Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9948] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is about the Government taking leadership on the critical issue of water management in Canterbury. Firstly it provides for the appointment of commissioners led by Dame Margaret Bazley to take over the functions of the governance of Environment Canterbury. It also provides for legal recognition of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and gives additional powers to the new commission to really get on top of water management issues in Canterbury. I want to talk in some detail about those additional powers. 
Firstly I thank members of the Opposition for supporting the urgency motion. I know they in their heart of hearts know that there are real problems with Environment Canterbury and that the steps the Government is taking are the responsible approach not just for Canterbury but for New Zealand. I draw the attention of the House to the quite proper statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard who said “Everyone knew there was a problem there.” What has been lacking in the contributions of members of the Opposition is their answer to the problems of water management in Canterbury. What Labour did during the 9 years it was in office is well documented in the reports that were provided by the Ministry for the Environment in the commentary of declining water quality and in the problems within Environment Canterbury which go back at least a decade. My simple challenge for members opposite is to ask what they did when they were entrusted with the governance of New Zealand. 
I also have to confront the perspective that was put forward that this is an outrageous affront to democracy. That is what the Labour Party has said. My question for Labour members is whether it was an outrageous affront to democracy when on 4 May 2000 the previous Government passed special legislation under urgency and through all stages to replace the Rodney District Council with a commission and to make changes to the elections. I ask members opposite whether it was an affront to democracy when Helen Clark dismissed the democratically elected Auckland District Health Board. Was that an affront to democracy? Was it an affront to democracy when the previous Government sacked the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? An honest answer is that there are times when this Parliament needs to step into elected bodies so that we can lift the standard of management. 
A fair question that I and the Minister of Local Government have applied our minds to is whether the threshold for Government intervention has been reached on the issue of water management in Canterbury. I point out these key facts to members opposite. It is a matter of record that in the 2007-08 biennial report on resource management Environment Canterbury ranked No. 84 of 84 councils. That report commissioned during the time of the previous Government showed that Environment Canterbury was breaking the law a lot more often than it was complying with it under the Resource Management Act. 
I also challenge members of the Greens because 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have an operative water plan for Canterbury. I am interested to learn from a member of the Greens how that helps. How does it help the environment in a region that has more pressures on water than anywhere else in New Zealand that we have no plan? I repeat that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have a set of rules. I make no apologies as a member of this Government to say that it is time we had a water plan in place in Canterbury. I am pleased to be working with Rodney Hide and with my colleagues in Canterbury to ensure that we get that plan. 
I will address quite specifically the additional powers that are provided in this bill to try to improve water management in Canterbury. The first of those is to specifically address the issue of getting to a workable plan. I am advised that on the current legislative framework it will be another 2 or 3 years before it will be possible to conclude a plan for water in Canterbury. Are members on this side of the House happy to sit back for the next 2 or 3 years and watch an ad hoc approach to water management? No we are not and that is why this bill provides for powers to fast track the completion of the Canterbury regional strategy and very importantly the natural resources plan that will provide for the completion of that plan. 
A further extra provision in this bill is for targeted moratoria to be able to be introduced by the commissioners in areas where water either has been fully allocated or is near to that point. Where we have a resource that is under the sort of pressure that water is in Canterbury exactly that sort of short-term intervention is required. The honest answer to farmers applying for water in Canterbury in some areas is to say: “No there is no water left. The resource has been completely allocated.” In my view that is a responsible and proper thing for the commission to do in parts of Canterbury where additional drawing from the aquifer system is not sustainable and not in the long-term interests of Canterbury or New Zealand. 
There are further provisions in this bill in respect of water conservation orders. It is important to put to the House what those provisions are and why the Government has included them in this bill. The first point about water conservation orders is that they have been quite deliberately used in frustration in Canterbury because there has not been a water plan. Groups have been so frustrated at being unable to get some constraint on the development of water that they have wanted to get a water conservation order put in place. The challenge I have for members opposite is how it makes sense for us to appoint commissioners to take charge of water management in Canterbury and to write a regional plan and to then have a separate process somewhere else to decide where there will be water conservation orders that will have a big impact in terms of those plans. This bill says that water conservation orders that are received during the period of the commission will be referred to it. Members opposite are saying this is some great power grab. I remind members that the decision to refer a water conservation order comes to the Minister for the Environment. Yes it comes to a politician. The final decision under the existing law is that water conservation orders are decided by the Minister for the Environment. The change is that rather than having it going off to an independent commission or the Environment Court we are saying that it is proper that decisions on those water conservation orders be made by those commissioners so that it can be done in an integrated way. No member of this House who truly believes in integrated decision-making making decisions over whole catchments in a proper way could object to that sensible approach for the commission in the management of water in Canterbury. 
The last point I make is in respect of the contribution made by Brendon Burns. His answer was that we need national policy statements and national environment standards. My challenge to Mr Burns is this: his colleagues were in Government for 9 years but how many national policy statements did Labour advance during its 9 years? The answer is zip zero none. There was not one national policy statement or one national environment standard. There was not one in those 9 years. Labour members have the gall to come to this Chamber and say that the answer to Canterbury’s water problems is a national environment standard or a national water standard. I say to them that they had 9 years they failed they did not deliver the goods and they did nothing. Thank goodness we have a Government that is committed to addressing these critical issues.