Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9631. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): If any legislation demonstrates the arrogance of this Government and the litany of broken promises that it now reigns under it is this legislation. In 2010 when Nick Smith announced to the country through this Parliament that he was removing the right of Cantabrians to vote for their regional council he said things that were not accurate about the reasons for that removal of our right to vote. He said that it was because of the regional council’s inability to function properly which is code for “the irrigators had not won”. He said that in 3 years’ time our right to vote would be restored. He repeated that 3 years later when he continued to remove our right to vote and said that it would be restored in 3 years’ time. And 3 years on the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee whom I frankly used to think better of said that this is a transition to democracy. We have heard it before Mr Simpson. We heard it 3 years ago and we heard it 3 years before that.Cantabrians are not prepared to be lied to by Cabinet Ministers about something as fundamental as our right to vote. We might vote for people whom the Minister does not like. In fact I could guarantee that I would be voting for people whom the Minister does not support politically. We are in different political parties. Is that not what democracy is all about? I did not vote National in the last election and I am unlikely to ever do that. But I support the National Party leading our Government—Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right.Hon RUTH DYSON: —despite my opposition to it because that is what a democratic process is about. But Mr Bridges and his cronies in the National Party think that we do not deserve that right in Canterbury. I think he is wrong.Mr Simpson criticised the lack of submissions on this bill. There were 1167 submissions on this piece of legislation with a very truncated period of time for the calling of submissions—less than half the usual period that is allowed; less than half. It was rammed through the select committee process. The submitters were laughed at by members of the National Party on the committee. Submitters were distressed at the way they were treated at the select committee. There were 1152 submitters who opposed this legislation in totality. They said they did not support it and did not want it progressing through the House. So how many does that leave out of 1167? Do the maths Mr Simpson. It leaves 15 submitters who supported it. That is 15 out of 1167. So what does the National Party do? It says: “Who cares?”. Who cares about democracy? Who cares about the submitters? Who cares about a proper process? Not the National Party members. All they care about is ramming this bill through and once again for another 3 years denying Cantabrians the right to vote for our regional council.Every other region in the country has that right to vote. When Nick Smith tried to explain it to Canterbury he said: “Wow! Full restoration of democracy.” as if it was an unheard of thing. Hello this is New Zealand. He said: “Full restoration of democracy. We can’t have that because it’s too risky.” It is too risky to allow people in Canterbury to vote for the people whom they want to make decisions around the regional council table.In opposing this legislation I want to put on the record that Labour has always tried to work constructively with the Government on earthquake-related issues. This is not about those issues. I commend the committees that have been doing work on other parts of our recovery and rebuild and working constructively. This is not what this is about. This is about irrigation. This is about the battle over water in Canterbury and what is the healthiest way of progressing.That is something that the Environment Canterbury commissioners themselves promised to address. In 2010 they said: “We will have a target of ensuring that 80 percent of rivers in the Canterbury region are safe for swimming.” That is well above the National Government’s aim for water quality in New Zealand. At that time 74 percent of our rivers were in that category—safe for swimming. In 2016 67 percent of rivers in our region are safe for swimming. So where is that ambitious goal of 80 percent compared with a decline in the quality of our water in our rivers in the 6 years that we have been denied our right to vote? Where is the drive? Where is the action for improving the quality of our water? The commissioners whom the National Party appointed—good people all of them actually—made a commitment to reach a target of 80 percent when the current level was 74 percent and now it is 67 percent. They are going in the wrong direction.When my ancestors came to this country—well-inhabited though it was already by that time—they came because they thought New Zealand would offer a better opportunity for them and their children and grandchildren. And they were right because New Zealand was founded by people who had a vision of a better future: a place where people would look after each other an egalitarian society—it seems to be an old-fashioned term nowadays but I still like it. I still like the idea that we live in a country where it does not matter where you were born if you work hard you will be able to achieve your dream. That is the country I grew up in. That is the country that my ancestors came here for. Some of our ancestors came by water some by air; people are still coming because they see New Zealand as a country where people can have the best life. That is a dream that I want to continue to aspire to.We are very proud in New Zealand of being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. We are very proud of that fact. We show off about it and so we should. So for that pride to be dented by the Government’s deliberate removal of our right to vote is something that the National Party members should be hanging their heads in shame about. We boast about being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. Well women in Canterbury are now being granted so generously by the Government half a vote: we get to vote for half of our council. So are the National women members going to boast about that around the world? Are they going to say: “We were the first to win the right to vote but now we have got only half a vote for a regional council.”? That right to vote was given to everyone in New Zealand regardless of gender regardless of their wealth regardless of their property. It was something that very few other countries had; in fact some still do not. Democracy and the right to vote—the requirement to pay taxes in exchange for a right to representation—is something that should be at the heart of this Parliament.Removing that right is something that should happen in extreme circumstances and it certainly should be done only with the understanding—not necessarily the support but the understanding—of people whose rights are being taken away. There must be an extraordinary reason for taking away New Zealanders’ fundamental rights. But the Minister not only has taken them away but has misled us about re-granting those rights. Nick Smith said in 2010 “I’m taking this right away.”—not half of it in total; we did not have any vote for a regional council. He might have thought we were a bit stressed because of the quakes and that he was doing us a favour. Well he was wrong because he took away a fundamental right that every other New Zealander had and we deserve that right back. He said: “You’ll get it back in 3 years’ time.” Three years later he misled us again by saying: “I’m sorry I’m not ready. It’s too risky. I’m taking away your rights again for another 3 years. You’ll get them back in 3 years’ time.”And tonight in this House ramming this bill through in the last hours of the Parliament we hear Mr Simpson from Coromandel where they get every single right to vote telling us that in another 3 years we will get our vote back. Well that is not good enough. It shows an arrogance—