Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. We have an opportunity here to rectify a wrong that has been done in Canterbury. We have an opportunity here to put back in Canterbury what exists in the rest of the country, and that is a fully democratically elected regional council. Six years after the sacking of our regional council in 2010, Canterbury still does not have a fully democratically elected council. This is not something that I, as a Cantabrian, am prepared to sit by and watch happen, because it simply is not good enough.

We entered 2016 with great hope and great opportunity for our region and part of that is us taking back our destiny: us being in charge of our city. We have seen the transitional legislation around the power being given back to the locally led recovery in terms of the Greater Christchurch regeneration. There is simply no justification for continuing this mixed model of democracy, as the Minister for the Environment has labelled it. We have opposed the removal of our democratically elected councillors in Canterbury all the way through. We opposed it in 2010 when the council was sacked. We opposed the legislation in 2013 that extended the period out to 2016, and we opposed the legislation in 2016 that put in place this halfway house of having half of our councillors in our region appointed. It simply was not good enough.

But more concerning was the Cabinet papers that I read that were going around in the context of this legislation, one of which was a document from the Ministry for Primary Industries that was opposed to the restoration of full democracy in 2019 because it saw it as an impediment to its agenda. There is not a universal will in this Government to ever return Canterbury to having a fully democratically elected council, and this is not good enough. It is an insult to Cantabrians that we are treated differently to the rest of the country and an insult that the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, says that democracy in our region carries too many risks. This is from a democratically elected member of Parliament, who has the audacity to stand up and say that democracy is risky. That simply is not good enough.

My bill had the good fortune to have its moment out of the biscuit tin, its number being drawn only days after the triennial elections were held in Canterbury, which, of course, were held under the 2016 legislation that put in place the mixed model of democracy. This saw us have some elected members, but the Government appointees continue. This is not something that we are willing to see happen again. It is for this reason that—because this bill was drawn right after those triennial elections were conducted—I have drawn up and released Supplementary Order Paper 251 to signal my intent. The intent is that given that we have had democratic elections for just over half of the positions on the regional council in Canterbury, it would be an absurdity for those people who were duly elected to have to go through another round of elections. This bill calls for the holding of elections in a very short time frame after it receives the Royal assent, but we would not—and my Supplementary Order Paper has been released—be asking for re-election of duly elected councillors who were elected in the 2016 election.

One of the interesting questions, of course, that has come up and something that was contained in the 2016 legislation is the appointment of iwi representation sitting around the Environment Canterbury table. I think that this is an interesting question. I think this is something that deserves consideration at select committee about how this would fit with a democratically elected council. When speaking to other parties about this, I have certainly signalled our intention to remain open to how that may work within the framework. We are not simply looking to put in place exactly what existed in 2010.

We can see that there have been some improvements and some things that could improve in terms of going forward into our future and that is that having strong iwi voices around the table that talk about our waterways and that talk about how we are going to protect our environment could be of a huge benefit to our region. That is certainly something that we think would make a very fruitful and a very good topic of conversation at select committee about the best model to do that. Would that be through the way in which it is done under the current legislation, the 2016 legislation, which allows Ngāi Tahu to appoint those members, or would it be through a process of election for those? They are all important discussions that would need to be held at that select committee phase.

We do need to make sure that we are putting back in place, in Canterbury, the very best model of governance of our region and our regional assets that we can have to take us forward into this next, exciting phase that we face in our region. So much of the emphasis of the work of Environment Canterbury centres on the irrigation agenda that lies at the heart of why it was that our regional councillors were sacked in the first place. But what we also have to consider is the other functions of Environment Canterbury. I want elected members to be making those decisions about our transport in our region. I want elected members to be thinking about how it is that we can have the best and most progressive public transport system in our region that is going to be integrated into the fantastic rebuild that we are doing.

It simply is not good enough that councillors sitting around the table have not been chosen by the people. They have been appointed by the Government of the day. This is not something that I, as a democratically elected member of Parliament, can ever condone. I cannot understand how it is that fellow elected members can pass legislation after legislation that strips away the democratic representation of an entire region and treats it differently from the rest of the country. By voting for this bill and sending it to the select committee there is a great opportunity to think about how it is that we can put back in place a better model and how it is that we can put in place a model of governance for our region in Canterbury that takes us beyond this Draconian way of looking at our region, this top-down approach from Government that if elected members do not do what you want, then you sack them and put in place people who will do what you want.

