nine Years is Not a Transition Bill” would be another alternative title that we could give—

💬 Kris Faafoi: Nine long years.

The “Nine Long Years Bill” could be another alternative title that we could give this bill. But, in all seriousness, I would not like to be flippant about this, because this is very serious. This is just an affront to people, that they have had their votes taken away from them for 9 years. The fact is that there is now a different model of democracy that operates in Canterbury.

I think, as people who are democratically elected, for us to be saying that things can be a little bit democratic is frightening. We are democratically elected members of this House and we should be the very people who stand up for democracy. We should not just say that it is OK for a Minister to appoint people to govern a region and make it different from other parts of the country. Not only does the Minister have the power to appoint; the Minister has the power to remove, and the Government has weakened the appeal rights contained in the bill. This is a truly frightening piece of government to be enacted by any Parliament.

We will continue our opposition to this arrangement after the passage of this bill. I have a member’s bill in my name that will be staying in the ballot. The title of that bill is the restoration of democracy in Canterbury bill and I have my fingers crossed, every time we have a ballot of members’ bills, that that bill gets drawn and we could return to fully democratic elections in Canterbury.

To call this a transitional governance arrangement bill is just not fair. I think another title that the Government could go back to is the “Canterbury Experimentation (Part 3) Bill”. That is what is being done to the people of Canterbury. When the Government cannot get across its own Resource Management Act reforms because it cannot get the support of its coalition partners, it thinks: “Oh, I know. Let’s see if we can try it out in Canterbury. They won’t mind.” So that is where we have it. We have a whole lot of bespoke provisions in here that make us different from the rest of the country. We have traversed many of these through the course of this Committee stage, and I would not like to traverse them again. But to say that this is some kind of transitional arrangement is just not something that any elected member should be able to stand up and say with any level of credibility.

Maybe that is why we are not hearing from the Government members from Canterbury. Maybe that is why they are content to sit there, voting away the full democratic rights of their fellow Cantabrians, and not utter a word. I imagine there are a number of people who elected those members to this House who are truly disappointed that their elected members are willing to sit silent as democracy is watered down by those members.

It is not good enough to call this a transitional arrangement. The Government has not made the case for why Canterbury should be treated any differently. The Government has dressed it up in a raft of different measures. It has tried to say that it is about our regeneration of Christchurch, yet we see that none of the things that would actually help our city regenerate are covered off in this bill.

This is a bill purely and simply about the Government needing to push across the line its irrigation agenda, and it is about water in Canterbury. The bill should be called the “Canterbury Water Bill” or, alternatively, it should be called the “We’ve Run Out of Ideas Bill”. This is a bill that belongs in the 20th century. It is not a piece of legislation that is fit for our future as a region. Stripping away people’s right to vote, imposing a bias towards a particular mode of land use—all these things are not what belong in the Canterbury of the 21st century. It is a disappointing piece of legislation. It is disappointing—

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Like others, I think this bill is a nonsense. It is an abominable piece of legislation and Parliament should be ashamed of passing it, because representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to the Government and to the exercise of State power, and yet in this bill it is totally undermined. So a better title would be the “Suppression of Local Democracy Bill”, or the “Strong Arm of the State Bill” because this Government, through this bill, shows that it does not trust the citizens of Canterbury to elect a competent regional council.

Another title would be the “Ignore the Public Bill” because, remember, there were only 15 out of 1,169 submissions that supported this bill. There was strong public opposition. That opposition to the axing of elected councillors has been expressed in many ways in Canterbury. One of them is that cairn of stones—I and many others took stones from the beds of Canterbury rivers and added them to the cairn. The cairn stood there through all of the Canterbury earthquakes, while the statues of Godley and others fell over. The cairn remains a symbol of the loss of democracy in Canterbury, of the taking of water, and of the putting of irrigation and the expansion of irrigated land ahead of protecting the health of Canterbury’s rivers and aquifers.

This bill is an affront to democracy. We cannot claim to be a free and democratic society if we compromise with this second-class model where Ministers continue to appoint commissioners and where the bill truncates appeal rights and sidelines the specialist jurisdiction of the Environment Court in terms of making decisions on appeals on regional plans and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement. It is an “Affront to Democracy Bill” because it imposes in Canterbury a different form of law to that which applies in other regions by truncating these appeal rights.

It is a model that is not accountable because nearly half of those sitting around the table will be reporting to the Minister rather than to Cantabrians. It is a Wellington-controlled model, plain and simple. So that is another title—the “Wellington-controlled Council Bill”. And it is certainly not a transitional governance arrangement, because we are about to mourn the sixth anniversary of the loss of an elected council, and by the time this legislation is repealed there will have been 9 long years without a fully elected council.

