Wagner Nicky: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7990. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to talk to this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. This bill is a sensible practical response to the situation in Canterbury and there are no hidden agendas. I just want to look at the two major provisions in this bill. The first is about changing the date that commissioners must be replaced by elected councillors at Environment Canterbury. Originally the principal Act prescribed 2013 as the date that elections would be held but this bill specifies that the next election will occur in 2016 at the same time as the local authority election. What is the reason for the change? The change relates to the seven appointed commissioners who have been acting as Environment Canterbury’s governing body since 2010 and who have been doing a particularly good job. Because of the disruption caused by the earthquake and because there is still a need to complete the Canterbury Water Management Strategy they need to remain.  
I think we should look at this strategy. This Canterbury Water Management Strategy is community-based it is collaborative and it is well supported throughout the province. The zone committees have been set up and they are in the process of reporting back. The next step is to complete that work and give the strategy statutory backing. It is because of the time and the energy and the input of all those people who are involved that it is felt that this should be completed before the commissioners have finished their job and that the commissioners should therefore have the possibility of remaining until 2016.  
However there is also a ministerial review required and that ministerial review must begin before 1 March 2014. That review covers several things. It covers the governance structure of Environment Canterbury it covers the membership of Environment Canterbury and it covers the powers and the functions of Environment Canterbury. It was interesting that there were only three submissions about this review and all three submissions supported the idea of a review. The inclusion of this clause reflects the intention to transition back to regional governance for Canterbury and back to democracy and to identify the best long-term governance solution to the Canterbury region.  
It was very interesting listening to the submitters. It is true that the majority of submitters were against the extension of the period of time that Environment Canterbury should be managed. But their opposition was based on the disapproval of the lack of democratic elections and we have heard the debate from the Local Government and Environment Committee as well. This was the opinion of many of the submitters to the original bill. That is what they were concerned about. They feared that they would not get a result if they did not have democratic elections. But it has been very interesting listening to those submitters. Looking back on those times since the commissioners have been there there was general agreement that the commissioners have actually done a very good job. They have worked well with stakeholders they were delivering the Canterbury Water Management Strategy which was community-based and collaborative and it was also noted that their relationship with tangata whenua—that is Ngai Tahu—was particularly improved and it had always been bumpy with the old Environment Canterbury council.  
There is a very tangible example of this relationship and the value of this relationship. What they have been able to do is deliver a collaborative clean-up of Te Waihora—that is Lake Ellesmere. You may be aware that Lake Ellesmere has been in a bad state for a long time. The clean-up was well overdue and Environment Canterbury had been unable to negotiate a collaboration. That has happened the commissioners have got it in place and that work is being done. So despite the fears of the submitters on the original bill the fears have not been recognised. In fact most submitters accepted that the time that the commissioners had been in had been extremely effective. I believe that the fears of the people for this bill will be the same. So I commend this bill to the Committee.