Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7996. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Let us remember why the original legislation was brought to this House. It was brought in because of the failure of Environment Canterbury—the failure of Environment Canterbury—to bring in an operative water plan. So let us hear it in this Chamber for the irrigators. Let us hear it for the water users in Canterbury who have only benefited from the bill that was brought in and they will benefit from the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill as well. Yes we heard an awful lot of submissions while we were in Christchurch and we sat in Wellington. A lot of them were pro forma submissions. Although the numbers might sound good many many of them were pro forma submissions. I was going through them this evening in my office and they all said virtually the same thing. But there were some submissions that stood out. I am going to use just one or two of those today.  
One of them is the Waitaki Irrigators Collective Ltd submission and I am very unashamedly going to quote from it. That is a collective that represents something like five or six irrigation schemes throughout the Waitaki Valley mostly which is in the southern area of Environment Canterbury. But the farmers in those irrigation areas have been very badly affected by the non-performance of Environment Canterbury over the 7 or 8 years that I have been a member up until Nick Smith as Minister for the Environment took the brave step of bringing in commissioners to actually get a water plan operative—something that the former Labour Government could not in any way face up to doing. He made the brave step to bring in the commissioners and I can report from the lower half of Environment Canterbury’s area that the performance has in fact increased tenfold. In fact the number of complaints coming into my office has dwindled down to less I might suggest than a trickle. We have a good relationship between the farmer constituents the Environment Canterbury commissioners and the Environment Canterbury officers.  
So just turning to this submission I just want to quote a little bit from it if I may: “Although the [Canterbury Water Management Strategy]”—which of course is the strategy initiated by the mayors of the Canterbury region who by the way to a man supported the original bill that brought in the commissioners; to a man or should I say to a council they were the ones that initiated the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—“was established under the elected council structure it is questionable whether so much could have been achieved over the past two or three years under the elected councillor model given the severe disruption and difficulties caused by the Canterbury earthquakes to the staff and resources of the Environment Canterbury.” It goes on to say: “The previous structure often meant that those elected to the Council represented particular philosophical positions in relation to water use and management. As issues became difficult to resolve these positions tended to become entrenched—”. And did we not see that playing out in Environment Canterbury before Nick Smith stepped in and took the brave brave step of appointing commissioners? Did we not see that? I saw that in my electorate. I saw that with a lack of direction from Environment Canterbury at the time with its elected representatives and officials which failed to deliver to all the constituents in the catchment of Environment Canterbury.  
It goes on to say—and I accept this as well—“Whilst a return to some form of effective democratic leadership …”—the collective members are the practitioners. They see what goes on. They are not sitting in their list bailiwicks in Christchurch having a view on these things; these are the people who are actually working within the Environment Canterbury boundaries. They say: “Whilst a return to some form of effective democratic leadership of Canterbury should be a medium to long-term goal [the Waitaki Irrigation Collective] believes that the current situation of having appointed Commissioners leading Environment Canterbury and governing the implementation of the [Canterbury Water Management Strategy] should be maintained for the time being as per the Bill’s provisions.” And why do they say that? They do not say that because they have been jacked up by the Green Party to come in and have a wail to the select committee; they say that because they represent the irrigators who are the productive heart of South Canterbury and they say that because they have experienced the non-performance of Environment Canterbury under the former regime. Eugenie Sage was one of those councillors who was dismissed. They have operated under that former regime. They understand very clearly from practice that the commissioners are doing a good job and they support their continuation.