Katene Rahui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10086] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 A statement was made by Anake Goodall the chief executive of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu which I will quote in full as it sets the scene for the way in which I have seen this bill: “Ngai Tahu regretfully recognises the need for intervention in ECan and reluctantly supports installing commissioners as a temporary measure that while not optimal for the important principle of democracy is a necessary practical solution in the circumstances.” The words “regretfully” “reluctantly” and “not optimal” do not indicate wholesale complete and utter satisfaction with this bill rushed through under urgency. The Maori Party is also regretful—regretful that urgency prevents people from having a voice. For any legislation to be authentic it should reflect the processes of negotiation and discussion that would emerge from the process of consultation. 
Ngai Tahu used that word again in a letter to Ministers Hide and Smith advising that “Ngai Tahu regretfully support the recommended transitional arrangements to install commissioners in place of the council.” The interesting issue for us as the Maori Party is how the Government can overturn the democratic process in one region—by dismissing the councillors of Environment Canterbury—while in another region Tamaki Makaurau it is passionately fighting on an argument to uphold democracy by refusing to invest in Maori representation through the establishment of Maori seats. I want to be really clear. This bill is not just an issue about water although that is vitally important; this is an issue about power sharing or indeed about not power sharing in this case. 
As a local MP I have taken a close look at Environment Canterbury not just because of its significance across Te Tai Tonga but also because the way in which we work through these issues is likely to be nationally significant in terms of the place of local government and approaches to the management of fresh water. The Maori Party has consistently stated that issues about water management must include mana whenua including water rights and privatisation. We believe also that Treaty claims in relation to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the review of the Resource Management Act. It has been a matter of some pride to the party that we were able to overturn the commitments made pre-election by National to remove any Treaty references or references about the capacity for Maori to object on cultural grounds from the Resource Management Act. These sections include section 6: that “all persons exercising … powers … in relation to managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources shall recognise and provide for … (e) the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga:”. Section 7 states: “all persons … shall have particular regard to—(a) kaitiakitanga:” and section 8 “Treaty of Waitangi” states: “In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers … in relation to … natural and physical resources shall take into account the principles of … (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).” 
I repeat these key legislative provisions because they are critical in guiding councils and communities about the way in which we protect our streams lakes rivers and waterways from agricultural industrial and domestic waste. There are many vital issues around freshwater management which the Maori Party signals will need to benefit from nationwide discussion and input and these three sections in particular provide us with a strong starting point for those discussions. 
Turning then to the specific legislation we accept that this bill is a temporary measure designed to respond to the longstanding concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. Our decision to support the legislation was made both regretfully and reluctantly but made also in response to the guidance of mana whenua. We did so also knowing that the existing situation regarding Environment Canterbury was untenable. This after all was a council that came 84th out of a possible 84 councils in the 2007-08 biennial survey of resource consent processing. This was a council that frequently appeared in the Environment Court as a result of criticisms having been highlighted about the management of fresh water in Canterbury. The proposed response to the review of Environment Canterbury therefore could have no stronger basis in my mind than that provided by Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu and I quote: “ECan even within its current statutory framework has demonstrably failed to reach the standard of best endeavours to give effect to its broader responsibilities to Ngai Tahu.” So there is no suggestion that there was not a dramatic need to do something. 
The question is however what exactly is the something that will be done? We have been concerned that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is being given legal effect in the empowering legislation. It is the view of key stakeholders that this strategy is not well developed that it has real policy holes and that there is risk that it erodes the Treaty rights of Ngai Tahu. Although we appreciate that there is support from many key stakeholders including Ngai Tahu and the region’s territorial authorities we want to ensure that the rights and interests of Ngai Tahu under both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 are given full cognisance in further development of that paper. In this context we acknowledge the move made by the Minister to ensure that in the appointment process of commissioners there will be explicit recognition of the collective knowledge and expertise of commissioners in relation to tikanga Maori as it applies in the Canterbury region. We welcome the opportunity for Ngai Tahu to be represented in the temporary commission that is likely to replace the council of Environment Canterbury. But we would also recommend that Ngai Tahu be represented in the new statutory entity that will be created separate from Environment Canterbury to manage water in the region and to be known as the Canterbury Regional Water Authority. As we consider the ongoing tension between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga we also raise the question that one person on a commission of seven is for ever relegated to the minority seats. 
Finally I remind the House that the report of the review of Environment Canterbury revealed that there are significant issues in relation to water management in terms of meeting the Treaty obligations of the Crown and it also recommended that iwi liaison should be elevated in importance within Environment Canterbury. We fully support the approach proposed by Ngai Tahu which seeks a commitment from the Government to a structured joint work programme so that the various governance arrangements can be structured in a Treaty-consistent manner. They would also expect that any existing undertakings by Environment Canterbury to Ngai Tahu such as the iwi management plan should be honoured. 
We have supported this bill in order to respond to the urgent need of the situation outlined in Canterbury and in line with our respect for the guidance of mana whenua but as the debate proceeded we have become more troubled about the new powers of the commission to determine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region under new criteria. The bill clearly states that they will hear appeals against points of law only. Therefore it is not an Environment Court substitute. We are absolutely committed to effective compliance with the Treaty requirements of the Resource Management Act and the requirement to look nationally at water management issues across the nation are a key priority of our party. Ultimately tangata whenua Maori perceive natural and physical resources such as water as a taonga an invaluable treasure gifted by their tupuna for the benefit and use of their descendants. It is our responsibility as tangata whenua as kaitiaki to ensure that the resource is conserved and handed on to future generations in a similar condition. It is my duty to advise the House that in light of the concerns we have raised during the course of this debate we have reconsidered our position and regretfully we conclude our struggle with this bill by voting against it at this final reading.