Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill

I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a third time. This bill provides for a sensible transition from the commissioners whom the Government installed in Environment Canterbury back in 2010. It provides for a mix of both elected representatives and the continuity of commissioners through to 2019, from when the council will move to full elections.

The Government is very proud of the work and of the tough calls it made in terms of getting Environment Canterbury into a far better shape to be able to deal with the huge challenges of managing fresh water in Canterbury with the rebuild issues in that region, and with taking one of New Zealand’s worst performers in the local government sector up to being one of the very best. It would be uncharitable of me or Louise Upston and the other Ministers whom I have worked with to claim the credit for the success of the work out of Environment Canterbury, because it very much rests with the very skilled commissioners who were prepared to step up to the challenge and make a difference for that region.

I do want to take the opportunity in this third reading to pay tribute to Dame Margaret Bazley, who I think is one of New Zealand’s most outstanding public servants, and I am in awe of her ability to be able to deal with very complex issues—let alone with water—throwing in the complexity of the earthquake and seeing this organisation through the change. But, equally, I should pay tribute to people like Peter Skelton, a previous Environment Court judge; people like David Caygill, a former Labour Minister; and people like Tom Lambie, Rex Williams, David Bedford, and Elizabeth Cunningham, who have far exceeded the Government’s expectations in terms of providing a quality of governance for this important organisation.

There has been some debate about whether in October 2017 we should go cold turkey and simply to a step of full elections at that time. It is true that our Government has been cautious in that regard. The first key issue for me is actually around the issue of freshwater management. The truth is that the water issue in Canterbury is far bigger than in any other part of the country, with over 50 percent of the renewable electricity in New Zealand produced in that region, with over 70 percent of all the irrigation in New Zealand done in that region, and, I would also say, with the issues of water quality being more challenging in Canterbury than anywhere else.

If we go back to 2010, when the Government took the big call to intervene in Environment Canterbury, there was no water plan in place at all, there were no limits on conversion even though the impacts of that on water quality were significant, and it was also a council that had the worst record of all 86 of our councils in terms of meeting statutory time frames in processing resource consents. I put that in contrast to the situation today, where, not only in terms of processing consents, Environment Canterbury has moved from being one of the worst managers of water to actually being at the cutting edge internationally of how we deal with the very challenging issue of diffuse water pollution. What it has developed with the farming community around good management practices, around the red zones, and around the collaborative zone committees, in my view, sets a very strong foundation not just for Canterbury in terms of freshwater management but, indeed, for New Zealand.

I would also make the comment that in 2010—and I know this has been important for my colleague Louise Upston—every one of the 10 mayors in Canterbury asked the Government to intervene to sack the council and to put the commissioners in place. It is so interesting for us today to see the rebuild in the relationships, where every one of those councils are acknowledging that the commissioners have a far better relationship with Environment Canterbury. Getting the two units of local government working together has been absolutely critical in terms of the scale of challenges that region has passed through in terms of the earthquakes. I would also say that the very strong feedback I have had from Ngāi Tahu is that the relationships between Environment Canterbury and iwi in the region are, consequently, so much stronger.

The model that we have chosen in going forward is for there to be a majority of elected councillors from October this year: four from the city of Christchurch and one each from North Canterbury, from South Canterbury, and from mid-Canterbury. We are then saying that through to 2017 it will move over to a standard council model. The question around why we are not just going cold turkey is actually about the expertise of the commissioners being enabled to ensure that that good work is completed. Let me tell you how important it is. We do, thank goodness, now have a Canterbury water plan—a plan that is regulatory and that is operative across the full region. What we do not have yet are operative zone plans for each of the catchments across Canterbury. An enormous amount of work has gone on with those zone committees. The Government wants to back the continuity and that momentum so that that piece of work is completed by 2019, and that is why we are maintaining both the limited appeal rights and the work of the commissioners through to that process.

I have heard all sorts of exaggerated rhetoric around democracy from members opposite. I simply challenge these members opposite by saying what about when Helen Clark displaced the Auckland District Health Board? What about when the last Labour Government sacked the council in Rodney? In both cases members on our side of the House actually said that there was a strong case. Actually, good Minsters and good Governments will see problems where they exist and will address them, rather than sort of standing on the notion that they will never intervene. The truth is that this Government’s intervention in Canterbury has been necessary. It has been necessary, it has made a huge difference, and, actually, what is provided for in this bill—in a plan that has been worked on together by me and my colleague Louise Upston—is a sensible transition so that we do not have instability at such a crucial time in the history of not just the earthquake issues but the water issues in Canterbury.

I thank members, such as those from the Māori Party, who are supporting this bill. They are putting the interests of Canterbury ahead of cheap politics. They are ensuring that we are keeping this good work on track, and the people of Canterbury, the water of Canterbury, and the rebuild of Canterbury will be better for the practical measures that are in this bill.

If there is any legislation that demonstrates the increasingly arrogant nature of this Government, then this legislation is a fine example of it. New Zealand and New Zealanders have been so proud for so long of being the country where women first won the right to vote. We are very proud of that. We boast about it at every opportunity, and so we should. The movement that won the right of women to vote was started in Canterbury. We had the first woman member of Parliament from Canterbury, actually from my electorate. So our region and our country have a very proud tradition in regard to democracy.

But here we have a Minister, Nick Smith, who not just today, not just once, but on many, many occasions, has misled the people of Canterbury, first of all, by misrepresenting the reasons for sacking the democratically elected Environment Canterbury councillors and, then, by telling us—not once, but twice, and now three times—that this was a short-term plan. In 2010 we were told that this was short term and we would get back our right to vote. Then it was extended again and we were to get back our right to vote, and now it has been extended yet again. Who could trust the word of that Minister with regard to restoring our democratic right to vote for our entire regional council in the same way that every other person in the country does?

The 2009 Creech report, led by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech—a man whose work I respect, whose political views I do not always share, but whom I certainly regard highly in terms of his integrity—made it very clear that there was no dysfunctionality in Environment Canterbury. The members who believe what Nick Smith just said should read Wyatt Creech’s report of 2009, because it has not one reference to Environment Canterbury being dysfunctional. The Minister knows it, and the Minister knows the real reason why the council was sacked. It was solely to get more water out of Canterbury rivers and into irrigation—that is the sole reason for the Environment Canterbury being sacked. Actually, the Speaker himself confirmed that at a conference. The Speaker, the Rt Hon David Carter, confirmed that on the public record at a conference for Irrigation New Zealand, where he said that the election of four councillors in the previous election—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding practice and a very specific Standing Order that a member shall not bring the Speaker into the debate on a bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, I hear what the member is saying. The member who is speaking, however, is referring to an event prior to the current Speaker being the Speaker, and in that context I am allowing it to continue.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The reason I can is that the presiding officer is aware of the contribution that the current Speaker, before he was made—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no, no.