As the Christchurch City Council highlighted in its submission, it was very concerned that this hybrid model would reduce effective, open, and transparent processes, rather than provide the stability that the Government claims. We have seen a precedent being set here with the Government interfering with the processes and decision making of local councils through being able to appoint more commissioners. Nobody wants this as a precedent.

Local Government New Zealand expressed significant concern about the bill. It said—and I would like to conclude with a quote from its submission—that it highlighted that local government representatives should not be required to have specialist expertise or skills. Rather, their role is to “set the direction, resolve differences over values and set priorities and most of all supervise management.”

That is what local government and local democracy is all about. It is about people electing councillors who can make decisions on how the taxes that they contribute through rates are actually spent. It is about being accountable to local communities. This bill, by imposing Government appointees on Cantabrians, totally distrusts local government and highlights once again the Government’s failure to respect the ability of Cantabrians to elect competent people. It gives greater weight to voters in rural areas by giving them better representation.

I totally endorse the point that Denis O’Rourke was making in terms of having these appointed members actually setting the representation for the council post-2019—that likely provisions around the plans will continue the influence of the Government and the influence of appointed members well beyond 2019. That is a totally distasteful element of this bill, which is an abominable piece of legislation that the Green Party will continue to oppose.

Before I speak on the title and commencement clauses, can I just acknowledge my colleagues Megan Woods, Eugenie Sage, and Denis O’Rourke for the heavy lifting they have done on this bill in the Committee tonight.

An alternative title for this bill should be the “Environment Canterbury Entrenchment of Anti-democracy Bill”. This is a frightening piece of legislation—an absolutely frightening piece of legislation. Nobody on that side of the Chamber—unless they are prepared to get up, take a call, and argue this—should actually have anything to say about it. Notice that they have all been completely quiet about it.

This is a frightening piece of legislation. It is a frightening piece of legislation on a number of levels, and I want to speak to some of them when addressing the title and commencement clauses.

My biggest concern—and I think Megan Woods actually alluded to this at one point during the debate tonight—is about this being a pilot project that could be used for other regional councils as to how the governance arrangement of regional councils could be. The Minister for the Environment has made it very clear tonight that the district health board model of governance that has been imposed on regional government through this Environment Canterbury bill is a viable model that could be used and implemented in other spheres in other parts of the country. I think that is the chilling effect of this legislation, and this bill is a warning, essentially, to any other regional council in New Zealand that dares to get out of line and to speak out of line that this model, which is this mixed-model governance of appointed and elected people, could be imposed upon it.

Under the district health board model, which was brought in in a completely different environment, it is funded by the distribution of taxation at the national level. Instead, here we have regional government. New Zealand does not have that many levels of government. We are not like Australia, where you have federal Government, you have states, and then you have regional and city councils. We have a very small number of tiers of government. We do not have two Houses in our Parliament; we have one House in our Parliament. Therefore, our levels of government are extremely important, and we should treat them with respect, but we are not. This Government is not treating the regional level of government with respect.

What the fear is with this bill is that this will be used as a model that could be imposed in other areas, and I think that is something that everybody should be really afraid of. It sends an unsubtle message to other councils that they may suffer the same fate if they oppose the Government. Transitional legislation was not needed—it was not needed. It is 9 years this will end up being for. This is not transition; this is actually entrenchment, which is why the alternative title that I have suggested is the “Entrenchment of Anti-democracy Bill”. This is not transition; it is entrenchment.

The public sentiment was very strong, and another point that was made during the debate tonight was around the skill sets of the appointed people. The point that my colleague David Parker made was that if the Government was so keen on those skill set, there could be encouragement for those people to be standing for elected positions. If it is the case that the only way that we can get the right skill sets into our levels of government is that you have to appoint them—

I do not think that this title is at all accurate as a descriptor for this particular bill, and I have got three suggestions, any one of which would, I think, be better. The first one is “ECan’t be Democratic under this Government Bill”, because that is the reality. It is a hybrid, and it is not a democratic proposal for the governance of Canterbury at all. I mean, it is absolutely obvious that you cannot be half pregnant, and you cannot be half democratic. So what is the point in having this window dressing of having some elected people and some appointed ones? It is not going to be democratic as a result of that. I do not think that the current title is at all accurate, nor is it actually transitional—it does not describe anything transitional at all. All it describes is yet another model for the Government’s dominance of Environment Canterbury. It has got one currently. This is a new one, and there will not be any democracy until after 2019. So how can that be transitional? It is not. It is just weasel word, and it should not be there.

