Williams Andrew: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williams Andrew: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7991. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First and we oppose this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill most rigorously. 
On the walls of this Chamber we have some famous names such as Passchendaele Gallipoli Egypt Messines and other great battles where our young soldiers servicemen and servicewomen went off to fight for democracy for this country and to bring freedom from oppression. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford came to our Local Government and Environment Committee and indirectly commented that it was a poor reflection on this country that in fact we had fought for democracy but democracy was being taken away from New Zealanders. For the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to liken us to other regimes around the world that have removed democracy from their people was quite astonishing. It was so astonishing that the members from the National Party sitting on that select committee took exception to it and challenged the commissioner over the comments that he had made but he did not back down. And despite some heated retort from those National Party members who did not like to be compared to Fiji who did not like to be compared to regimes in Europe in the First and Second World Wars they had to stomach those comments from the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. 
He stated: “The commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content—or the continuing need for the legislation—is an abuse of the democratic process and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians … In our view”—that is the commission’s view—“the present legislation has the potential to further exacerbate the resentment that has arisen in Canterbury as a result …”. He also said: “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced and its continuance is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.” 
John Hayes 
: Rubbish.  
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Well that is very good coming from Mr John Hayes from the Wairarapa who similarly will probably turn to the Wairarapa people very shortly and say that he also does not support the Wairarapa having a view on its own democratic representation. Mr Hayes perhaps at next year’s 2014 election you will be prepared to stand up and say “Do I stand with Wairarapa or do I stand with my National Party mates and sell them down the river?”. I know Mr Hayes where you will be: you will be selling them down the river. But hopefully—hopefully—the people of the Wairarapa will sell you down the river at the same time. 
We sat through the hearings and we listened to 95 oral submissions. Ninety out of 95 oral submissions opposed this bill—90 out of 95. I have sat on all sorts of things in my time in local and central government but I have never seen such an overwhelming level of opposition to something. The only ones who supported it were the regular mates of the National Party Federated Farmers and the other mates of the National Party the regular stooges Business New Zealand and that who go along to support their good old mates because they know that there is something in it for them if they support the National Party. 
It was also amazing that when we read the regulatory impact report on this bill we saw that Dame Margaret Bazley and her commissioners—who we have heard have done a good job and who the Minister of Local Government also said have done a very good job—also recommended that there be a transition back to a democratic process in Canterbury. For Dame Margaret Bazley herself who is so esteemed within the Public Service and her commissioners to recommend that we return to democracy in Canterbury and for that advice to be ignored—and for the ministry’s advice to the Government to be ignored—is a sad indictment on this Government. 
But it is not surprising because it has got a history of doing that in Auckland. The National Party in its election manifesto prior to the last election said it would consult with the people of Auckland on the outcomes of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. What happened? National got re-elected and the party manifesto and the party promise to consult with the people of Auckland went out the window. Within 9 days of the royal commission reporting and recommending a restructuring of Auckland along certain lines this National Government threw it out. It threw it out the window—an 800-page report costing close to $5 million with international consultants from all over the world bringing best practice to the recommendations for Auckland—and replaced it with a 33 or 34-page report printed on A4 photocopy paper from Rodney Hide with his plan for Auckland.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! We are on this bill.  
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: What I am saying is that there is a systemic problem here with this National Party with this Government in that it does not believe in democracy. It did not believe in democracy in Auckland. It does not believe in democracy in Canterbury. Quite clearly National is moving to remove democracy from other parts of New Zealand because it has got its eyes on the Wairarapa it has got its eyes on Napier and Hastings it has got its eyes on the Waikato area it has got its eyes on other parts of New Zealand as well. Quite frankly National would like to make local government bodies just extensions of the ministries in Wellington. If National could have local government bodies as extensions of the ministries in Wellington where it could control them from the ministerial level it would love to do that—it would love to do that. People in local government including mayors and councillors throughout New Zealand who are National Party—or former National Party—supporters— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! No we are actually on Part 1 and I would actually ask the member to come back to Part 1. These other things may be of interest to some members but they are not in relation to the bill. We are on Part 1.  
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Coming back to Canterbury and the lack of democracy which is mirrored in this whole situation it is also because of the need basically to control water. Around the world the one thing that people go to war for—countries go to war for States and regions go to war for—is water. In this case much of this stems back to the control of water; control by Federated Farmers and farmers of water in Canterbury against the wishes of the greater population of Canterbury. National knows that to meet the demands of Federated Farmers in Canterbury and to ensure that those water rights are preserved and absolutely guaranteed for its farmer mates it needs to make sure that there is no return to widespread democracy in Canterbury. 
It is disappointing. We certainly would have liked to see a transition back as Dame Margaret Bazley recommended. Certainly in the next Government New Zealand First will ensure that that does happen. I liked to hear the fact that the Labour Party has confirmed that it supports it as well. We can say to the people of Canterbury that help is on its way. To the people of Canterbury: help is on its way. We are not going to allow this to continue and we are going to continue to honour those who fought for this country as shown on the walls in this Chamber so that they did not go to fight for democracy for nothing.