—the Speaker, made at the Irrigation New Zealand conference.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. You are now bringing me into the debate, and that is completely wrong. So just keep me out of it.

So, in April 2010, David Carter said to the Irrigation New Zealand conference: “We had to act [re EnCan] because the situation was untenable if we are to seriously make progress in delivering irrigation.” He said nothing about dysfunction, nothing about corruption, and nothing about mismanagement. As was the case in every other instance when the Government had to intervene to take away democratic rights, there was always corruption or mismanagement or dysfunctionality. This was about getting more water out of Canterbury rivers for irrigation—sole reason. He said: “I would have thought what happened recently regarding ECan would be a signal to all regional councillors to work a bit more constructively with their farmer stakeholders.” Well, I think they should work constructively with their farmer stakeholders, but that does not mean that irrigation should win every argument.

In Canterbury we have the greatest percentage of the total New Zealand water take. Our aquifers are polluted. The Canterbury District Health Board representative, the public health specialist, has said that in some parts of Canterbury newborn babies should not be fed with formula that is made with water that should be able to be drunk straight from our tap, because it could poison a newborn baby. This is in New Zealand in 2016, and yet Minister Nick Smith is continuing the drive of irrigation over democracy by not giving us our vote in Canterbury to democratically elect our regional council. He is continuing that drive of irrigation over democracy.

When challenged about his repeated change of circumstances, his misrepresentation of when we were going to get our right to vote back, he said that we are not going to return to a full election in Canterbury because it is too risky—it is too risky to give the people of Canterbury a right to vote. I wonder what the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for Women think about the fact that we are getting only half a vote in this bill. The country that was so proud of having women win the right to vote first is, in this Parliament, taking away half that vote for Canterbury.

We have got a complete gerrymander in the numbers as well, but that is not surprising. The people of Christchurch are going to have far less representation than people in the rural areas. Why would that be, I wonder? Where is the drive for irrigation? Does it come from Christchurch or does it come from the surrounding areas in Canterbury? It clearly comes from the rural community, where they will have a much stronger voice on the regional council because there are fewer voters required to elect a regional council member,

I think this is an outrage. It is a breach of the faith that people had in 2010. We have had misrepresentation about the reasons for it, and if any member doubts that, they should read the Creech report of 2009.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ll be shocked.

They would be shocked because the Minister has said things about that report that are not true, and I think the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech deserves more respect from this House. He was a Deputy Prime Minister in this Parliament, and he deserves more respect than having his report misrepresented.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: And he totally supports what we’ve done. He supports the intervention.

I do not believe the Minister over what he just interjected. I challenge him to have that implication put in writing, and I bet he cannot deliver it.

In 2007 we had four Environment Canterbury councillors who were elected on a “save water” ticket. That was the wake-up call for the Government. That was the wake-up call to it that people in Canterbury were getting so upset at the draining of our rivers that we wanted to elect people who would put a stop to it, who would look at the water management strategy.

The other misrepresentation that the Hon Nick Smith makes regularly is to say that there was no water plan in place. In 2004—2004—that water plan was in draft form, and it is basically the same as it is now. It was prepared by the previous, elected councillors. He says that Canterbury was poorly managed and had lower outcomes. His own area of Tasman has poorer outcomes than Canterbury. Have its councillors been sacked? Have they been sacked? No, they have not, because there is no irrigation pressure there. There is no political pressure there.

This is not an argument about functionality, about corruption, or about mismanagement. It is an argument about the fact that we have had our democratic rights taken away. We also had our rights to appeal to the Environment Court taken away, and we had our protection—our special protection—for our rivers taken away. But there is no justification for that. If you have an elected body that has corruption or dysfunctionality or mismanagement, I do not think that there would be a single member in the House who would not support doing this—of course, reluctantly—until functionality was restored. But no such justification has ever existed in the case of Environment Canterbury.

I think this is a very sad day for democracy in New Zealand. It is a very sad day that this Parliament sees a move as serious as this being taken on the basis of misrepresentation. It was quite clear throughout the select committee process that the submitters understood what the real driver behind this was for. There were 1,167 submissions on this legislation and 1,152 were opposed. Just 15—one-five—submissions supported it and they were primarily from irrigators. I understand why they supported it. So 1,167 submissions with 1,152 opposed, and yet the Government, in its out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant way, rides roughshod over our democracy, rides roughshod over the submitters, and is going to ram this bill through.

I wish to speak in support of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in its third reading. This bill is, of course, a result of the ministerial review of Environment Canterbury’s governance and resource management arrangements led by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and me. It has come about after significant engagement and consultation with Canterbury stakeholders, including each of the 10 territorial authorities, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, members of the public, and other organisations. I am pleased to see this bill pass through its final stages in the House after thorough consultation and debate in the Local Government and Environment Committee and a successful Committee of the whole House, which clarified an issue regarding the resource management provisions in the bill that was raised after it was reported back.

The legislation will put in a transitional mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury of seven elected councillors, so I do want to put on record the correction of the speaker before me, Ruth Dyson. Everyone in Canterbury will have a vote—as they should. They will get a vote for the majority of their councillors. There will be up to six appointed—up to six appointed—members for the 2016 term of local government, and this will come after the 6 years of commissioners at Environment Canterbury who were appointed under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act of 2010.

I do want to put on record my disgust at the representations by the speaker before me of the Creech report. I was actually beginning to wonder whether she had read the same report that I had.

When the original Act was passed in 2010, the Government was hearing serious concerns about the ability of the council to fulfil both its statutory functions and duties but also, importantly, to provide clear direction on, and strategy for, how to manage the region’s unique and significant freshwater resources. Environment Canterbury reported meeting only 29 percent of its statutory time frames in the Ministry for the Environment’s 2007-08 survey of local authorities, which was the worst in the country by a large margin. The council could also not legally implement its strategy for freshwater management in the region, and the result was overallocation and mismanagement of water in Canterbury.