This is not the way any of us want our country to be governed, and this is not the way that Cantabrians want their region to be governed. I call on Canterbury MPs from across the House to vote for this legislation. Vote for your region, and not your party. Vote for the people whom you represent, the people who elected you and put you in this House, so that you can go back and look them in the eye and say: “I have not stripped away your democratic rights yet again. I have stood up for the people whom I represent and the people’s rights to have democratic representation.” Those members could go back home to their constituencies, or to the areas where they are based, and they could have their consciences rest easy, knowing that they have stood up for a fundamental right of no taxation without representation. It simply is not good enough that we are having this period continue.

We are going to see members stand up and hear them say that the legislation is outdated and it has missed the boat. There has already been a Supplementary Order Paper that has been released. We are absolutely open to the question of how best to have iwi representation and iwi input into the Environment Canterbury structure. If members opposite will not take up the challenge to vote for their region and not for their party, what I want to hear is their justification for why they are treating their voters differently to the rest of the country. This is an opportunity for us to put in place the best governance structures for the future of Canterbury—one where we can genuinely have a locally led future. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It is a great honour for me to speak on this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, at the first reading. I speak on this bill as a Cantabrian and as a member of Ngāi Tahu whānui. What we want to see is our regional council operating as well as it can, for the good of all Cantabrians. So I also speak as someone, as I said, with a Ngāi Tahu background who is keen to see tangata whenua being involved in environmental management and decision making in our rohe. I welcome the opportunity to address the Parliament on a matter that I know is of such importance to the Canterbury region and also to Ngāi Tahu whānui.

Some time ago I was accused of bringing to this House a member’s bill that was a so-called waste of time. My bill was small, its effects minor, and it was entirely appropriate that the Government supported its inclusion in a Statutes Amendment Bill. In fact, I think that bill took less of my time than it did of those Labour members opposite who spent their own time and the House’s time making a fuss about a measure that they ultimately supported. But today, in this bill, we have an absolute waste of time: we have a bill that amends a piece of legislation that is no longer in force. Leaving aside, for a moment, the absolute shambles that this bill is, I would still like to do Megan Woods the courtesy of looking at what she was actually trying to achieve.

The Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill has a single-minded purpose, which is to overturn existing governance in the Canterbury region. The result, should it pass into law, would be a return to the status quo prior to the appointment of the commissioners in 2010. New governance arrangements for the regional council were put in place to address two primary issues: freshwater management, and the relationship with Ngāi Tahu.

Status quo governance was failing in the areas that I know to be fundamental to the well-being of all Cantabrians and are at the heart of what matters to my whānau. At present we have a majority of elected regional councillors who won their seats through a democratic process of local body elections in October. At the table with these elected councillors are commissioners who have served Canterbury over the last two terms, and two appointed iwi representatives. These arrangements were the result of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016. The key to that piece of legislation is the word “transitional”. My colleagues here in Government recognise the need to provide continuity for freshwater management programmes under way and for active partnership with Ngāi Tahu to be maintained at the governance level.

Although the call for a full return to democracy has an intellectual appeal, the reality is that there has been an enormous amount of progress in those key areas of freshwater management and the Ngāi Tahu relationship with councils over the last 6 years. There has been an incredible development in that relationship. What we have with the transitional arrangements is an opportunity to embed those gains for the long term. Overturning current arrangements in a rapid, knee-jerk reaction has the potential to undo all of that good work, and also the council leadership over these years, since it was acknowledged that status quo council governance was really failing. Importantly, the Ngāi Tahu relationship with Environment Canterbury had been woeful prior to the appointment of the commissioners. When looking at that too we now have—since the arrival of the commissioners, and moving forward to what we have today—Environment Canterbury in a real place of strength.

Right now, council and iwi together are focused on working in partnership to help Kaikōura and North Canterbury recover from the recent, devastating earthquake sequences. Working together can happen with relative ease, as a result of strong lines of communication and habits that have been built over the last 6 years. The governance level down through the regional council structure was also a major part in that. Now is the wrong time to overturn that governance arrangement in Canterbury. We have 3 years of transitional—of transitional—legislation, during which time all of those interested in Canterbury Regional Council governance can work towards ensuring we do not lose what has been gained over those last 6 years.

Understanding that earthquake recovery takes time and having stable leadership and governance over the next 3 years will be of great benefit to the people of Kaikōura and, also, North Canterbury. We are fortunate to have the existing council in place with those elements of continuity in experience at this time. I know that for Ngāi Tahu whānui in Kaikōura—this is a particular relief for them as they tackle the innumerable challenges that link back to the resource management function of the regional council. Challenges of this magnitude require strong, stable leadership, and that is what we currently have in place at Environment Canterbury. With the mix of a majority of elected councillors alongside seasonal commissioners and iwi representatives—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Seasonal commissioners?

