Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Graham Kennedy: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9992] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 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 for the Environment 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 and air quality where it has led New Zealand and also regional land transport coordination and planning and pest control and biosecurity. 
I mentioned yesterday in the second reading that the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils are 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 are generally 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 cannot 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 the second purpose of the bill is to “provide the Council with certain powers … relevant to the … management of fresh water”. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive Dr Bryan Jenkins confirmed on  
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 yet the Ministry for the 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 and not substantive in this respect. Those provisions require 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 that 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 I look at clause 4 which is the interpretation. There is a so-called definition of “Environment Canterbury” in this clause.