Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:661;Page:10073] 
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 third time 
. I would like to begin by acknowledging the officials parliamentary counsel and particularly Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government who has worked with me on this difficult issue. I also want to acknowledge the councillors and staff of Environment Canterbury and acknowledge that this has been a difficult period for them. It is my view that sometimes in politics we need to make difficult decisions and on this occasion it is my view that these are the right decisions. 
This bill is about delivering a step change in the management of water in Canterbury. In the last 18 years since the Resource Management Act provided the framework for managing our resources we have reached a point in Canterbury where there still is no plan for in my view New Zealand’s most important strategic resource and that is fresh water. Environment Canterbury has been unable to deliver a robust and effective framework for the management of natural resources and in my view that is holding back the region of Canterbury and New Zealand both economically and environmentally. I also note that Environment Canterbury’s relationship with the 10 territorial councils is at such a low— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The mayors not the council. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell Lianne Dalziel that all 10 councils that I have personally visited have indicated support for the replacement of the regional council or Environment Canterbury with commissioners. There was also very broad consensus amongst the key stakeholders in Canterbury that action is needed. 
I acknowledge and I think my colleague Rodney Hide would acknowledge that when last October we sought a formal review of Environment Canterbury it was not our expectation that this would be the outcome. I expected that a lesser intervention might have been necessary but having received such a comprehensive report with very clear recommendations it would not— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not comprehensive; it’s outrageous. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that Wyatt Creech Doug Martin Greg Hill and Doug Low are very respected individuals who were used by the previous Labour Government as well as by this Government in the review. What that review concluded was that there was an unprecedented gap between the issues that Environment Canterbury faced particularly in respect of water management and its capacity to act in that regard. I also note its very clear conclusion that failure to act would lead only to continued malaise around water management in Canterbury. The Government’s intervention is warranted; our response is measured it is reasonable and it is appropriate for the circumstances. 
To turn round Environment Canterbury does require a response from the Government. As I have said this is not a step we wanted to take but this decision represents the best chance to move water management in Canterbury forward. This intervention is not only in the interests of Canterbury’s environment economy but quite frankly it is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. The appointment of commissioners is an interim measure. Commissioners will be in place for only as long as they are needed to do the job. The legislation makes plain that the period at the very longest will extend to the 2013 local body election. This provides sufficient time to place Environment Canterbury on a firmer footing. 
The bill provides an obligation on the commissioners to seek the advice of and consult the mayors of Canterbury. That is an appropriate link back to those persons who will be democratically elected across the region of Canterbury in the local body elections this October. The terms of reference will also bind the commissioners so that they are required to consult Ngai Tahu and other key stakeholders on the issue of water resource management in Canterbury. I also note that all of the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act about the inclusion of and consultation with the people of Canterbury have been carried over in these decisions. 
A challenge was set down by the Labour environment spokesperson Shane Jones to be clear about what the provisions are in this bill that will improve the management of water in Canterbury and I want to go through the three of those quite explicitly. Firstly this bill provides for a targeted moratorium to be able to be placed in Canterbury where frankly there is no more water. I challenge members opposite to say whether they support that view or are opposed. 
Brendon Burns 
: We support it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is clear that they support that measure. That is welcomed. It was asked of the previous Government by Environment Canterbury many years ago. I think we should at least accept that that is an improvement but Brendon Burns’ acknowledgment that that is a step forward is contradicted by his colleague Shane Jones who says there is nothing in this bill to improve water management in Canterbury. 
The second key provision in this bill is that we need to have a plan as quickly as possible for water management in Canterbury. That is why this bill enables the commissioners to fast track the completion of the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement for Canterbury. Again I say that that is a step forward; again I challenge both the Greens and Labour as to whether they support the measures in this bill to ensure that we have a plan in Canterbury for the management of water. 
The third key provisions in this bill that also improve water management are those in respect of integrating decisions on water conservation orders with those of the regional plan and having those decisions made by commissioners. Again I challenge members opposite to say how it makes sense for decisions around water conservation orders to be made by a separate group of people from those who are developing the regional plans. We are of a view that if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury it needs to be done in an integrated way and that is what this bill provides for. 
I have been disappointed in the debate on this bill that the major contribution from members opposite has been one of misinformation and personal denigration. For instance the latest is the claim made by Ruth Dyson that Margaret Bazley will be paid $2000 a day. I challenge the member: where has she got that information from? Why would she want to denigrate a person like Dame Margaret Bazley— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How is that a personal denigration? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Ruth Dyson to say where she got that information from. She just enjoys making things up. Let me give that member an assurance that the amount that Dame Margaret Bazley will be paid for her work will be exactly the same amount as was agreed by the previous Government to pay Dame Margaret Bazley for her work on the royal commission in respect of the work in Auckland. I would not find any member who reasonably objects to that approach. I note that Brendon Burns has had a track record on this issue of making all sorts of claims in the newspapers about things going to Cabinet on particular days and about particular members of the commission. He has been grandstanding all the time and not making any sort of constructive contribution. I can name six times when he has made claims about his sources who tell him things that have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. I am surprised that Mr Burns wants to continue in the name of grandstanding to compromise his own integrity with those false claims. 
It is hugely important for New Zealand that we improve water management and nowhere is that more important than in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House because I think that all members of this House know in their heart of hearts that the Government had no choice but to act. I think the comments from the previous Minister for the Environment Trevor Mallard were particularly revealing when he said that everyone knew the problems in Environment Canterbury. He had taken a proposal to Helen Clark and she had said that for political reasons they did not act. This Government will rise above politics. This Government is determined to deliver improved water management for New Zealand. That is what this bill delivers and I commend it to this Parliament.