Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : This House is expecting Government legislation soon on regional governance in Canterbury. It arises from the ongoing tension that exists in Canterbury over the vexed issue of water. Canterbury’s water has become the bell-wether for the current political debate in New Zealand. This is between two alternative philosophies embraced by different sections of the New Zealand public and also in this House. The first postulates economic growth as the paramount value, yet in the primal mists of the political jungle this Government has an instinctive awareness that not all is right with the environment. It intuits that the people also are concerned, so it utters soothing noises to assuage the masses: “We shall balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibilities, and we have a subgroup—the Bluegreens—to salve your conscience. The Prime Minister himself is a member, so nothing to worry about.” The second philosophy embraces sustainable development: the economy is forever subordinate to the environment, whether or not humans choose to acknowledge it.
These alternative world views play out before our eyes over Canterbury water. The growth mania is at its height in Canterbury today, which comprises almost a quarter of New Zealand’s farmland. Dairy fever has hit its peak in my province; it has grown by 61 percent in 6 years, which is almost half the national increase. This is in a region where the natural climate is dry, but “not to worry; human technology has freed us from Nature’s primitive grasp”. So the thirst for irrigation is unquenchable.
The Canterbury region accounts for 70 percent of this nation’s irrigation, yet the dairy industry wants more, so the developers urge Environment Canterbury to grant consents, and Environment Canterbury responds with untrammelled accuracy that its job is to protect the environment. This enrages the developers, who conspire with the local authorities to instigate a ministerial review. This is conducted with great solemnity, involving a former Deputy Prime Minister as the chief independent reviewer. It is delivered with the sonorous tones of analytical dispassion and professional insight. The independent reviewers themselves assemble in the Minister’s room to brief MPs—an odd procedural arrangement in itself, but who is counting around here?
The Creech report recommends the replacement of the Environment Canterbury council with a temporary commission and a semi-permanent water authority, both appointed by, and answerable to, central government. Through a carefully calibrated form of tough love, local democracy is throttled and dies. In fact, the Creech report is a shoddy piece of work that fails rudimentary tests of professional standards.
First, the report lacks intellectual integrity. It criticises Environment Canterbury for being science-driven and not science-informed. The Creech report is politically driven and not politically informed. If it were politically informed, it would acknowledge that democracy is bigger than business; that the subsidiarity principle is bigger than Government; and that one does not replace elected councillors with appointees of central government, just because they are making decisions one might not like. That is political arrogance of the highest order.
Second, the report purports to be an organisational review but it sets no clear criteria for judging institutional efficiency that allows for contestable judgment. It cites a selective range of what it calls “external opinion”. I could assemble a selected range of external opinion that would say the opposite. It would have equal claim to partial truth.
Third, the report rests its views on what it calls the “enormous and unprecedented gap between Environment Canterbury’s responsibility and capability”, but although it makes a great play of advancing three options, it fails to include the obvious one—that is, to give Environment Canterbury the resources to do the job. That would retain local democracy and meet the Government’s stated concerns, but, of course, the report does not include that option; to do so would not meet its underlying purpose.
Fourth, the report is a shameless exercise in prejudgment. Its starting premise is also its conclusion. The report seeks to identify what it describes in its terms of reference as “ECan’s poor performance record”. It then concludes, 67 pages later, that Environment Canterbury’s performance has been poor and that it needs to be replaced. That was a brilliant exercise in circular logic, which would fail a level 101 Master of Business Administration test.
This crisis is not over Canterbury water, though Canterbury water is in crisis. This crisis is over a particular world view that is driven by central government arrogance. The Creech report is part of a juggernaut that is gathering speed in Wellington—from local democracy to centralised corporatism, from Environment Canterbury to “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Key Government is making the fatal mistake that humans can balance the economy with the environment. We cannot do that; the economy is a subset, a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If we ravage the environment, we destroy the economy and human society with it. I say: “Mr Prime Minister, give us back our province and retain your integrity as a national leader.”
Source Hansard E-can debate 24th March 2010 Ken Graham