Seasoned—seasoned. I am glad you picked that up, because that was actually for you; that is why it was for me to attest to that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Not me.

This is a local government, central government, and iwi working together, which is what this side of the House is about. The bill is framed around the premise of a loss of democracy in Canterbury. Making that assertion ignores the fact that the transitional arrangements for Canterbury are a local government, central government, and iwi partnership arrangement. It ignores the fact that the people of Canterbury made their choice in the last general election—in the last general election—if you have forgotten that. In Selwyn, Ilam, Waitaki, Waimakariri, Rangitata, Kaikōura, and Christchurch Central—these communities voted for National. They voted for National to continue on with the programmes in place within the region. That includes the Government commitment to stable, effective governance arrangements in Canterbury. That recognises the importance of the relationship with Ngāi Tahu, which this bill wants to throw out the window.

What I can do here is to really just go back and say that what has been in place since the end of this council—when you had so many mayors come to Wellington and wanting to see the back end of it; commissioners were brought in—after 6 years, we are at a place of strength. So this bill here is a waste of time, and I hope that Megan Woods’ colleagues are happy with her taking up that time on members’ day ahead of more worthy bills that they and members on our side of the House have in the ballot. This bill is a shambles, and National will not support it. Kia ora rā.

I want to warmly congratulate Dr Megan Woods on, first of all, instigating this bill, recognising that in New Zealand we value democracy. It is quite a fundamental part of our culture. We should not have a democratic right taken away from us without good reason.

💬 Jacqui Dean: Oh, let’s talk about the Electoral Finance Act, then.

Jacqui Dean, I thought, as an elected constituency member, you would understand the value of democracy, but clearly not. So I want to congratulate Dr Woods, first of all, on thinking of this, recognising the gap in our democratic process, and then on the sheer good luck of having the bill drawn. Not very many members get to have bills drawn. For some it is better that they do not have them drawn, because the content of them is exposed, but in this case, this is a very good bill.

I remember when we first had the taking away of democracy legislation introduced by Dr Nick Smith, on totally false premises. Anyone who has read the Creech report would understand that the two reasons Nick Smith gave for taking away our democratic right to vote were lies, a misrepresentation of the Creech report. Frankly, when you have had somebody like the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech as a Deputy Prime Minister in the National Government, you would think he would earn more respect from his colleagues, but they just dismissed his report and then made up a whole lot of stuff.

I want to get back to those fundamental points before. I want to congratulate the elected Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors, who for the first time in 6 years were elected in the last local body elections. The member who has just resumed his seat, Nuk Korako, said that Ngāi Tahu are unable to have a strong relationship with a democratically elected organisation, and I think that is cobblers. I think that Ngāi Tahu can do pretty well anything, because they are incredibly competent and incredibly passionate about their mandate of representation. They are able to have a strong relationship with a democratically elected organisation, and Dr Woods gave a very clear commitment to working with other members in this House to ensure that we did have tangata whenua representation on a democratically elected board. This is a total win-win that we could get out of this situation, and that is certainly where my vote is going.

At the heart of this bill is the restoration of democracy. How could anyone in a New Zealand Parliament vote against the restoration of democracy? How is that possible? No answer, as usual, from the National Government members—no answer. I know they are distracted this week, I know there is a lot of self-promotion and number-counting going on, but I think it is a pretty fundamental question for a member of Parliament to be answering. What is good about voting against the restoration of democracy?

💬 Ian McKelvie: I’ll tell you shortly.

I doubt it—I doubt it. That member is not up to it.

There were two lies, as I mentioned earlier, about the removal of our democratic right. The first one—the first lie—was that ECan was dysfunctional. I have read the Creech report, and any implications of a dysfunctional regional council were totally dismissed by Wyatt Creech in that report—totally dismissed. The second was that ECan failed to prepare a water plan. The 2004 draft water plan is the water plan that is now operational, that is now in effect. Both of those “reasons” that Nick Smith, as the Minister responsible for taking away our right to vote, gave—neither of them were correct. Neither of them were true. I challenge any member of the National Government to read the Creech report and show one single sentence that backs up the flawed arguments that Nick Smith put in place.

In 2010 Nick Smith said: “This is going to be a short-term measure. We’ll just get ECan back on track and then you can have your votes back.” He put in another “transition to democracy” plan and said it was another short-term measure, and then he put another short-term measure in place. When he was challenged, he said that a return to full democracy in Canterbury was too risky. He has relied on gerrymandered boundaries, and he has relied on people he has appointed who are accountable to him and not to the citizens of Canterbury. It is time for a genuine and immediate transition back to democracy in our region.