It is clear from the speech that we have just heard by the Opposition member that Labour is attempting to rewrite history. It also clearly demonstrates how out of touch those members are with the people of the Canterbury region. They are clearly not listening. They have clearly not been paying attention, and it is no surprise—actually, that is why National took some of those seats in the 2011 election, because that side of the House is completely out of touch with the concerns of the people on the street in Canterbury. Those members have completely forgotten the unprecedented step of 10 mayors—10 mayors—expressing their complete loss of confidence in the council. And it was not only the 10 mayors but also Ngāi Tahu and other major stakeholders. That is a significant issue, and this Government, of course, was going to take significant action to address it. But, just as importantly, it is about managing the transition back so that the people of Canterbury have complete confidence in the ability of Environment Canterbury to function well, beyond this point in time.

What we have seen since the commissioners have been in place is significant improvements at Environment Canterbury. In the most recent quarterly report, the council is now meeting 99 percent of its statutory time frames. Stakeholders, of course, such as Ngāi Tahu and the territorial authorities are also reporting considerable improvements in the relationships, which is a significant part of a region working successfully. The commissioners have also spearheaded the efforts to establish a freshwater planning framework in Canterbury by taking a collaborative approach through the region’s 10 zone committees to apply local solutions to sustainable freshwater management.

Although the commissioners have made considerable progress in their time at Environment Canterbury, I do want to remind the House that it is still a critical stage for the region. There is still work to do to complete the comprehensive planning framework for freshwater management in Canterbury, the majority of which is due to be completed by 2019—not 2016, but 2019. An abrupt loss of the knowledge and the expertise that has been brought by the commissioners at this single point in time would have a significant impact on the momentum that Environment Canterbury has made. It is also important, as I said before, to manage the transition so that the members of the community can be assured of continued success and progress.

There have been some amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee. The bill does not just continue the momentum of progress that we have seen but it builds on it by strengthening the partnership with Ngāi Tahu. The bill will require that two of the appointments to Environment Canterbury be made on recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, recognising their interests and guardianship role in the Canterbury region, its environment, and its natural resources. The bill also retains, as my colleague talked about, some of the special resource management arrangements put in place by the 2010 Act. However, some of the special powers will be withdrawn.

The bill being read today also incorporates a change brought about by Supplementary Order Paper 157 regarding the limited powers of appeal. Following the Local Government and Environment Committee’s report back, it became apparent that the provisions as drafted had the potential to cause legal uncertainty around plans, which would be subject to limited appeals. So the Supplementary Order Paper better clarifies the intention of the policy position, and that means the restriction of limited appeals to freshwater plans and policy statements.

I would like to thank all of those who took the time to provide their input and feedback into both the ministerial review and the resulting bill, including the 10 district and city councils of Canterbury, Ngāi Tahu, members of the public, and other organisations, as well as thanking the Local Government and Environment Committee for its work. As I said before, this work is important for Canterbury and the wider Canterbury region. I do want to put on record my personal thanks to the chair of Environment Canterbury, Dame Margaret Bazley, and the commissioners, who have worked incredibly hard over the last 6 years, as well as the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who have all worked incredibly hard on this bill before, during, and after its consideration by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in the third reading. The aim of the bill is to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during 2016 to 2019, the local authority election cycle period. Its aim, also, is to replace the governance arrangements that have been in place since 2010 under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It also aims to provide for the majority of members on the council to be elected by the people of the Canterbury region. Fourthly, its aim is to provide for the continuation of some of the modified resource management processes that have operated under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to remain available to the council in order to further progress issues relating to the management of freshwater within the Canterbury region.

Labour’s position is that we cannot support this bill. Why? Because Labour stands for local democracy and the principles that uphold it. I thought, for the purpose of the House and particularly for the members on the other side, I would highlight what those principles are. Local democracy is local autonomy and decision-making where communities are able to contribute to decisions about issues directly affecting local communities, and for which they pay. The principle around local differences and issues is that they are best met by designing solutions at a local level. There is a principle about open and transparent processes, and a principle around local councils with the autonomy to respond to the range of different needs and priorities that exist in their communities.

I listened with intent to both the Minister for the Environment’s contribution and the contribution from the other Minister on the other side of the House as to the justification for why, 6 years on, we are still requiring the presence of unelected officials. I listened, and I heard that back in 2010 it was the worst-performing council and there was a need to change it. I also heard the Minister talk about a water plan already having been designed, but the zone action plans have not been completed. I also heard him talk about sensible transitions. But when I listened, I thought that if you designed fair enough water plans for Canterbury, that is probably the precise time when you want to transition out and leave the implementation at the local level to those who are best geared to implement those water plans. So I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify another 3 years of unelected officials.

I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge the expertise of Dame Margaret Bazley, of Professor Peter Skelton, and, of course, of David Caygill—whom the Minister acknowledged—but, at the end of the day, I too stand with the people of Canterbury and believe that they have the capability to run their own affairs. I sit here and think, why is Canterbury so special that for 9 years—9 years, which is what this bill is going to do—the people of Canterbury cannot manage their own affairs? It is unacceptable to accept that rationale for why we are extending this arrangement. Given that the Minister himself has said the commissioners have done some great work—they have put in the water plans—there is not enough justification, from what I heard the Minister say, to warrant continuing this arrangement for another 3 years.

I want to turn the House’s attention to the regulatory impact statement in terms of the first key risk, as noted in the statement. The very first risk that the Ministry for the Environment identifies is: “Public consultation was confined to a proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure, rather than the range of options …”. There were no options that were put out for public consultation other than this model, so we have lost the opportunity to explore what arrangements the people of Canterbury themselves would have wanted to be governed under. Further down in the regulatory impact statement, another point that is made is that “the appointment of councillors is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government”. I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify the appointment of this transitional and mixed-model governance arrangement. I did not feel that that—again, 6 years on—justifies that we have to have this arrangement. I believe the people of Canterbury do have the commitment and the tools to govern themselves. It is unfair to say that water management is getting better under this particular model, and those people most affected are left out of the process.

So I stand with members from Canterbury on this side of the House—who have objected from the first reading of this bill to this third reading—to say that it is not democratic. It is not what the people of Canterbury either want or deserve, and it behoves me to say that, yet again, the rights and the interests of the good people of Canterbury have been sidelined. That is why I stand on this side of the House, with Labour members, to say that we cannot support this bill. Thank you very much.

