O'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): As we know the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill provides for a mixed governance model for Environment Canterbury for the local government term 2016 to 2019. But we have already had several years since the commissioners were appointed in 2010 and it is difficult to understand why a further transitional period of another 3 years is now needed. We in New Zealand First think that is far too long before a return to a fully elected council. The year 2019 would mean that we would have had 9 years of appointed commissioners—much much too long a period. Democracy requires a return to a fully elected Environment Canterbury next year and not in 2019.I want to say this at the beginning. I supported the appointment of the commissioners to replace the Environment Canterbury councillors in 2010 because I think it was true that Environment Canterbury was then dysfunctional. It was making irrational politically motivated decisions about water management that were in fact threatening the orderly processes that were then in train for consents for takes and uses of water for irrigation. Those processes were then well developed—for example for the Central Plains Water scheme. Actions then by Environment Canterbury simply undermined those processes. There were then and still are four problems with Environment Canterbury. First in 2010 there was a lack of a properly developed strategic plan for fresh water. In fact contrary to what Eugenie Sage said that process was shambolic and was not really going anywhere. Nobody really had any confidence that it would. That in fact is the truth of that matter whether or not we like it. Furthermore that process was actually used to undermine the consent process for the Central Plains Water scheme even while it was in train. For me I think that the way Environment Canterbury behaved at that time was most improper.Secondly Environment Canterbury acted far far too late—at least 10 years too late—in getting that plan off the ground. Organisations such as Central Plains Water which wanted to get started had to do it in a vacuum without any such strategic plan and that was the fault of Environment Canterbury up until 2010. It is no surprise that that was the case because the third reason the third problem with Environment Canterbury then was that management acted like a law unto itself. It would not listen to people and neither would the councillors of Environment Canterbury listen to people at that time. I was one of the people who were seeking to be heard and found it very difficult to even get a hearing with management or councillors that was meaningful and constructive. We had plenty of good things to offer but they did not want to know. So management was a major problem. And fourthly the fourth problem is that there is an inherent problem of an urban versus rural schism in Canterbury because of the urban dominance. This is something that Eugenie Sage does not seem to appreciate. It is not appropriate for the city of Christchurch to dominate the whole region in the way she suggests would be appropriate.So therefore the appointment of commissioners in 2010 was in fact necessary. They have done an excellent job. They did listen. They did have an excellent process for the development of the strategic plan and they took people with them which is something that Environment Canterbury as an elected body had not done. They did achieve that plan and it is now effectively in operation. It has brought order and direction and does properly balance the need for the economic development potential of irrigation with sustainable farming practices. That will lead over time to a better environment. I disagree again with Eugenie Sage who uses statistics that do not recognise the fact that farming in Canterbury has been going on for more than 100 years. There is a lot of nasty stuff still in the post that has got nothing to do with modern and more effective farming practices in terms of the protection of the environment that are now in place.The truth is that the objective of the 2010 appointments however has been achieved. The commissioners have done a good job but they are no longer needed. What they were put there to do has been done. A return to democracy next year is essential. It is wrong to treat Canterbury as different from other regions and Canterbury is entitled to fully democratic local governance. The proposal to have seven elected and six appointed people on the board of Environment Canterbury is bizarre. It is likely to create tensions just in the same way as the old urban and rural schism created tensions. A them-and-us attitude will develop. It will not be positive for Environment Canterbury. I note for example that in clause 11 of the bill there are a number of criteria for appointed members of the board. When you look at those—management of freshwater skills local authority governance skills tikanga Māori skills and knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people—they are the same things that elected people are perfectly capable of judging. We do not need appointed commissioners for those reasons or because of the need for those skills. The mixed-governance model is likely to result in the Government being accused of political interference and that will not be positive for Environment Canterbury either. However I would have to say this. The provisions to carry forward the limitations upon appeal rights are still needed and are acceptable to New Zealand First. They are needed to ensure that the implementation of decisions made already and the furtherance of the strategic management plan are not compromised otherwise everything that has been achieved so far could be lost.What is really needed is not the appointment of commissioners for another 3 years but a genuine review of the structure of regional governance in Canterbury. New Zealand First’s policy is this: it does not support having appointed members for Environment Canterbury and will therefore not support this bill. New Zealand First is committed to effective regional democracy with which appointed members are not compatible. Secondly New Zealand First does not support the resurrection of Environment Canterbury as it was prior to the installation of the current commissioners. So just having appointed commissioners for another 3 years and then going back to the old system is not acceptable either. That is simply because of that urban and rural schism that exists inherently in Canterbury with a large city that tends to dominate everything else. We would not support Environment Canterbury as it is currently as it would be reconstructed after 2019. Instead New Zealand First would support a unitary authority for Christchurch City and would give the rural authorities in Hurunui Waimakariri Selwyn Ashburton and Waitaki the option either to have unitary authority themselves or they could club together and have a rural regional authority. That is something for them to decide.So New Zealand First acknowledges the historical and inherent problems with Environment Canterbury based on the urban and rural schism of interests but does not accept more appointed commissioners. It seeks a longer term review of regional governance aimed at unitary councils in Canterbury. We see that in the long term as being the only solution. This bill will do nothing at all to solve any of those problems. New Zealand First will therefore be obliged to vote against it.