It is with some trepidation, I guess, that I rise to speak on this bill, because it is a bill that has come to the House completely unnecessarily. We are occupying the time of the House on a bill that is actually not necessary and has been completely overtaken by the effective, efficient, and very good work that has been done by this Government in this area.

Back in 2010 Environment Canterbury (ECan) was entirely dysfunctional—entirely dysfunctional—by any and all measures. So a set of commissioners was installed. Then in 2011 the new, keen, enthusiastic member for Wigram, Megan Woods, was elected to what was once a safe Labour red stronghold and what has become, under her candidacy, a marginal seat, one at risk next year. This member came into the House and did as she is required to do by the instructions of her party and her whip. She put a bill in the members’ ballot. And, there, she did. She put a bill in the ballot and then promptly forgot about it. She forgot about it and left it there.

Subsequent to that, of course, back in 2016—earlier this year—this efficient and effective Government made really good changes to improve the transition of ECan back to full democratic election at the next local government elections. Then, the member having forgotten that her bill was in the ballot, it was drawn from the ballot. Nobody in this Parliament got a bigger surprise than the member for Wigram when the bill that she had completely forgotten about was drawn from the ballot.

I cannot believe what her face might have looked like when the news arrived that the bill had been drawn, because the bill had been completely overtaken by events that this Government had done. “So what to do now?”, was the great issue for the member. The member’s problem was that because her member’s bill was completely superfluous and no longer required, she had to prepare the hastily drawn up Supplementary Order Paper 251 to ensure that the member’s bill that she had put in the ballot when she was first elected as the new, bright, shiny, bouncy member for Wigram—in the marginal seat of Wigram. She has had to do a very quick change around and try to double back, to put it into some kind of context that makes it vaguely—barely, marginally—relevant to the legislation that this Government has put forward in terms of transitioning ECan back to a full democratic process.

This bill is an embarrassment to the Labour Party. It is an embarrassment to the member, who showed so much potential when she was first elected—so much potential; potential that has actually not lived up to fulfilment. If the member had been more in tune with what was going on in this Parliament, in terms of the legislation that was before it, and had not forgotten about her member’s bill in the ballot, and then suddenly realised it had been drawn out, she would have probably just completely withdrawn it. That would have been the appropriate, sensible thing to do. But, no, this House is now occupying valuable time addressing a bill that is completely irrelevant, no longer required, and is actually so backward-looking in its view that one must really begin to doubt why we are here at all.

This bill is one that is out of touch. The member is trying to amend an Act that has already been adequately replaced by the hard-working members on the Government side. I am disappointed. I thought that the member had greater potential than to allow this bill to proceed, to go forward. I thought the member came to this Parliament to be proactive, to make a positive contribution, and to look forward, rather than to spend the time of Parliament trying to drive while looking through the rear-vision mirrors.

This is not a good bill. It is a bill that the Government will oppose. It is a bill that is not required and is not necessary. It is a bill that is wasting the time of our Parliament. I hope that this bill will be soundly and positively rejected by the Parliament on its first reading. I do not commend it to the House.

What a load of cobblers. I am astonished that the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Scott Simpson, can say that democracy is unnecessary, is irrelevant, and is no longer required, and that a bill that restores democracy in Canterbury is out of touch and a waste of time. That is extraordinary, from a member of this House. I congratulate, and the Green Party congratulates, Dr Megan Woods on having the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot.

This is a very important bill because Canterbury is the only region in New Zealand where citizens do not get to vote for a completely elected regional council. Instead, we have got this mickey mouse arrangement where there are only seven elected councillors and six appointed commissioners—an arrangement where we have, effectively, a rural gerrymander, where a vote in South Canterbury is worth more than a vote in Christchurch because fewer than 60,000 citizens in South Canterbury elect a councillor but 90,000 citizens in Christchurch elect a councillor.

💬 Hon Jo Goodhew: How many voted? I wonder how many voted.

It is an obnoxious state of affairs that we do not have full democracy back. The Minister, Ms Goodhew, is asking: “How many voted?”. Well, Minister, we can change that by ensuring that we have civics education in schools and that the Electoral Commission has a much greater role in enrolling voters.

It is a disgrace that we do not have a fully elected council back in Canterbury. Why do we not have one? It is because it is so tied up with promoting an irrigation agenda. What did the then Minister of Agriculture say to Irrigation New Zealand at its conference in April 2010, just after the commissioners had come in? He said: “I would have thought what happened recently with Environment Canterbury would be a signal to all regional councils to work more constructively with their farmer shareholders.” He went on to say: “We had to act here, in Canterbury, because the situation was untenable if we are going to seriously make progress in delivering this irrigation.” That is what the denial of democracy in Canterbury was all about: allowing New Zealand Agribusiness, Irrigation New Zealand, Waimakariri Irrigation, and others to have a hotline to Ministers, and for the commissioners, who were appointed, to ensure that water management and the plans in Canterbury favoured more irrigation.