The second suggestion I have for a title is “Government’s Arrangements for Its Interest in Canterbury’s Environment Amendment Bill”, because that is really what the bill is about. When you consider why the Government is doing it, it is doing it to make sure that what it wants to achieve is what will happen in Canterbury for another 3 years. Again, that is not democratic, and, in particular, it is not a way in which the desires and aspirations of the people of Canterbury for the environment could possibly be met. This is because the Government is going to appoint members whose only interest is to serve the Government’s interests, and the elected people will have a hard job with the six appointed representatives in actually trying to achieve what the people of Canterbury want for their own region. For that reason, I also say that it is a very inappropriate title, and it should reflect the fact that this is just what the Government wants. So “Government’s Arrangements for Its Interests in Canterbury’s Environment Amendment Bill” would be much more accurate.

Lastly, my third suggestion is “A Failed Attempt at Environment Canterbury Governance Arrangements Act 2015”. I think the word “failed” would be appropriate. I say that because it is absolutely inevitable that this model will fail; it does not matter how you judge it. Will it represent the aspirations and desires of the people of Canterbury for their environment? No, because the Government will see to it that it cannot, through its appointed representatives. It does not matter that it is six against seven—it is close enough for that to be the effect. Will it actually mean that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will be any better under this bill? No, it will not, because it is already going to be entrenched in the bill, which does not need any appointed members to do that. It is good that it will be entrenching the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, because that will underpin everything that the new councils do in the future. Whatever rules and whatever regulations the councils make must be consistent with that strategy. That was well and properly done, but the appointed members’ role in achieving that is well and truly over, and it is time for elected people to say what should happen in the future in terms of that strategy in Canterbury.

No mixed system of both elected and appointed people can ever work effectively because there will be that them-and-us approach that will take root, and it will never stop. It is going to mean a dysfunctional council, I believe, and not one that the people of Canterbury will have any hope that it will actually improve their environment. So any one of those three titles, I would be happy with, but certainly not the one that we have got here.

I move, That the question be now put.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I am very pleased to speak on the title and commencement clauses. This will be my final contribution in the Committee stage, I would imagine.

I do want to return to the very first point that I made earlier today, and that was the significance of the mound of stones that is there in Cathedral Square. That cairn was erected as a memorial by the people of Canterbury to mark their sense of loss at the fact that their democratic rights were stripped from them when the Environment Canterbury councillors were all sacked back in 2010. That cairn—that pile of stones—marks the loss of democracy, and it is actually more relevant now than it was back in 2010, because here we are 6 years down the track and that mound of stones is still there. So as a suggested new title I would propose that we rename this bill the “Environment Canterbury (The Cairn Still Stands) Bill”, because that cairn represents the loss of democracy, and it will not be removed—it will not be removed—until full democracy is restored to the people of Canterbury.

I know that this bill creates a sort of hybrid of councillors—half are elected and half are appointees from the Minister—but, again, that is not good enough. That will not open the way for the removal of that cairn, because half is not whole. The people of Canterbury erected that structure as a landmark for everyone to see, and to remember that their rights were taken away. So half is not good enough. I am sure that in those stones, which were collected from all of the rivers around the Canterbury region, there might be some good hāngi stones—I am sure that there are—but perhaps when democracy is restored those stones could be used for another purpose, to celebrate the restoration of the democracy for the people of Canterbury.

Another point that I did make was the appointment by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu of two appointees, or the recommendation to the Minister of two appointees, who will go through on to this new transitional body—I actually do support that. I think it sets a very exciting precedent that mana whenua representation can go direct to the actual council level, and be equal, on a par with, and level with councillors at the regional council table. I think that is an exciting development.

I am going to be interested to know what will happen after 3 years, and whether Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu will still have those rights and will still have a level of representation at that level for mana whenua, so the words “mana whenua” could be another addition to the title. The bill could be the “Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements with Mana Whenua Representation) Bill”, with those words included in the title as well, because, as I have mentioned, that is a significant development.

I know that iwi up and down the country will be looking at and studying this piece of legislation very closely, because I know that they all have very, very deep concerns about their natural environment. If it is good enough for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to lead the way, well, certainly I know that iwi up and down the country will want to follow suit as well, and they will be expecting more from the Minister—they will be expecting the Minister to deliver accordingly.

The Minister mentioned that we are continuing on in this transitional phase with denying the people of Canterbury their full democratic rights because, effectively, we need six more water zones to be put in place—the actual planning processes and the planned zones, or whatever the vernacular is for the resource management speakers. That needs to be put in place, and so I would encourage, as a final title—

I move, That the question be now put.