Anderton Jim: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Anderton Jim: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9933] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I see that the way in which the National Government wants to make progress on issues like water—and we can put social welfare accident compensation and everything else in with it—is to pull the plug on the whole system. What we have here is the end of democracy in one of Canterbury’s most important local government agencies. 
I would like to know where the National members who represent Canterbury were during the election. If there was ever a time when Environment Canterbury was not meeting its responsibilities I know that it was then and immediately before. The Government that I represented had to pay Environment Canterbury half a million dollars to get a water plan. If the National members who represent Canterbury were so dead keen on ending democracy in Canterbury why did they not tell the people of Canterbury that that was what they stood for. Why did they not stand up at the election and say: “We’ve got a plan to solve the water problem. We’re going to dismiss all the Environment Canterbury elected representatives.”? That would have been as popular as a cold cup of water on a freezing-cold day in the Antarctic. It would not have gone down and no National Party member had either the foresight or the gumption to do it. They did not do it. 
What they have done is have a meeting with a cabal of mayors. Those mayors did not consult anybody. Did the mayors consult the elected representatives of Parliament for the Canterbury region? They may have consulted the National members but they did not consult the Labour Party members and the Progressive party member for Canterbury. There was no consultation with us. Did they just go to where they thought they could get some direct action like this? The answer is yes. 
Here is the incredible thing. The ACT Party which stands for non-intervention all over the place—we cannot intervene in the economy we cannot intervene in social welfare and we cannot intervene in accident compensation; it has to be privatised and run by people—now wants to intervene in democracy in the most dramatic way that it could which is to cancel it. Not only are we not going to have it but we are not going to have it between now and the election. 
I have heard National members mention the Rodney District Council. Talk about comparing apples with oranges! Sandra Lee the then Minister of Local Government appointed a commissioner 10 months out from the election. She determined that an election would be held within 10 months and it was. It was a one-off election and it was held outside of time but she made sure that there was an election of the representatives of Rodney within 10 months of the appointment of a commissioner. 
What we have here is a cancellation of democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years; not 10 months but 3½ years. Where was the public announcement of this to the people of Canterbury before the election? We did not hear a word of it. My colleagues know and National members know the irony of this because National members and Labour and Progressive members were at a special briefing held by Environment Canterbury about 4 or 5 months ago. I have a fair idea of what Environment Canterbury’s failings were in terms of water policy and for the first time Environment Canterbury had got its act together and was forming a water policy that had some coherence and some credibility. It had done that and just when it was about to implement it it got abolished. What sort of democracy is that? Are you frightened of democracy? Are you frightened of it? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member should not include the Speaker by his use of pronouns. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise. 
The incredible thing about this is to do with poor old Alec Neill. Alec Neill was a member who could not eventually get elected. He entered Parliament about two or three times as tail-end Charlie— 
Hon Member 
: Three. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: —three was it—and he decided that he would give it up and go into local government. He even stood against me which was a desperate measure for National. Finally he was elected to Environment Canterbury. He found his place. He worked his way through with a little bit of argy-bargy and he got to be the chairman. Then his own party dismissed him. The poor guy! He could not make it in Parliament so he made it at the local government level and then National cuts him off at the knees. 
But more important than Alec Neill is the fact that the people of Canterbury will not have any choices. They will have people coming in from outside. Where is the principle of no taxation without representation? I ask where that principle is. Environment Canterbury has rating responsibilities and each year it will strike a rate. I ask where the input from the people of Canterbury is in that. Where are their elected members to implement the policies that they vote for? They do not have any policies to vote for because the people who are being appointed were not voted in. They are being appointed by Rodney Hide the great anti-interventionist and Nick Smith the Minister for the Environment. Those are the two who are appointing them. They have sacked the elected representatives—the people whom we all voted for in Canterbury—and they will put in another eight people to run it for 3½ years. There will be no election and no responsibility to the people in terms of taxation and rating. This has to be one of the most Draconian anti-democratic events that I have seen in my time in this House and that is quite a long time now. I have never seen anything like this. It is a rateable authority that has no elected representatives and no accountability to the people. There was no consultation with the people before it was done none whatever—not with their elected representatives in Parliament and not with their elected representatives or the people of Canterbury. A cabal of mayors and a couple of Ministers will decide. 
The thing that I know about people like Rodney Hide is that they will ask why Wellington should tell them what to do. Well at the very time when what I heard Rodney say is ringing in my mind he is actually forcing a gargantuan amalgamation mistake on Auckland. There will be complete chaos in the economic and social environment of that city—and I know it pretty well; I lived there for 46 years. I guarantee that National members will regret until the day that they lose office which will be at the next election what they have done in Auckland. National members should wait until the people of Auckland take retribution in about 16 or 17 months’ time because Aucklanders will. If National members think Aucklanders will blame Rodney Hide then they should get a life because those people will blame National. 
In effect the Canterbury Regional Council has been abolished. It has been excluded from the pending local government elections. We have to remember that the elections will be held in October which is only a few months away and the Government has cancelled them. I ask why the Government did not have the foresight to allow the people of Canterbury to determine this matter. We have a democratic election coming up in a few months. If we are so worried about Environment Canterbury and about the water situation and everything else the people of Canterbury could decide the future of their regional council at the local elections instead of the decision being made by Rodney Hide and Nick Smith. If I put it to the people of Canterbury that I have a good idea and tell them that they have a choice which would be to let them choose between having Rodney Hide and Nick Smith decide the future of how Environment Canterbury works for the next 3 years and having the people of Canterbury decide it in a free election in a few months’ time I will guarantee to the House that overwhelmingly over 95 percent of the people in Canterbury would vote for having the election and for having a say in that election. They would not be voting for Rodney Hide—I will tell members that now—and they would not be voting for Nick Smith to decide the future of Environment Canterbury not in a million years. 
The Government has intervened in the democratic process. It has intervened for up to 3½ years. The people of Canterbury will not have any representation. There has been no consultation. It is taxation without representation. Just at the very time when Environment Canterbury has got together a coherent water policy—and most of us who were there know that is absolutely true including National members like David Carter who was there and knows what the reality is—the National Government has canned democracy in Canterbury. It is a most unbelievable act. The people of Canterbury will not forget it in a long time. Following the local body elections there is a general election next year and the people of Canterbury will not forget the National Party at that point either. That is the indictment on National. It is anti-democracy anti-representation and anti-consultation. It is abrogating the rights of people to participate in a free election for the people who represent them in their own region.