It is a pleasure to rise in this third reading debate on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill because, as a non-Cantabrian, I have come to understand how important the water and sensible governance of Environment Canterbury is to not only Cantabrians but all of us as New Zealanders. I listened very carefully to the speeches of my two senior colleagues, the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the Hon Louise Upston. In their contributions to this debate, they gave very measured, careful, and thoughtful presentations on the justification and the rationale for this transitional legislation being presented to the House. Minister Nick Smith made it very clear that the Government is taking a cautious approach, and I would like to endorse that cautious approach because it is really important, as I said, not only for the people of Canterbury but for all New Zealanders that the governance of Environment Canterbury is absolutely stable and working functionally.

It was a pity, I think, for the House to have had to listen to two Labour speeches, now, from members who are clearly still in denial about the state of affairs that was in place at Environment Canterbury prior to the appointment of the commissioners in 2010. In fact, it is well-known that as late as the run-up to the 2008 general election, the then Labour Government, in its dying, death throes, absolutely knew that there was a huge problem with Environment Canterbury and refused to do anything about it. It refused to take a lead and work to solve what were enormously difficult challenges and problems with dysfunctionality. Simply, it was not so much that there were poor decisions being made; it was just that there were no decisions at all being made by the Environment Canterbury organisation. It was completely deadlocked and unable to move forward in terms of its planning for what is 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater resource. That is a situation that simply could not be allowed by a responsible Government to continue.

This bill establishes a sensible—in my view—mixed-model approach. It is a transitional model to ensure that when we go to the local government elections in October this year, seven elected and up to six appointed councillors will ensure that the momentum and the good, stable work that has been done by the commissioners—by the chair, Dame Margaret Bazley, and her fellow commissioners—over the time of their appointment since 2010 is continued and that their very good planning and structural work, not only in terms of fresh water but also in terms of the contribution that Environment Canterbury is making to the rebuild and regeneration of Canterbury following the earthquakes, is maintained and continued. I think that they need to be congratulated, as other speakers have done, and thanked for the very good work that they do.

I think that probably one of the great hallmarks of this time under the guidance and governance of the commissioners has been the rebuilding of relationships in Canterbury, not only with other local government authorities and territorial bodies but also, particularly, with Ngāi Tahu. At the Local Government and Environment Committee I was delighted that we were able to make a recommended change, which has been adopted in this bill, to have Ngāi Tahu nominating two representatives. Originally there was a plan that they would nominate one. Ngāi Tahu came to us at the select committee and suggested that they would like to nominate three. We agreed that probably there was a very good case for nominating two. So Ngāi Tahu will nominate two commissioners and they will then be appointed by the Minister. I think that is a very good and sensible approach to be taken.

Environment Canterbury was one of the country’s worst-performing councils, if not the worst-performing council, at the time the commissioners were appointed. It is really important for us as legislators that we do ensure that that momentum, the work and the task that the commissioners are doing, is continued. I am very pleased that we, as a select committee, were able to work our way through those issues. We took an opportunity to visit Christchurch—to sit in Christchurch in the council chambers, no less—and to hear from a range of very committed and passionate submitters, many of whom were, I think, making a point about how important it is that Environment Canterbury and its management and structure continue in the good way that it has been. Yes, of course they were making a point that they want to revert to fully elected representation, but I think that many of them actually did understand the need for a transitional phase, so that all these good things could be continued in a way that did not break that momentum.

As chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it is a pleasure for me to support this bill in its third reading, and I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party strongly opposes the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I have called it an abominable bill in the past, and nothing that I have heard in either the Committee stage or the second reading has convinced me that it is otherwise. I expected, in this third reading debate, that we would be hearing some justification from National members and Ministers as to why, 6 years after the National Government removed regional democracy in Canterbury, we had to see that half-pie model that they are proposing, with appointed commissioners, continue for another 3 years. But what we have heard again is a whole lot of misinformation about where the regional council was at in 2010.

Having been on that council, I would like to correct some of that. There was a natural resources regional plan, which had been proposed and notified and was being used by the regional council. In 2010 the Canterbury Regional Council was receiving more applications for water consents than every other regional council in New Zealand put together. There was no national policy statement on freshwater to provide any guidance for the council. Christchurch had the worst air quality in New Zealand, so the council had focused, in previous years, on developing an air plan in order to clean up the city’s air and reduce the number of premature deaths from respiratory illnesses. So there are a lot of major resource management challenges in the region. The Government was doing very little, if anything, to assist in providing guidance there.

Last Saturday, 6 years on from the loss of regional democracy, a small group of people gathered in Cathedral Square to remember that loss of democracy. We put wreaths on a cairn that thousands of Canterbury citizens had come together to build on a very cold day in 2010, using stones from rivers throughout the region. That cairn stands today, and will not be dismantled until we get regional democracy back and until there has been a substantial improvement in water management in the region.

The Green Party stands alongside everybody in Canterbury who wants an elected regional council back to better provide for the management not just of water but of the coast, air, regional transport, pests, and biodiversity. There were over a thousand submissions on this bill and only 15 of those submissions supported this half-pie model that the Government is imposing on the region. Those interests that supported it were rural councils, irrigation interests, and Federated Farmers. Those interests went to the Ministers in 2010 and demanded a change in Environment Canterbury because it was an elected council with councillors who wanted improved water management and that had strengthened the flow regime for the Waimakariri River. Graeme Sutton, one of the directors of Waimakariri Irrigation, went and complained to the Minister. We had rural councils that did not want a regional council calling them to account on their sewage discharges in Hanmer and their water takes in other areas—a regional council that was actually trying to enforce the Resource Management Act. So it was those irrigation interests, along with rural councils, that lobbied the Ministers for an overturning of democracy. It has been those rural councils that support this half-pie model that we are getting back in October.

The Christchurch City Council, which represents the majority of residents in the region, strongly supports the call to return democracy to the region. It is very interesting. We have got 78 councils in New Zealand; none of them will be having appointed commissioners around their tables come October. Even Kaipara, where we had a massive over-expenditure by about $50 million in a waste-water scheme and a doorstop-sized report by the Auditor-General, gets to elect its council in October.

What National is saying—that we need balance and we need some continuity with this model where we are having six appointed commissioners—does not make sense. It seems to ignore the fact that there are staff at the regional council who could have provided that continuity. It ignores that there are other models where two of the commissioners could have been retained as consultants, rather than just giving Cantabrians this second-class model with half a vote.

