Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSmith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7122. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2016. This bill is about the Government sensibly transitioning Environment Canterbury back to a fully elected council. It is deliberately designed to ensure and maintain the momentum of the step change in how water is managed in Canterbury and to ensure it is consistent with the Government’s work of transitioning Canterbury back to normalcy following the trauma to that region from the Canterbury earthquakes. It is designed to ensure a smooth transition from the excellent work of the commissioners to a fully elected council in 2019 by providing for a 7:6 split of elected to appointed councillors for the next local government term.The bill needs some context and history because some of the commentary wants to ignore the problems of dysfunctionality that led to the Government reluctantly intervening in Environment Canterbury in 2010. The problems in 2010 at Environment Canterbury were deep-seated had gone on for years and could no longer be ignored. Firstly the council had failed on water management. You cannot talk about New Zealand freshwater issues without reference to issues in Canterbury because it is where 70 percent of irrigation occurs it is where we have the biggest problems over freshwater quality and it is where more than half of New Zealand’s hydroelectricity is produced.The Resource Management Act relies on regional plans to manage water but Environment Canterbury had proved incapable in 19 years of getting plans in place. The previous Government had to pass special legislation to try to get progress on a water plan for the Waitaki River. The 10 local councils had become so frustrated that they promoted the Canterbury Water Management Strategy to try to get progress. People who claim in this Parliament that they want New Zealand to manage freshwater quality and allocation better but who have opposed the Government’s very attempts to do so through interventions in Environment Canterbury are being both disingenuous and dishonest with the electorate about the need for New Zealand to improve water management.I contrast this historic non-performance with the progress that Environment Canterbury has made over the past 5 years. The council has gone from being a laggard to being a leader. The Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan is in place and work is progressing at pace consistent with the water management strategy with specific limits and rules in each of the 10 zones.Let me specifically outline the progress that we have made with water that would not have been possible without the Government’s interventions. Firstly there would be no land and water regional plan without the specific provisions in the law that we have put in place in 2010 and there would not be the collaborative process in each of those 10 zones that are putting the rules in place. There would not be the hundreds of millions of dollars currently being invested right now in the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme without the specific provisions in our law in 2010—opposed by members opposite—that help with water management by using those huge big Canterbury rivers rather than extracting all the water from the very limited aquifers.Thirdly there would not have been the prohibition on takes in those red zones; that is only possible by the Government’s intervention. There would not be the huge investments that are going into the clean-up of Lake Ellesmere and Lake Wainono and I challenge members opposite: those lakes have not suddenly become polluted; they have been polluted for decades and Labour did zip during its 9 years. It really takes gall for those members to stand on their feet today and criticise our efforts around water quality noting the progress that has been made with those significant water bodies. I also point out the progress in even metering water. When we came into Government less than a third of the water was even metered in Canterbury and now that is over 80 percent.The problems in Environment Canterbury went well beyond the issues of just water. Environment Canterbury had the worst record of 78 councils with 77 percent of consents not being processed on time. I note that rather than 77 percent not being processed on time that number is now below 2 percent and Canterbury is one of the very best performers. In fact it got a public sector award for excellence earlier this year.The third area of concern was the complete breakdown in relationships between Environment Canterbury and the 10 councils in Canterbury. It was so bad that all 10 mayors of Canterbury wrote to the Government specifically asking for the intervention. This dysfunctionality between Canterbury’s regional and territorial authorities was holding the region back. We did not know when we intervened in March of 2010 that only a few months later it would be hit by the Canterbury earthquakes. It was fortuitous that we had made that intervention and rebuilt those relationships because the region would have been incapable of being able to respond to those huge challenges without the regional and local authorities working together. It is a telling tribute to Dame Margaret Bazley her fellow commissioners and the 10 councils of Canterbury that far from the dysfunctionality that we inherited from the previous Government the council has now produced an economic recovery plan for Canterbury jointly and together and this House should stand by Canterbury and this bill in supporting it.This bill will provide for a mix of seven councillors to be elected from four constituencies across the Canterbury communities and the appointment of up to six councillors by Government. I have had representations from the Māori Party specifically for Ngāi Tahu’s interests to be recognised. We take that on board and we appreciate its support for this bill coming into the House to ensure there is a smooth transition in Canterbury.Let me point out the four important reasons for this bill. Why would we in Canterbury suddenly change the direction by 100 percent of the governance of Environment Canterbury given its chequered record? Why would we not provide for a smooth transition with those commissioners’ skills being able to be transferred forward as we work through both those water challenges and those earthquake challenges? Members opposite are more interested in playing politics than supporting the reconstruction of Canterbury and the challenges that go with the earthquake.Secondly the job around water is not done. Yes the regional plan is in place but we need to retain those special Resource Management Act powers and the continuity of the work of commissioners to get those zone plans in place that are so critical. I think we would all acknowledge—and in fact the former Minister Jim Anderton openly acknowledged—that Environment Canterbury had a real problem of head-butting between rural and urban Canterbury. We on this side of the House believe that actually urban Christchurch and rural Canterbury must work together to deliver a blue-green outcome around water that supports the growth of the economy but also improves the management and the quality of the water. This plan of ensuring that transition is part of achieving just that.This bill provides for a smooth transition to 2019 when there will be full elections. We need to provide the continuity back. I am not going to take speeches from members opposite giving us lectures around democracy when previous Labour Governments have stepped in in places like Hawke’s Bay and sacked district health boards and when members opposite have stepped into other councils and intervened. I say to members opposite just as it was justifiable to intervene sometimes in authorities the circumstances in Canterbury absolutely required the intervention. That has been proved by the very satisfactory progress that has been made in the intervening period.I want to conclude by again reinforcing this Government’s thanks to Dame Margaret Bazley and the full set of commissioners who have done a superb job in rebuilding relationships with councils in rebuilding a very constructive relationship with Ngāi Tahu and with the work they have done both around water and earthquakes. I say to members opposite who wish to oppose this bill they are opposing the reconstruction of Canterbury and the earthquake recovery and they are opposing the real progress that this country and particularly Canterbury wants to make on water and they should hide their heads in shame.