How do you make tough changes to water quality or irrigation rules without upsetting the very farmers who make the second biggest load of dosh for the country? Taking on the regional councils who administer these rules is not easy either. Egotistical feathers get very ruffled.
I've watched Parker closely over the last year, and listened carefully to every speech he's made to regional councils about environmental rules needing to be toughened up, and how water quality standards need to be strengthened. He's also saying that changes are coming to the Resource Management Act, and that fewer cows will happen - not by putting a cap on bovine numbers but via nutrient limits.
So he's talking the talk, but some of us out here in "boots on the ground" land are starting to get antsy. One year on, his rhetoric is starting to look strained and slightly disingenuous. To add to my suspicions, I keep seeing regional councils continuing to try their devilish luck in watering down any changes that may, one day, be coming.
How's this for a shocker? Environment Canterbury (ECan) - who still have their seven appointed commissioners despite noise from Labour pre-election that they'd be returning it to democracy quickly - are now trying on their biggest sting yet. As if to compensate for the upcoming 2019 removal of their pro-irrigation, pro-farming commissioners, they're now proposing something so cunning as to be downright evil.
ECan is pushing for a new representation structure that massively over-represents rural voters and under-represents urban voters. How? By making it a 14-member council elected from seven constituencies. So far so good.
Except section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act directs that when determining numbers of members to be elected, the population of each ward should be divided by the number of members to be elected by that ward and should yield a figure no more than 10 per cent greater or smaller than the population of the region divided by the total number of elected members.
This is known as the plus or minus 10 per cent rule. ECan's proposal breaks this rule in over half of the wards. In some cases, the difference in representation is extreme.
It's totally, nakedly stacked towards rural voters. The under-representation of the urban voters is startling in that, if this proposal were to take flight, their votes are worth so much less than a dairy farmer's in South Canterbury.
It's not news that Canterbury is ground zero for every water issue one can think of. Christchurch now has chlorine in the water to keep it safe from excessive nitrates. In summer, many rivers are running dry partly due to irrigation. The ones with water in them often become severely unsafe to swim in. The link to intensive agriculture is obvious, and the answers are too.
The reality of the New Zealand "water wars" is not some distant, far-flung future away. It's here, and it's now. That ECan would even try this on, speaks volumes about their agenda and their deep anti-democratic streak. One can only hope it fails, but stranger things have happened at sea.
So, where's David Parker when you need him? Is he busy worrying about the GDP? Or our trade deficit? Big issues, I concede.
But so is water, and democracy.
The breakdown of both is inching closer every day.