Members on the opposite side have talked about the Creech report. They have talked about how Environment Canterbury was not performing. Well, I was one of those councillors; it was. We had cleaned up the air in Christchurch and we were tackling water management. What has happened under the commissioners? If they had done such a good job for the last 6-plus years, why could they not have solved the problems in 6 years? Why do we still have six appointed commissioners on that body if the Government’s half-pie model and its appointed model were so successful?

We only have to look at rivers like the Waikirikiri River, the Selwyn. That river goes underground in its middle reaches, but that stretch where there is just a dry riverbed, which is, effectively, a four-wheel drive track, has become wider, and the dry reach of riverbed has extended for longer. Why is that? It is because too much water is being taken for irrigation. The commissioners have overseen the decline of the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River so that you now have ankle-deep water at Coes Ford. Instead of a swimming hole—it is not safe to swim, down at the Lower Selwyn Huts. I was visiting there recently with Catherine Delahunty and Mojo Mathers. The water is a vivid green. The community at Selwyn Huts has been able to swim in that river in the past; now it is too polluted to bathe in or even to boat on. There is a picture in the Press that shows a rope just hanging forlornly. People cannot go swimming in the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River. The decline of the river has been exacerbated, under the commissioners, because they have failed to put limits on irrigation, to put adequate limits on water quality, to see these spring-fed rivers, like the Waikirikiri/Selwyn River, restored. We need democracy back. The Green Party supports this bill, which would do that.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. I am speaking against this Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill, and—unlike the previous speaker, Eugenie Sage, implied—it is not because I have any problem with democracy; in fact, I am a great supporter of democratic institutions and methods of appointing governance bodies.

The current arrangements that are in place for Environment Canterbury do not represent an abrogation of democracy. Need I remind the House that just 2 months ago we actually had elections for Environment Canterbury? And would members opposite claim that a district health board, for instance, is an abrogation of democracy? District health boards, which were, in fact, put in place by the previous Labour Government, that use exactly the same method of determining the members of their governance body—that is, a combination of those elected and those appointed.

But the point I would make first, before delving into any of the details, is that these issues have been quite well canvassed in recent select committee hearings—recent, as in the last 12 months—in Christchurch. We heard from those who suffered from the failures of the previous Environment Canterbury body. So when we hear pleadings from the other side that there was no fault found in Environment Canterbury by the Creech report we know this is not the case, and these are not the lived experiences of people who had to tolerate the incompetence and the inability of Environment Canterbury—as it previously was formed—to arrive at decisions.

We heard passionate arguments from, for instance, the disability community in Christchurch, who very credibly claimed before the committee that the situation for disabled passengers, for instance, on public transport—for which Environment Canterbury has responsibility within that region—has improved massively under the current arrangements. They paid enormous credit to Dame Margaret Bazley and others—appointed members—who they said had brought into place much, much better, much more respectful, much more accessible systems for those with disabilities who rely on public transport. This was a lamentable failure by the previous Environment Canterbury governance arrangements; they let down one of the most vulnerable sections of our community. So when members opposite claim that they were doing their job and doing it well, they should actually hang their heads in shame at that failure to look after some of the most vulnerable people in this country.

The previous Environment Canterbury failed to deliver a plan for the use of water in the region. One of the most important and one of the most fundamental duties that it was given by the people of Canterbury was freshwater management—and it failed, again, lamentably in that. So I make no apologies for the arrangements that have been put into place by this Government: firstly, to bring in commissioners; and then the transitional arrangements that have only just recently been introduced and that recently involved an election with a combination of appointed and elected councillors, which is working well for the people of Canterbury. Certainly, that is the evidence we heard on the committee.

As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Mr Scott Simpson—the very fine member for Coromandel—said during his contribution that this bill is redundant: it seeks to amend an Act that is no longer in force. So, as he mentioned, there is the hastily drafted Supplementary Order Paper 251, which seeks to amend the, unfortunately, completely irrelevant and out-of-date member’s bill that the member allowed to continue to go forward in the ballot.

But in my view we have just elected a local and regional council in Christchurch, and we have a process in place—and it is a very sensible and pragmatic process in place—to see a transition to fully elected councils in that area in 2019. But we are doing that in a controlled and sensible way—not the chop-and-cut approach that Dr Woods is suggesting in her, frankly, embarrassing and ill-advised member’s bill that for some reason she failed to withdraw from the ballot when, in fact, the legislation that it amends has been changed. This will slow progress and lead to instability in Canterbury. This is something that the people of Canterbury do not need and for that reason this bill must not progress.

