Clark David: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8227. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak before my colleague Dr Megan Woods. I do look forward to what she will say in the debate shortly as a Cantabrian and someone who has spoken passionately about this issue before alongside her colleague and mine Ruth Dyson from whom I expect we will also hear. 
This is a debate that needs to be had in this Parliament because it is one that affects all of the people of Canterbury as their democracy has been taken away from them. The debate around the title and commencement in clauses 1 to 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill lends itself to some suggestions about of course making sure that democracy is restored sooner but more specifically that the title of the bill is made more appropriate and tighter to what is actually happening in the bill. We see as we canvassed in the earlier debate that rights of appeal are disappearing. So it might be more appropriate to talk about the “Environment Canterbury (Rights of Appeal Removal) Amendment Bill”—that would somehow seem to reflect more nearly what is going on here—or the “Environment Canterbury (Failure to Restore Proper Democracy) Amendment Bill”. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Is this the modern face of the Labour Party? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: These are the kinds of things that are happening in this bill that are hidden behind a title that seems somewhat more positive perhaps to those who are at home who hear the simple title as it is expressed on the Order Paper: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Something is being suggested here that is neutral when in fact the bill has some unfortunate side effects if we can be so kind as to call them side effects. 
Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber was interjecting in the debate and I must say that I look forward also to his contribution because we have had very few from the Government side of the Committee in this debate. There has been a remarkable silence and one wonders why that is when we have a bill that is doing so much harm in the view of the majority of Cantabrians that the Government will not get up and justify this bill— 
Andrew Williams 
: Unjustifiable. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —and perhaps explain why it is choosing to put it through in this way with this kind of generous sounding title when there are mischiefs being done to the people of Canterbury. And my colleague Andrew Williams there says that it cannot be defended and that is perhaps why we have heard so little from the National benches. But I challenge Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber to make a decent contribution one that does attempt to defend this bill because someone has got to stand up and defend it. 
We have not heard anything from the Minister in the chair for some time the Minister of Local Government. He has been very quiet and perhaps he is a little embarrassed. He has had the bill dumped on him. Maybe it should be changed to the “Environment Canterbury (Minister Has the Bill Dumped on Him) Amendment Bill” which would also perhaps reflect something of the dynamic we are seeing in this Parliament. We are certainly not hearing from the Government as to why this bill should proceed. I think the general public are owed an explanation but more particularly those people in Canterbury whose democratic rights have not been restored despite promises in that direction—very clear promises—by Nick Smith previously. 
So I suggest that the Committee does consider those other options. That would make clear the real agenda in this bill so that we are not left with this misleading title that would suggest that the bill is more harmless than it really is. Thank you.