Ecan Bill Committee Stages: 'What We Say Goes' Continues

I want to systematically address at least two clauses in Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and offer some comments.

When I look at clause 3 of Part 1 of the bill, I see that the purpose of the bill is to: "provide for the replacement of the elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners who will act as the Council's governing body until new elected members come into office following the next election;". The Minister could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions, powers, and duties of councillors in relation to water if that was the Government's main concern. That would have allowed democratic governance to continue in relation to the council's other statutory responsibilities, particularly public passenger transport, air quality, where is has led New Zealand, regional land transport coordination and planning, and pest control and biosecurity.


I mentioned yesterday in the second reading the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils were far wider than the excessively narrow focus that was brought to bear in the Creech report upon the alleged imperfections of the Canterbury Regional Council. It could have been done another way. It could have been done in a way that met the stated concerns that generally are shared pertaining to water management. It is not perfect; it has not been perfect. But the overriding principle of local democracy in New Zealand could have been respected at the same time.

The principle of democracy is not something that can be blithely calibrated according to other concerns, including economic growth, irrigation, and the expansion of dairy. Democracy is a principle that has its own intrinsic merit. It is not calibrated or qualified in any way by anything, but this Government has proceeded to do so.
I look at clause 3(b) and see that it provides the council with certain powers regarding water management. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins confirmed in the Morning Report today, Environment Canterbury first requested additional powers in relation to at risk catchments and aquifers where the allocation is at or over sustainability limits—he did that 4 years ago.

The Ministry for Environment has been deaf to requests for improvement of the *Resource Management Act, such as the provision for catchment specific moratoria. The Government's commitment to the Canterbury water management strategy as a way forward comes across as rather shallow in this respect and not substantive. It requires the commissioner to have particular regard to "the vision and the principles" of the strategy. This is motherhood and apple pie.

The substance of the strategy is in the targets. They have been revised with involvement from stakeholders since the strategy was released last November, and it is now out for public comment. Simply having regard to the vision and principles is not what Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering committee have sought in terms of mandating legislation. They have sought that the Resource Management Act be amended so the decision makers give weight to the regional and zone implementation programmes to be developed by the stakeholder committees in each of the 10 water management zones across the region.

These implementation programmes will put the strategy vision, principles, and targets into practice—it could have been done that way. Finally, let us look at *clause 4, which is the interpretation, on the following page. We see there is a so-called definition of Environment Canterbury in this clause