New Zealand First will enthusiastically support this bill because a call for fully democratic regional government in Canterbury now is a perfectly valid call. The comments by members opposite only show how utterly out of touch they are with the feelings of the people of Canterbury. Nine years is far too long for a return to a fully elected regional council in that province; 6 years was easily long enough for the commissioners to do whatever they felt they needed to do—and I thank them for their service, but it is time for them to go. Their time is over. Whatever it was that they needed to achieve they have had time to do and it is high time they went.

Local government is fundamentally about representative democracy. Therefore, when commissioners are needed their term must be short. Six years is not short; 9 years is, frankly, ludicrous. The people of the region will become disillusioned with local government altogether and give up on the democratic system if they feel they are not engaged with it—and we can see that in the low turnout that happened in last year’s elections. The damage in that respect in Canterbury has been huge because of the grossly unnecessary delay in returning to a fully elected council. It was troubling enough when the commissioners were appointed for more than 3 years; it is absolutely, totally wrong for them to be appointed for a term of up to 9 years.

The Government claimed, when it passed the bill for the current hybrid council, that we needed a stable Environment Canterbury with “specialist skills”. It said those skills were, firstly, the management of fresh water. Well, that is not exclusive to appointed people. Elected people are more than capable of handling that. It also referred to “local authority governance and management”. Well, appointed people cannot do that at all. It referred to “knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people”. I would have thought that elected people can actually do that much better than appointed people could do. So, when you look at the reasons that are given in the current legislation empowering the hybrid council, they do not justify any appointed members at all. They justify only elected people.

The Government has also claimed that it wanted continuity. That means continuity of the commissioners—or at least some of them; half of the current council. But the issue is not continuity for them; it is continuity of democracy, which is the normal state and the proper state for local government in local communities. Local government as a democratic function is an absolute right for local communities and should be abrogated only for very, very good reasons and for the shortest possible time. Nine years gets nowhere near those criteria.

Lip-service only to democracy has been painted by the current Government. It is not really interested in local government at all, especially the member who spoke last on that side of the House, Paul Foster-Bell. He talked nonsense. He said that he was for democracy and then gave a speech against it. That is absolutely shocking and completely unacceptable.

The last thing I want to say in the last few seconds is that the current Act providing for the hybrid council says that “Environment Canterbury must review” the arrangements for the regional council that is to happen after 2019. That means that appointed people are going to be sharing in the decision as to what the new so-called democratic council is going to be. That is utterly wrong and also shows just how out of touch and how uninterested in local democracy that party across the House is. They are not interested in local democracy. Their opposition to this bill proves it. This bill rectifies all the problems with the current hybrid council and it needs to be passed.

I stand to take a short call on this bill, which, really, at the end of the day, is basically wasting the House’s time, because we have already passed the bill for a transitional regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), and I absolutely support what we have done in doing this. But what the member is trying to do in this bill is trying to usurp the current state by telling those who were democratically elected that that was a waste of their time—it was a waste of their time doing that. That is rubbish. That is an insult to the intelligence of those who actually put themselves forward for the new regional council, and at the end of the day to have this bill in the House is an insult to them.

We all know why the transitional Environment Canterbury bill was put in. It was because the councillors in 2010 were not living up to the responsibilities that they were given by the people of Canterbury. They were not living up to that, and that is why they came to this Government and said: “Please intervene. Please replace and put in a team of regional councillors who will actually do the job that we want them to do around water management planning.” So we did that and, yes, we came to 2016 and we said: “Yes, we do believe in democracy, but it is going to be for this particular regional council a transitional process. It is going to be a transitional process, because why throw the bathwater out with the baby. Let’s keep some of those councillors from the previous council—the appointments from the Minister, let’s keep them there—and let’s keep that continuity of the work that they have done there on that council to help the people of the region in Canterbury.”

I do not support this bill. I think it is wasting the time of this House to actually have it here. I think that what we currently have in place, the transitional ECan bill, will suffice until 2019 when Cantabrians can have their full say on that vote. Thank you.

I call Jan Logie for 15 seconds.

This Government has clearly thrown out the baby, and its members are throwing out the water, as well, with this bill in their lack of support for this bill. The Green Party is very pleased to be able to support this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before we rose for dinner, I was talking about the Government member prior to me talking about the Government having “thrown out the baby”. I do think it was an interesting concept—particularly when you think of cradles of civilisation and how Greece is often talked about as one of the cradles of civilisation, as well as some of the supporters of democracy—and it does seem apt in this situation that the Government has thrown the baby out of the cradle.

