Robertson Grant: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5306. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I have said a lot of things in this House about what I think of the National Party’s policies and the direction that it is taking this country in— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: None of it’s been very nice. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It has been highly critical Mr Williamson and I believe those things strongly. But I never thought I would have to stand up in this Parliament and say to the National Party “Why are you denying a group of New Zealanders the right to have a say in how they are governed in their region?”. I never thought I would have to stand up in this House and say to the National Party “What is it about democracy that you do not like?”. That is what is here today. That is what is on the table today: the National Party denying a group of New Zealanders their democratic right to vote for the people who govern them. The people of the Canterbury region have been through enough. They deserve the right to elect the people who will make important decisions on their behalf instead of this National Government deciding that democracy does not matter in their region. It is an unbelievable situation that the National Party thinks it is OK to take away the democratic rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. 
When we look at the reasoning that we have heard today from David Carter for why this should happen— 
Hon Member 
: Facile! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is facile and the reasoning that Mr Carter actually gave us today was about what was happening before 2010. We can argue and we will argue about that. But the question Mr Carter has to answer is this: when there was a problem in his mind with the way the council was operating previously he put in place commissioners but he cannot continue to mount that same argument. Different people will put their names forward. All sorts of people could end up being elected to the Canterbury Regional Council. It is not the same set of circumstances as it was but Mr Carter continues to justify taking away democratic rights on the basis of what a previous council did. It is time for the people of Canterbury to be given back their democratic rights and no case has been made in this House by the National Party for why they should not be given back their rights. 
The regulatory impact statement makes absolutely clear what the problem is here. That problem is that this approach that the National Government is now taking is denying democratic rights. But more than that it actually defers the resolution of the problems that the Government thinks exist. Paragraph 87 of the regulatory impact statement says “It defers resolution of the current problems as it provides no clear exit mechanism from the intervention.” This Government does not know where it is going on this. It has got appointed commissioners in place extended out to 2016 and no exit mechanism. 
The Government even had on the table the option from officials to go to a halfway house—not quite democracy but at least on the way to democracy—by having a mixed body of appointed people and elected people. That was not ideal in our view but at least it was a step towards some kind of democratic process. Nick Smith liked this. He went and said to Federated Farmers that this was a good option. The officials said it was a good option but Mr Carter said no. A Cabinet paper has gone up that goes against those officials’ recommendations. We would like to see it Mr Carter. It would be good to release that some time so we can actually see what the justification is. But instead no. Mr Carter wants to deny us all the right to know what the justification was for going against the advice of officials. As my colleague Annette King has already said today and as David Carter actually said during question time last week it is clear that it is because it is part of a wider agenda. It is part of a wider agenda of getting rid of regional councils of taking away representation at a regional council level from New Zealanders all across this country. But no Mr Carter will not release that paper to us. 
There was another Labour politician who once said that if you ever wanted to find out where things were at you should follow the money. Well in the case of Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Regional Council that should be follow the water because that is what you should actually do if you want to see what is happening here. 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s where the money is. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Indeed because that is where the money is. 
Let us be absolutely clear what this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill does. This bill continues the process whereby the appointed commissioners control all the decisions about water. They control all the decisions about water and individuals’ rights to appeal those decisions to the Environment Court are gone under this legislation. The Government has extended the fact that the only things that are allowed are appeals on points of law to the High Court. So the decisions around water conservation orders are gone from the public process into the hands of commissioners. That is what this is about. It is about controlling that very valuable resource in Canterbury in the interests of certain people and not in the interests of the wider Canterbury region. That is disgraceful. Decisions about water are vital for the future of the Canterbury region. This Minister with this piece of legislation is continuing to exclude the people of Canterbury from their right to question those decisions in the Environment Court and putting those rights in the hands of the commissioners. It is disgraceful. 
But this is a pattern from this Government going right back to my very first days in this House with the legislation around the Auckland Council. This Government is denying the democratic rights of New Zealanders right across the country when it comes to local government but also in the way it is running other things. Take Work and Income. I would not be surprised—in fact I would lay some money that at some point Paula Rebstock will become a commissioner for Environment Canterbury. That is when the people of Canterbury will know they are in trouble. Paula Rebstock is in running a board for Work and Income and she is in running ACC now. At some point she will become a commissioner for Environment Canterbury because she is the person who brings governance to these organisations—not democracy but governance. This is a disgrace. 
Nobody underestimates the impact of the earthquakes on the Canterbury region and every member of this House understands the importance of working alongside the people of Canterbury. That is why Gerry Brownlee’s comment in the House today directed at Lianne Dalziel was so disgraceful. Canterbury MPs of all parties have worked very hard on behalf of their constituents. But the fact is that once again this Government is using the earthquakes as a smokescreen for another issue. I challenge Government members to get up and tell me exactly what impact the earthquakes have had on whether or not the commissioners’ mandate should be extended. What exact things have not been done and not achieved by the commissioners because of the earthquakes? The threshold for denying democratic rights should be so high as to be almost impossible not just because they have not quite completed the things that the Government wanted or not just because the Government prefers to deal with commissioners than to deal with councillors. 
When this first happened Nick Smith said that one of the reasons that the Government went ahead with this proposal was that it was worried about the outcome of the election. I have said it before in this House: I was quite worried about the outcome of the 2008 election but I did not advocate cancelling it. I did not decide it should be cancelled. There are countries all around the world where people cancel elections and members on that side of the House have given dozens of speeches and comments about Fiji and other countries where elections have been cancelled or elections have been delayed. Well I will lay another bet with you. I reckon there will be an election in Fiji before there is an election for Environment Canterbury. What does that say about those members on the other side of the House? They sit there and they judge other countries where elections do not happen but this Government sits here and says “We’ll cancel an election for Environment Canterbury because we didn’t like what was going to happen in that election.” What is more it will carry on with this process of having commissioners denying the democratic rights of Cantabrians against the advice of its officials and against the advice of most New Zealanders who would want to see their fellow countrymen and countrywomen given the opportunity of electing the people who govern them. 
This bill is an outrageous attack on democracy. There are no two ways about it. The Labour Party will oppose this bill throughout. I join my colleague Annette King in urging the people of Canterbury—maybe there were some problems with Environment Canterbury before the commissioners were put in but that is no excuse to deny Cantabrians the right now to be able to elect the people who represent them. That is a fundamental principle of this House. It is a fundamental principle of New Zealand that people get to elect their representatives. It is called democracy. National is denying it to the people of Canterbury.