O'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9636. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First dissociates itself from and disagrees with the positions—and I think rather extreme positions—taken by all of the three other parties we have heard from today. We think that there has been far too much prejudice far too much puff far too much emotion and not nearly enough common sense. But New Zealand First cannot support this bill in the way it has been presented here today.Nine years is clearly far too long before a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury and 6 years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done their work. We think actually that the commissioners have done a good job. They have overseen the establishment of an excellent Canterbury Water Management Strategy on the basis of very comprehensive public consultation but enough is enough. That job—the commissioners’ job—is substantially done and the strategy is now firmly in place providing order and direction. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. It is time for the commissioners to leave. Their job is done.The Minister claims that a partially appointed council is needed so that the commissioners can complete their work. Well that is poppycock because there is little or nothing left for them to do. And there is no way of going back now that the strategy is in place. For example stage one of the Central Plains Water scheme—by far the largest in New Zealand—is already operational and construction of stages two and three will commence this year. That is how far we have gone over the last 6 years. Other schemes are being properly processed under the strategy and environmental parameters and limits have been set including nutrient allocations.Central Plains Water established its benchmarks almost 2 years ago against which its performance will be closely monitored not just by Environment Canterbury but by a variety of other parties as well. It will be required to comply with the principle of continuous improvement and so will all of the other irrigation schemes that may start in the future. Most particularly all such schemes will now and in the future have to apply the matrix of good management under which sustainable farm practices will be mandatory.So as I have said we have come a long long way in the last 6 years. There is nothing really left for the commissioners to do. With diversification as well as intensification with modern irrigation schemes it is important that those requirements for good management are in place and they are. They will in time transform New Zealand agriculture with positive outcomes for the environment and that is what farmers also want. It is not just the Greens and it is not just environmentalists; it is also the farmers themselves.New Zealand First did support the appointment of the commissioners in 2010 because actions by the then Environment Canterbury simply undermined perfectly valid and proper applications for water consents threatening an orderly process for consents for takes and uses of water for irrigation that we had then already in train without having a strategy in place for over 15 years—over 15 years—and without properly consulting councils communities or the public. No wonder then that the district and city councils at the time supported and pushed for the appointment of commissioners—they were right to do so—but not for 9 years. That is far too long. If the commissioners could not do what they set out to do within 6 years they should never have been appointed but in fact they have achieved that. They have done enough; it is time for them to go.Local government is fundamentally about representative democracy. Where commissioners are needed—and they were needed in that case—the term must be short. A mixed—elected and appointed—Environment Canterbury is the worst of both worlds because neither is it genuinely representative of the people of the region nor would it be an entity with any political independence. A worse system could not possibly be imagined. Inevitably a them-and-us attitude will develop on that council and that will not be positive.I note that Ngāi Tahu are to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First policy is that no such appointees should be made to elected councils or other elected bodies. We think that is a very good policy that reflects what most people in this country think. To have such appointments compromises democracy in the same way that democracy is compromised by the appointment of the other commissioners. It is not necessary for Ngāi Tahu to have any appointees at all. Māori are already elected in satisfying numbers to councils all around the country—that is a fact. New Zealand First opposes the bill for that reason as well.The bill does nothing to sort out the real issues with Environment Canterbury. There have always been four problems we have had to deal with. One is that in 2010 there was a lack of a properly developed strategic plan for fresh water in Canterbury. Environment Canterbury’s process then was nothing less than shambolic. It did not reflect local values or needs and it did not bring local councils or communities with it. It needed to go it should have gone and it did go.Nobody really ever had any confidence that that elected Environment Canterbury would actually get anywhere with a water management strategy for Canterbury. Applicants for water consents had to operate in a vacuum—and that was the fault of Environment Canterbury—up until 2010. Thirdly to make matters worse its management acted like a law unto itself would not listen to people and gave very poor advice in my opinion.Fourthly and lastly there is an inherent problem of an urban versus rural schism in Canterbury because of the urban population dominance of Christchurch with urban attitudes and little understanding of agriculture and rural issues. That is something that this bill simply does not address. New Zealand First thinks that we need a much more comprehensive review of how regional governance should be carried out for the future in Canterbury. That has not happened; it does need to happen.In the end it is wrong to treat Canterbury as different from other regions for so long. The Government claimed that a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills is needed but you get that through elected regional councils. You see it all around the country: good people elected because they have the skills. So all this nonsense about the skills required for management of fresh water local authority governance tikanga Māori and knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people—these are all things that elected people can deliver. The reasons given by the Government are no reason for a continuation of any appointed commissioners for Environment Canterbury in the future.New Zealand First cannot support the bill. It cannot support this unelected body going on for so long. It will be dysfunctional it does not address the real issues and it is time the Government stopped and took a long hard look at what is really needed for Canterbury. I would encourage the other parties to abandon their extreme positions adopt some common sense and look at what the region really needs for both environmental sustainability and good productive sustainable agriculture in the future.