The Greens are very happy to be supporting this bill, because we really believe in local democracy. We heard from another previous National speaker who was saying he was absolutely an advocate for democracy—and then went on in his speech to sing the praises of how much better the politically appointed commissioners were than those who were democratically elected. It does seem to me that you cannot really have it both ways. We have also heard from previous speakers that the compromise of democracy—which we have been told is still democracy—is a transition; that it is being returned to the people, even though the Law Society described this as a loss of local democracy. But, you know, do not worry about the law, do not worry about our constitutional arrangements, and keep on holding on to that truth/post-truth reality that you seem to have.

We have also heard from speakers that the reason we need this abrogated democracy is that we need to protect the freshwater management in Canterbury. Yet—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Yeah right!

Exactly. What we have heard and seen in Canterbury, and the people in Canterbury have seen so vividly, is an absolute loss of environmental integrity in our waterways. In the time that those commissioners have been in place, the proportion of rivers in Canterbury that are swimmable has gone from 74 percent of them that were swimmable in 2010 to only 64 percent of them now—down 10 percent in that time. These are the people who have been brought in, overriding local democracy, to supposedly improve freshwater management. You have got to wonder what their concept of management really is if they think that is success.

Then we heard that, actually, this is about the relationship with Ngāi Tahu and securing their voice in the local government process. That is something that the Greens absolutely support. We are very pleased that the member whose bill this is is keen to have that discussion in the select committee. But I would challenge the Government members that if they really were keen on that, then go around the country and talk to every single iwi and ask them how happy they are with the performance and their relationships with their local government partners. You will find that if that is your rationale for putting in commissioners, then there is a need for a whole lot more commissioners. And, actually, for the Government: you should be making changes to your Local Electoral Act and removing the blatantly racist provisions in there that require a referendum for the provision of Māori seats where there is no requirement for referenda for any other local electoral amendment. So if you are saying that an iwi representation is important for you, then this bill does not stack up against your other actions.

But, ultimately, this bill is about restoring the voice of the local people in Canterbury. They managed to get the elections and they elected people who supported freshwater management. Now we want that area to have 12 elected people—not 6. We want the Government to relinquish control and its agenda of irrigation and pollution. The hybrid model was not supported by the people of the area. Of the submissions last time, when that model was brought in, there were over a thousand and only 15 supported that. There is no way you can say the Government’s model is wanted.

I am a bit slow to rise, Mr Deputy Speaker. It takes me a while to get up, because of my age.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was thinking that.

Well, the slow legs—that is a bit of a problem. Anyway—

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: We needed that information.

Yes; do not pick on me. I have a great deal of pleasure in rising to speak on the Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill. In 2010 the Government intervened—I suppose “intervened”, for want of a better word—in the Canterbury Regional Council and put commissioners in place. I would have to say that the commissioners they put in place, in my view, were extremely competent, but that is beside the point.

I think the issue that I have with this—and I have some experience of local government, having spent a bit of time there. I think one of the challenges regional councils have is that the agenda they are set as councillors is extremely complicated. I think one of the problems that Canterbury had as a regional council, and I am sure many other regional councils in New Zealand have had as well, is that that agenda, when set, was extremely difficult for those councillors to get their heads around. I will go on to that in a minute.

I am not criticising the councils, because I think, if you look at the way we elect our councils throughout New Zealand, being elected to a district council is a whole lot more of a different issue than being elected to a regional council or, for that matter, to a health board. A district council is all about people, and people are—well, for those of us who have spent our life managing people—not that difficult. They are things that are easy to manage—well, not easy to manage, necessarily—but they are things that we can get our heads around. But the issues of health and the environment are much more complex.

I think that one of the challenges our regional councils throughout New Zealand have had in their time, or particularly since they started to merge plans—in fact, since 1989—is that the issues have been very complex. So I do not blame the people elected to those councils for not necessarily getting their heads around what was going on, and I guess at the end of that, then holding up progress from an environmental perspective, and from an economic perspective, I suppose, but for me the environmental perspective is a lot more important.

I ask why a local hearing commissioner, for example—who used to be elected to a district council; nowadays they are slightly more professional—has to undertake onerous training to sit on hearing panels. They undertake examinations. There is quite a difficult threshold for a hearing commissioner or a person to be appointed to a hearing panel on a local council, or wherever. We then elect people to the regional council and expect them to come with all the skills. Sure, we do some councillor training and stuff like that, but it is not that easy. I think that the reason there were challenges in many of our regional councils throughout New Zealand was the fact that it was extremely difficult for the average person to be elected to a council and then have to deal with the very complicated environmental and scientific issues that they are faced with.