It substantially reduces our representation. In Christchurch we are down to four elected councillors when previously there were eight. Each one of those councillors in Christchurch will have to represent 90,000 voters. In South Canterbury the elected councillor there will represent only around 60,000 voters. To me, this is gerrymandering when a vote in South Canterbury is worth much more than one in Christchurch. It is giving the rural sector much more influence.

That is what this bill is all about. It is actually giving the Government influence on Environment Canterbury to ensure its agenda of promoting more irrigation, having very loose controls on land use, and allowing irrigators to capture a community resource to generate private profits. That is why the Government wants to continue to appoint six commissioners at that council table. What we have seen under the commissioners is the promotion of irrigation. We have seen the chair of the commissioners writing to the Selwyn District Council encouraging that council to give an $8 million loan to Central Plains Water to enable it to go ahead with stage two of its scheme.

Citizens want an independent, objective regulator in Environment Canterbury, not one that is promoting more irrigation and more intensification. Under the commissioners we have seen the proportion of rivers in Canterbury that are suitable for swimming decline from 74 percent in 2010 now down to 64 percent. In the new regional plan we have seen nitrate levels set that are several times higher than those that trigger algal blooms in our rivers. We are not seeing the improved water management that the Minister claimed he was appointing commissioners to put in place. Why, 6 years later, if these commissioners have done the good job that Ministers claim, have they not finished developing zone plans for everywhere in Canterbury? That is because water management is challenging.

In the Green Party we believe that elected councillors would do a much better job in representing the view of citizens throughout the country that we need much more controls on land use. We need to focus on cleaning up our rivers, not allowing them to be further burdened with more faeces and with more nitrates from more agricultural intensification, and we need not to be burdened with locking farmers into the high-input, high-cost, high-debt intensive farming model that these big irrigation schemes like Central Plains Water promote. People in Canterbury want our water back; we want our vote back. That will be achieved only by returning to a fully elected council, not this half-pie model that the Government is implementing through this bill.

We have not heard any arguments that are credible from Government Ministers or Government MPs as to why, 6 years on, we cannot have our democracy back. That is because this National Government fundamentally distrusts local government. It distrusts citizens having access to the courts. That is the other really noxious thing about this bill: there is a different version of the Resource Management Act that applies in Canterbury to the one that applies everywhere else in the country. In Wellington, in Otago, and in the Hawke’s Bay, citizens there can appeal their freshwater plans to the Environment Court. In Canterbury, this bill denies citizens that right. It makes it much harder for citizens and groups like Fish and Game, and Forest and Bird to appeal plan provisions that are too weak and to appeal plan provision that do not provide for clean water.

Not only is this Government stomping on regional democracy; it is also denying citizens access to the Environment Court. We want our water back; we want our vote back. This bill fails to deliver that. The Green Party believes that Cantabrians can elect a competent council to provide much better water management than appointed commissioners will and to provide a much more credible system. Thank you.

Nine years is far too long for a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury. Six years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done the job that they set out to do, and they have done a good job. Others have said that, and I agree. They have overseen the establishment of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, but that job is done and they proudly say so themselves. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. There is no way of going back now. Actually, clause 23 of the bill says this: “In considering any proposed fresh water plan or regional policy statement during the transition period, Environment Canterbury must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy …”. That actually entrenches the strategy right now in this bill. So why would it be necessary to continue having the appointed commissioners to do just that when, in fact, that would have to be done in the bill by the elected members, if only they were elected.

Local government is fundamentally about local democracy, a representative democracy. Where commissioners are appointed, their term must be the shortest possible term, otherwise the representation completely disappears from local government, and that is what has happened in Environment Canterbury over the last 6 years. By having this hybrid model, you actually get the worst of both worlds. You get neither a genuinely representative body nor one that is free from either the actuality or the perception of central government’s influence, and those things are important. In addition to that you will inevitably get a them-and-us attitude arising in the council itself, and that will not be positive.

I want to move on to the question of Ngāi Tahu representatives, because New Zealand First opposes that provision in the bill, as well. Ngāi Tahu is to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First’s policy generally is that people must not be appointed to elected bodies, whether they are elected councils or other bodies. New Zealand First says that provision is just as bad as the one that requires the appointment of the other commissioners as well. Both provisions are undemocratic and should not be in the bill.

The Government claims that what it wants is a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills. If you look at clause 11, those skills are spelt out and they are listed, and one of them is the management of fresh water. That skill is not exclusive to appointed people and, in fact, in Canterbury there are a lot of people who could be, and will be, elected to Environment Canterbury who have those skills in great measure. Another one is local authority governance and management, but there are actually more people available in Canterbury with those skills than there would be available for appointment, and they would be just as good. In addition to that there is knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people, but, in fact, elected people are much more likely to have those skills than any who could be appointed. So when you look at that objective for skills, they are better fulfilled by elected people than they would be by appointed people. So the Government’s justification utterly vanishes for that reason.

In addition to that the Minister has said that he wants to see continuity. Well, what is the magic about continuity? The real issue is not continuity; the real issue is an appropriate mix of skills of the people to serve on Environment Canterbury and, as I have just said, that can be done easily and fully with elected people. In fact, the bill does not even mention continuity at all, so I do not even know why the Minister raised the issue. It is completely irrelevant, as, in fact, is the rest of his argument to try to justify the appointment of people to Environment Canterbury.

The Government is paying only lip-service to local democracy in the bill by having some of the members elected and the rest appointed. It is really a hybrid council that will result. It would not be in any way democratic, and democracy would be compromised by the fact that there are appointed members, even if they are not in the majority. A full return to democracy is essential after these 6 years finish this year—that is essential. Because Environment Canterbury has already lost its credibility as a representative body with the people of Canterbury, they just do not see it as their council any more. That has gone, and it is not going to be easy to get back.

This bill will make it worse and not better. It should not go on for another 3 years, to make it a staggering 9 years in total. It is one thing to dismiss elected councillors way back in 2010, but it is another thing altogether to allow it to go on for 9 years. As I have said, it should go on for the shortest possible time. The Creech report actually said that “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 soon as their task is achieved. That task, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, shows that it has been achieved. Therefore, it is time for us to say to those commissioners: “Your job is done and, by the way, well done, but thanks and goodbye.” It is time for that.

