Mathers Mojo: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mathers Mojo: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8217. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 2 of this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and I would like to focus on clause 5 which provides for the proposed review of the governance structure membership and powers and functions of Environment Canterbury. Like others before me I have the same questions around public participation and about whether the public will be genuinely involved in this process of the review or will they continue to be as they have already been sidelined marginalised and disempowered. I also have questions around the transparency of the process. Will the process be transparent? Will we understand and get to see the reasoning and rationale for the decisions that they have come up with the factors that have been involved and weighed upon in making any decisions? I also would like to know how consistent in particular the powers will be for the new Environment Canterbury when we get the council back compared with other regional governance powers. This is particularly important in relation not only to water conservation orders but also to powers relating to the management of our environment. 
I would like to talk a little bit about water conservation orders. Along with other protection mechanisms such as national parks and ecological areas water conservation orders represent a kind of bedrock of the foundation of sustainability in setting aside areas that are so high in conservation and ecological value that they can be protected for all time. I know people who put in an enormous amount of time and energy to ensure that the best possible water conservation orders or national parks are established and I know the lengths that some people who are passionate about the rivers and protecting the rivers will go to. I know a couple who actually sold their only boat. They live in a very modest cottage. They had a boat to go boating on the Rakaia River but they cared about the Rakaia River so much that they sold their boat in order to help fund the putting together of a water conservation order to protect that river. These people are absolutely heartbroken that as you know the Rakaia River water conservation order is being weakened and that has come about through the different powers that have been given to Environment Canterbury under the original legislation and that continue to be extended. 
The problem with constantly betraying the kind of social contract that we have with people and with conservationists who are wanting to protect the environment is that it is just not sustainable for people who care about the environment to constantly fight these battles. You think you have gained protection for a river and then discover 10 years down the track that what you have worked so hard for to protect that river is no longer applicable. When we are looking at the review of Environment Canterbury’s powers for goodness’ sake I hope that we can come to some kind of national agreement around the status of water conservation orders so that we have a consistent process and a consistent status so that people know exactly what kind of protection they are investing their time and energy into to gain protection for these rivers because if they are being constantly eroded ultimately you cannot have a sustainable economy to protect the environment without these factors in place. 
The other thing that I am really concerned about and have found extremely difficult—and I mentioned it in the debate on Part 1—is this continuous justification of using the earthquake to justify both the removal of democracy and indeed the extension of the powers of Environment Canterbury. There is just no way on earth that you can use the earthquake to justify those outcomes. As I said after the earthquake there were some people who went around and broke into people’s homes under the cover of the earthquake. They were highly condemned by the public when they were brought before the courts and rightly so and—[ 
Bell rung 
]—it is the same kind of thinking that is allowing the continuing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Does the member wish to continue? 
MOJO MATHERS 
: I will finish now. Thank you.