When you are elected to a local district council, to a community board, or whatever else, you do not generally face those very complex issues, and if you do, they are pretty easily resolved—whereas, in my experience of regional councils, particularly around scientific water and environmental stuff, it is very complicated. So I can understand why Canterbury had some challenges with their council. I can understand why we have had challenges in other parts of New Zealand with, I guess, the progress and the progression of regional plans and things like that, because it is a hugely complicated issue to understand.

So although the member has had her bill drawn, and I wish her every success with her bill—as I said earlier in the day, I do not have any success in having bills drawn. In fact, I am pretty sure my bill is missing from the ballot. I would like to go and test that one day, just to see whether, in fact, it is in there. But it is not; I am sure it is not, because it has never been drawn. This bill really is not relevant any longer, simply because the Act has been changed and the progress towards restoring democracy has started. It will be interesting to see how that progress goes.

I just want to touch on health boards for a moment. For quite some time now we have had a mixture of appointed members, who then create the expertise, and elected members, who give the community vision to the health board. A very similar sort of thing, in my view, exists for the Canterbury Regional Council. I think history will prove this model to be a very successful model for something as complicated as a regional council. Thank you.

Thank you to the speaker Ian McKelvie, who has just taken his seat for giving a far more constructive contribution on the bill than many of his colleagues did; it is much appreciated. I just want to run through the reasons why—the four reasons that the Opposition has put up—they cannot support democracy and the restoration of democracy in the Canterbury region.

The first argument is that it is unnecessary: that the current arrangements and the mixed-model that we have in Canterbury are OK, and that it is a return to democracy. Well, I have said it before and I will say it again—you cannot be a little bit pregnant. This is not a mixed-model of democracy; this is the Government appointing people to run Canterbury. I do take note of the speech that the member Ian McKelvie, who has just taken his seat, gave because he gave a speech that reached far beyond Canterbury. He talked about how this is a necessary and desirable tool to use outside the specific conditions of Canterbury, which the Government has continually used as its justification for the 2010 sacking of our regional council, the failure to return democracy in 2013, the failure to return democracy in 2016, and the failure to support the restoration of democracy.

The current model is not fit for purpose. No member who has taken to their feet on the other side of the House has given a single justification for why it is that Canterbury should be treated differently from the rest of the country. The closest we got was with the member who has just spoken, who basically made the case for rolling this out across the country rather than confining it between the Waitaki and the Clarence rivers—that he seemed to see some things there.

We also heard, and we heard it in the first contribution from a Government member, which was repeated, some concerns that iwi representation had been achieved through this legislation, although the last speaker was not so keen on that himself—so maybe that is another split and division within the National Government. But what we did see, and what we have consistently said, is that, yes, there could be something really good that has happened in Canterbury in terms of Ngāi Tahu’s representation around the Environment Canterbury table, and we are up for that conversation at select committee; it is something that does need to be worked through with officials. It is something that some work needs to be put into and worked through. So to say that you cannot vote for this because it would do away with iwi representation is utter nonsense. That is not what we have said and we have been very clear in that all the way through.

Paul Foster-Bell then raised an argument—it was often raised—that it is democratic: otherwise, you are saying that district health boards (DHBs) are not democratic. Well, there are very different circumstances: first of all, a regional council is spending a locally collected rate, and not centrally collected taxation. This is as simple as taxation without representation. A very fundamental part of what we are meant to believe in as elected members is that we do not have people just appointed to spend money that is collected from citizens as a levy, or a rate, or a tax; that we do have something called elections, which are usually quite useful. The other very different set of circumstances around the DHBs is that that is a consistent system that is rolled out across the country. What we have here in Canterbury is a bespoke set of circumstances for Canterbury that no case has been made for—the way in which we are represented has not been justified. So that does not stack up.

Then there was quite a lot of slippage with what the speakers were saying. They started out saying that the changes in this bill are not necessary because the mixed-model is doing it, but then we heard speech after speech about how democracy is just “too risky”—I think those were the Minister’s words—for Cantabrians to be allowed to get their sticky little fingers on, because they might muck it up, because we have something very different there, and they have to protect the gains that were made. So what is it? Do we have a democratic system? Is that why the members opposite cannot vote for the bill? Or do you want to continue an undemocratic form of government in Canterbury?

The allegations of dysfunction are unfounded. The reasons why the council was originally sacked do not stack up. This is a chance for elected members of Parliament to vote for the restoration of democracy to the region of Canterbury. I encourage Canterbury members around this House to vote for their region, and not for their party. Thank you.