And, lastly, the bill is seriously flawed in one other way. The legislation will be repealed under clause 6 after the 2019 local government elections, and by then Environment Canterbury will, under that clause, have to have decided what wards it will have, how many councillors per ward it will have, and so on, for that election to take place. But clause 29(2) says “Environment Canterbury must review”, and that means all of the members of Environment Canterbury, including the appointed members. The reason for the appointment of the commissioners was to look exclusively at water issues, not to decide what the future Environment Canterbury should be—not their job at all—and yet this bill makes it just as much their responsibility as it is of those who will be elected. That is totally inappropriate and it is not going to serve the interests of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to have appointed people deciding what their regional council will look like after 2019.

It is a serious flaw in the bill. I have mentioned it in previous speeches, and the Government has done nothing about it. The Government is simply cloth-eared about all the serious flaws in the bill, and just wants this legislation passed, irrespective of what the people of Canterbury say, because, as Ruth Dyson said, they have virtually all submitted that they do not want this bill.

The people of Canterbury want their full democracy back, including those who actually supported the appointment of the commissioners in the first place, because they know their job has been done. They know it is time for them to go. They think they did a good job, but they want their democracy back, and that is what should be happening now, not this idiotic bill which will achieve absolutely nothing and which will compromise democracy in Canterbury for another 3 years. It is a bad bill, and it should not be passed.

I rise to support the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I think it is a very good bill. I do not agree with the previous speaker, Denis O’Rourke. I think that if you look back a little bit into the history of how the Government got involved, the district councils of the Canterbury region approached the Government—and it was Labour at the time—to do something in 2008 because there were some issues of under-performance by the councillors at the time. They felt that their regional council was not moving anywhere, it was basically going down, and so at that time, according to my reading, the then Labour Government decided to leave it until after the elections. So when National came in, National picked it up and moved with it, fulfilling the wishes of the people who actually put that issue forward to the previous Government. The National Government went ahead and did it—it is a Government of action. So we went through and appointed these, I believe, very highly experienced commissioners.

I think it is not very nice to hear the previous speaker basically denigrate the great work that these people have done, when he says they can leave and go, and he basically says, you know: “You’ve done a great job, but that’s it.” But I believe that their skills should not be lost, and so the transitional part of this bill, where we have some appointed members staying on there for the continuity—in other words, we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, I think what we are doing is giving an opportunity for that bathwater to be sweetened by the appointment of the two Ngāi Tahu appointees. I believe that they will bring some great skills to that group, even if it is for the 3-year period, but I believe that, you know, they have just as many skills as anyone else who would be standing in the election process. Therefore, I think that the Canterbury people are very fortunate to be able to have such a very strong iwi put forward some—most probably, I would dare say—highly skilled people as appointees to Environment Canterbury. When I look around the country and I see the skill base and the work that Ngāi Tahu has done economically for the region of Canterbury, I think that Canterbury is very fortunate to have these two people who will be coming forward.

So my contribution is short. I think it is a good bill. I think that everybody else—the Opposition has been not very nice to the people who have worked hard to bring Environment Canterbury back to being a top-performing regional council, which it was not at the end of 2008. So I have no hesitation, and I am very proud to support the bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take no pleasure in this grim exercise: standing to speak on behalf of our democracy and environment, knowing the Government has no regard for these fundamentals. The Government, of course, says we are wrong to assert such a thing. The Government cares about democracy. Government members were elected themselves, after all—they are honourable, all of them. They care about democracy, and they are returning partial democracy to Canterbury. Yet the New Zealand Law Society condemned what they are doing here, saying: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power.” The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of New Zealand’s core constitutional values—namely, a free and democratic society.

Government members care for democracy. They tell us Environment Canterbury was sacked because it was incompetent, yet an independent evaluation of Environment Canterbury established no such thing. Government members are honourable. They care for democracy, yet they do not believe that the people know what is best for them in Canterbury. These very same people who voted for them are not competent to choose a full council in Canterbury. Government members do care for democracy. They are returning it, at least in part, in this bill, yet the people of Canterbury strongly disagree with this bill. Of the 1,169 submissions on this piece of legislation, only 15 supported this bill.

On a matter of democracy, the Government will not listen to the people and will not return full democracy. Is partial democracy really full democracy? The people of Canterbury and the Law Society say it is not. Yet Government members are honourable. They know the importance of having an independent judiciary, and yet this legislation continues to disallow appeals on regional plans to the Environment Court, and allows appeals to the High Court only on points of law.

Government members are honourable. They know the importance of having an independent judiciary, and yet the Minister for the Environment stood in this House and said he would appoint a judge to Environment Canterbury. Being appointed by a Minister who can remove you if he does not like what you are doing is surely not judicial independence. Decision making at a council level is surely not the same as decision making in a court context.

Government members are honourable. They are Bluegreens. They care about the environment, yet this removal of a right of appeal will help silence those who seek to speak to give voice to their environment. Government members are honourable. They care for the environment, yet the landscape in Canterbury is covered by spawning, spraying irrigators, draining the water from some of our most precious and beautiful waterways. Government members care for the environment. They put in place commissioners to care for the environment, and they tell us they have done a wonderful job, yet an area that will experience increasing climate change and drought and that has some of the worst water quality in New Zealand has under their watch become the irrigation capital of New Zealand.

Government members care for the environment. The elected council did a terrible job, yet the frameworks that that same council developed the Government now touts as proof of the commissioners’ success.

Government members care for the environment. They put in place commissioners to care for the waterways, yet irrigation has increased and water quality has declined. Our precious waterways are sick, and our land and climate are being sacrificed on their altar for dairying greed.

Government members care for the environment. They are honourable, and yet they take the people’s rights and watch the rivers die and they stand here with pride. The Green Party deeply opposes this bill.

As a Canterbury member of Parliament, I think that this bill comes down to a couple of fundamentals as part of the rationale as to why the Labour Party and other parties are opposing it. I think one of the most pertinent points that I am mindful of is a quote from the now Minister Nick Smith, in the The Timaru Herald, prior to the 2010 election, where he was wont to say that the reason that he sacked Environment Canterbury was that he was “worried about the outcome of the 2010 local body elections in Canterbury”.

💬 Grant Robertson: Worried.

