Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Burns Brendon: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:10023] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This is the part of the bill that establishes firstly a process for moratoriums being imposed in parts of Canterbury and then moves into the water conservation areas. There is support for the idea of moratoriums from me at least because they are a mechanism that can address issues of water shortage in red-zoned areas around Canterbury. There are a number most particularly concentrated around the Selwyn district. The past history of this is that Environment Canterbury has over the last few years started to say no to more water allocations in such areas. It has been a frustrating period for Environment Canterbury because at times the commissioners it has appointed have heard the arguments of people with the capacity to buy the science and the law to push an argument that says that even in a red-zoned area there should be more capacity for more water to be allocated. Even at times the Environment Court has overturned Environment Canterbury decisions on such matters. 
Moratoriums would be useful in that respect but there is an enormous caveat on all of this. When people have had access to water and want to expand and in the past have been able to expand by seeking more water they will obviously not be too enthused about a moratorium being imposed in a particular area. I look for example at the Synlait dairy company based in Dunsandel. It has started in just the last couple of years to produce milk powder for export. It has plans already to quintuple production. It took an idea to the sharemarket last year for a share float and that did not go at all well. A former National member sits on the board of that organisation as members opposite would well know. Where will it go next for its money? One of the suggestions is that it might come back to the Chinese offer for investment in New Zealand’s dairy infrastructure. 
Putting that to one side the point is that moratoriums are a useful exercise but they will I am sure at times lead to more demand for water if there is a wish for expansion. That could indeed put more pressure back on new allocations. 
Going back to the original premise this bill is around enshrining the wish as stated by the Government for rapid new water allocation—water projects on the ground in place next year in Canterbury. That is a statement of fact from the Prime Minister. The problem around that is the environmental constraints to ensure that new water is allocated in a way that gives back some of the water quality that Canterbury has lost over the last while. That is the balance we want to see. Moratoriums—moratoria if you wish—are a mechanism that can assist but that has to be part of an entire balanced process. If moratoria go in place and lead to rapid decisions about new allocation or assist that process then that raises enormous questions about where the checks and balances are in this legislation or anything forthcoming that will put new environmental constraints upon those who get new water. It is simply not there in the bill. 
Part 3 also deals with the issue of water conservation orders which are mechanisms to protect some of the great waterways of our country. They are in place in Canterbury; they are on the Rakaia River the Hurunui River and from memory on the Rangitata although I could stand corrected on that one. Perhaps the local member might assist. The Hurunui River is the last of the Canterbury rivers that is effectively untapped from lake through to sea. The Environment Court was due in a month’s time to consider this issue. That is an appropriate process. There are a whole range of wishes around the Environment Court decision. Obviously people with a strong conservation ethic say we should leave the Hurunui entirely alone. There are those of the farming community who want to see the south bank dammed and used for irrigation. The point is that these decisions need to go through a process. They need the checks and balances upon them. They do not need rapid allocations made because the long-term consequences of rapid allocation will see without the environmental checks and balances put in place more deterioration of our waterways. 
There are real concerns and it is good to acknowledge that Part 3 has two references to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy both in reference to introducing moratoria and in reference to water conservation orders. There is a requirement that Environment Canterbury commissioners consider the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The problem still arises from the fact it is just “taking note of”. There is no requirement to implement it and this strategy which has been drawn up over the last 3 years and has been patiently negotiated for the future of Canterbury had a table that included representatives of Fish and Game the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Federated Farmers the irrigators the Ministry of Agriculture the Ministry of Fisheries Ngai Tahu and the councils. All of those parties patiently negotiated this strategy and it embodies conservation as its first principle. 
There is an acknowledgment from those parties and I note again that Federated Farmers and irrigators are part of that water management strategy. The first principle was the environment followed by customary uses community supplies and stock water. Those were the first-order priority considerations. The second-order priority was around irrigation electricity generation recreation and tourism and amenity. It was envisaged that these principles would be worked through by the local community with Environment Canterbury to try to ensure that those priorities were upheld. But what this bill does is say goodbye to that collective approach and goodbye to Environment Canterbury which was the driving force behind this strategy. It introduces commissioners installed by the Government for a 3½-year period to implement an agenda which is really the Government’s agenda. It is explicitly around rapid water allocation. 
I come back to the questions around the clauses relating to moratoria. Speaking personally I support moratoria as a mechanism but one cannot believe that moratoria will deliver on their own. There are problems around the build-up that occurs and we saw that in Marlborough with two moratoria imposed on the issuing of further licences for marine farms. All it created was a huge backlog and a floodwater when the moratoria were lifted. We have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the issues are addressed and they need to be addressed across the divide of both the environmental and the economic issues. We cannot have one superimposed over the top. 
In Canterbury we have lost the capacity to swim safely in lowland streams. That is something every member would at least in theory uphold as a principle or God-given right that we have as New Zealanders to take our children and our grandchildren to the streams and the rivers and know they can safely swim. But even in the rivers of Canterbury now—the bigger waterways—it is not safe at times to swim in those rivers. 
Colin King 
: Even if it’s over our head? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: In places like the Ashley River in the electorate of the member for Kaikoura and he should be noting this very carefully it is not safe to take one’s dog to the Ashley because it is quite likely the dog will get cyanobacteria and die as a result of blue-green algae. I note that blue-green is the theme that National picks up in terms of environmental issues. It has a blue-green caucus. Blue-green algae is toxic. The worst toxin known through the algae family is blue-green. I also note that when we mix blue and green we get brown. That is an outcome that is in prospect with this bill because it does not have the environmental checks in place. It is not delivering for Canterbury it is simply enshrining the Government’s agenda. That is not appropriate and not acceptable. If the Government is going to push this bill through under urgency here in the Parliament at a quarter to one in the afternoon it must give alongside this new environmental strengthening protections that make sure that water is improved not put in place an agenda for rapid allocation which will simply see further degradation.