Worried. As my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out—I think I was in Cabinet at the time, and a number of other colleagues and I were quite worried in 2008 about the outcome of that election. I do note that the Prime Minister did not go to the Governor-General and request that she cancel the 2008 general election. It happened. There was a result—they won; we lost. That is called democracy. But it is a telling admission by the Minister that he was “worried” about the outcome of the 2010 Environment Canterbury elections, so he canned them. I suppose he then, of course, made a commitment that that would happen once, that full democracy would be reinstated, and then he went back on his word—to put it in the most charitable terms that we can. He went back on his word. It was a dishonest and disingenuous statement.

Then we come to this bill, of course. We are going to have a little bit of democracy, but at the essence of this bill, the one question that the Minister could not answer, or would not answer—I put it to him, many colleagues put it to him—is why he does not have faith in the credibility and integrity and skill of the people in Canterbury to step up to the plate and take charge of their own affairs. To be fair, his colleague Gerry Brownlee, through the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, was going to steamroll a pretty dictatorial piece of legislation through. However, to give him credit, he listened to the submissions that were made to him. He listened to the Labour Party and the Christchurch City Council’s submissions that pleaded with the Minister to allow local people of skill and integrity to have a greater say in their future and, to give Gerry Brownlee credit, he acquiesced and he put a pretty good piece of legislation through. In contrast, this Minister does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to elect from amongst their number skilled and motivated and responsible folk to take charge and provide further leadership in their region as we move through the recovery and as we move to—what we have got here is sort of a halfway house of democracy.

If he wanted continuity, then what he could have done is have commissioners, perhaps as advisers, to sit alongside elected people to provide counsel, or if he had great faith, as he says he does, in those appointed commissioners, those appointed commissioners of course have the right to fill in the nomination form and have a crack themselves and stand for election. But the Minister has never been able to tell us why it is that he does not have faith in the good folk of Canterbury. No one in Government has been able to give a justification for that. He brought them down once, said it would not happen again, said he would reinstate democracy, and said he sacked Environment Canterbury because he was worried about the 2010 election result—presumably about the water plan and what would be the outcome of that, and who would be elected—and then he went back on his word again, as we now have this piece of legislation.

So Cantabrians will sit there today and look at this and scratch their heads because their Government—and I will be interested to see whether there are any more Government members, maybe from Canterbury, who would answer where the Minister would not answer as to why they do not have faith in the leadership of Cantabrians. They spout a lot of weasel words about Canterbury—a lot platitudes—but at the end of the day it comes down to whether you believe that Cantabrians will elect from amongst their number responsible people of integrity and skill, as there are thousands in that province who want to step up, want to show leadership, and want to take Canterbury to the next step. That is the key question that I challenge the Government to answer.

Mauri ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. One of the biggest political issues of the year is water, and quite rightly so. Water is one of the most valuable resources that we have, and one that requires well-considered public policy and careful management. This is why improving our management of fresh water is a top priority of this Government. But a lot of the responsibility for management of our water resources falls to local government, and in particular regional councils.

Seventy percent of New Zealand’s fresh water—the resource itself—is actually in Canterbury, and it falls under the responsibility of Environment Canterbury. You would think, given that statistic, that it would have been priority No. 1 for the Environment Canterbury councillors to get water management right, but apparently not. Ngāi Tahu are mana whenua, and have a significant interest in the management of water resources in the Canterbury region. You might think that Environment Canterbury would have seen its relationship with Ngāi Tahu as a key one, but no, it did not—no, it did not. I was on Ngāi Tahu’s governance board at the time, and I well remember the dysfunction that infected the relationship and the extent to which the iwi had to ensure that appropriate consultation occurred, often bearing the cost of that. The Creech report in 2010 found that Environment Canterbury had no established systems and processes for iwi input, or even for consultation. That was the background to the Creech report’s recommendation that the Environment Canterbury councillors be replaced with commissioners, and that is exactly what happened.

That was a decision that no Government would want to be put in a position to make, and one that I know was not taken lightly. But it was the right decision, and the result has been that environmental management in our region is back on track. Environment Canterbury is complying with the law—is complying with the law—in the issuing of consents. Also, it has a comprehensive plan to manage our water, which has been put in place. So, in fact, Environment Canterbury is not merely compliant with the law now; it has gone from being one of the country’s slowest and worst-performing councils to being one of the best. Strong relationships have been established with Ngāi Tahu and the territorial authorities in this region.

Now is the time to begin the transition—I agree with that—and now is the time to begin the transition back to fully elected council. All of those things that were just said—we hear all of this from the other side of the House, but at the end of the day this bill is a fantastic bill. It is actually going in the right direction, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Nuk Korako is a member of the Māori plutocracy, in favour of dictatorship rather than democracy. I mean, that is typical of the National Government, is it not? It really is losing touch when it thinks that after 6 years without democracy the answer is still “not democracy”. I think that that sort of says it all about the National Government—increasingly out of touch with what New Zealanders want.

I do not think this is unique to New Zealand. Actually, people around the world eventually march in the streets when they are denied their right to control how their lives are run through democracy. I look around this hall here, and I have heard other people say this before—but all the people who fought in these battles around the world, what were they fighting for? They were actually fighting for democracy because democracy, in the end, is what causes societies in the longer term to be prosperous and peaceful, because the sorts of accommodations that need to be made between people are made. The environment is actually better protected in democracies around the world than it is in countries that are not democratic.

So the aberration that we had in Canterbury, where there were problems with the management of resources, including water resources, justified only the shortest of interventions. I do agree that there were problems with Environment Canterbury. I also agree with Eugenie Sage that the problems were less serious by the time the Government put in commissioners than they had been earlier. The earlier regional council had been quite remiss in not having a water plan for the management of the resources. It is also true that the council was pressured by this huge change in the technology and economics of irrigation that meant there was a real push towards intensive land practices that were polluting the waterways. But the sadness is that 8 years on from this Government saying it was going to fix this sort of thing, including through its intervention in Environment Canterbury and through national policy statements, water quality in Canterbury is still getting worse. It is a terrible thing.

About 2 months ago I was fishing in the backblocks of Canterbury, in a pristine river. I was with a fishing guide whom a friend of mine was using, and he used to, until about 2 years ago, regularly take visitors to the mid- and south-Canterbury rivers—to the lowland rivers like the Ōpihi. He no longer does that. He has given up on that completely because they are too dirty to fish. They are sucked dry. The water that is left in them is dirty, and we have seen those photographs recently.

Those things have got worse under the National Government, and they continue to get worse because it has not grasped the nettle that needs to be grasped and it has made increases in land use intensity and land use. What is the cause of most pollution now? More intensive land practice and more irrigation. It is a higher-cost system. You need to have more output, therefore you need more livestock per hectare, therefore you need more fertiliser, and therefore you have more nutrient run-off and livestock effluent getting into our rivers. It is that simple. And the only way you can stop that is by having rules that say increases in land use intensity are no longer a permitted activity, because they have to be controlled in some way so that our waterways do not get dirty. The Government still has not done that, and, actually, with due respect to the commissioners in Canterbury, they have not done that either. Maybe elected ones would.

The other thing that this extension of this legislation does, other than make it so that there will be 9 years without full democracy in this region, is that it overrules conservation orders and conservation orders that were in process. The Hurunui River water conservation order had been made. It was going to go to the Environment Court eventually. The Environment Court has over the years in New Zealand made very wise decisions in respect of conservation orders, so that at least some of our rivers have been protected from damming and have appropriate minimum environmental flows and sometimes—not often, but sometimes—have some decent controls on water quality. The Government cut across that. It was clear that one of the reasons it was imposing these commissioners was to cut across it, because otherwise it would not have put these specific rules in the legislation about conservation orders; it would have just put commissioners in there and left the other laws intact. The Government cut across it because, in the face of this enormous pressure on Canterbury rivers, it is not even willing to allow there to be exploration in court as to whether there should have been a conservation order on the Hurunui River. And it pretends to be in favour of improving our water quality.

The Government says it is in favour of water quality, and what is its minimum standard? Wadeability. Wadeability—you can walk through it, but you cannot put your head under. It has all of these weird excuses from Nick Smith saying: “Oh, well, you know, rivers in flood can’t be swum in.” Well, they cannot be waded in, either—they do not even make the wadeability standard. No one was ever suggesting that that minimum standard should apply to rivers that are in flood. The next excuse from him was: “Well, look, some rivers are naturally dirty sometimes. Sometimes there are a lot of birds nesting on the bank.” That was one of the examples he used—seagulls on the bank of the Ashburton River. No one is suggesting that natural causes of river degradation can be regulated away; we are just saying human intervention ought to not be allowed to take dirty rivers to below a swimmability standard.

In truth, the objective of this Government—and it comes up with every National Government we have had in recent decades—is that it has got this two-class mentality for rivers. It is willing to protect a few rivers. They are generally large rivers that rise in national parks, and they are so big it is very difficult to put so much pollution in them—they get dirty anyway. The rest of the rivers—the small rivers, and particularly the lowland rivers—well, it lets them be polluted. It turns them into drains. That is what it has done in Canterbury, and it has stopped it being—and now I am going to hear Sarah Dowie get up next and defend the Government, and she will say what she said in respect of her last speech, which is: “In Southland there are all these wonderfully protected rivers.” It is not true—it is not true. I was counsel for the conservation orders on the rivers that have conservation orders in Southland. I regret that when I was counsel in those applications, because water quality was not a pressing issue, we did not get decent minimum water quality standards in those conservation orders. We got flow protection because the big threat generally was to flow; it was not to quality. Since then rivers like the Mataura have become filthy—filthy—and worse than they used to be. I have had people report to me that they come down and they walk across tributaries and drains that lead into the Mataura River and they are full of cow—what comes out of the end of a cow.

💬 Grant Robertson: “Excrement,” I believe the word is.

Excrement—that is right. I was going to use a shorter word.

There are complex problems behind rising pressure on waterways. It has been driven by a change in the profitability of different farming types. Rising commodity prices meant that increasingly intensive and expensive farming systems became economic. More irrigation could be supported, more fertiliser, and more livestock. That is one of the problems, and regulation has not caught up with it. One of the other pressures has been changes in technology, things that were not there 30 or 40 years ago—you know, K-Line irrigation enabling irrigation of rolling country. We have had other causes—for example, we have run out of land to develop. We used to break in land that had never been farmed. We have done all that now. Therefore, if you want to increase output you have to further develop the land that has already been developed, and therefore you have more pressure on waterways. All of these factors are playing a part, but the sad truth is that 8 years after this Government came in, having killed the Judge Sheppard national policy statement, which would have controlled increases in land use intensity and stopped our clean rivers getting dirty, the National Government has allowed it to get worse.

To me, the most important river is the local river that I want to swim in. I think that is true for most people. And if their local river is clean and my local river is clean, then all our local rivers will be clean and all our rivers will be swimmable. We are a long way off that. It is going to take a generation to get back to that, but one of the ways that you get that back is to listen to the voice of the people.

Canterbury people are sick of their rivers being polluted. They want democracy. I pay credit to the existing commissioners. They have improved the plan. They have taken out a lot of the irrelevancies and they have made some progress in Canterbury rivers. But now, 6 years after they were appointed, it is time to go back to full democracy. I oppose this bill.

I am quite taken aback. I did not realise that I had such a connection with Mr Parker—that we had this sort of telepathic thing going on. I am quite taken aback, but it must be since I have come on to the Local Government and Environment Committee that we sort of have this unspoken bond. I am looking forward to exploring this more as we move through our careers this term on that select committee. So thank you very much for that tribute.

Just in response, I will say that there has been research done by Environment Southland, in Southland—and I am not suggesting that there are not pockets or water bodies that are not polluted—and we actually have an opportunity in Southland. What we have found is that it takes approximately 3 years for nitrates and things to come through the system. So although that poses some risk, it is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity for us to clean up those waterways that are not so good. Environment Southland is working through that issue and developing a plan, catchment by catchment, so that we can do that. That is an opportunity and I am really proud of that, and I am looking forward to Environment Southland moving that forward.

But I digress. I am going to speak about the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill.

The sustainable management of our natural resources is a premise of utmost importance to New Zealanders and, of course, Cantabrians are no different. This bill establishes a mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury during the 2016-19 local government term. What that means is that there will be a council formed of seven elected councillors—that is, seven elected councillors—and six appointed councillors. The reason for that is to keep up the momentum that the commissioners have achieved in respect of water planning issues and to ensure the orderly transition of the institutional knowledge that the commissioners have, the stakeholder gains that they have made, and the relationships that they have built, moving forward.

This is a good transitional bill. It is a good transitional phase. Of course all Cantabrians want to move forward to a fully elected board model, but this is a transitional process to maintain that institutional knowledge and that progression. Therefore, I support this bill.