Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Malo le soifua Mr Chairman. It is good to be in the Committee to further have these discussions around the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. As the Committee will be aware this bill proposes a process that is at complete odds with the fundamental beliefs New Zealanders have regarding the importance of democracy and upholding the strong historical basis of our governance order. Irrespective of whether it be local government or central government the governance order that New Zealanders the younger generation have grown up with is government by the people of the people for the people. This bill proposes to set aside for the second time in a row the basic and fundamental right of the people of Canterbury to hold free and democratic local body elections. 
The John Key - National Government first took away the rights of the people of Canterbury in 2010 by forcing through the original piece of legislation the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act. That legislation got rid of the then elected people’s representatives in Environment Canterbury and by force of that legislation the people’s representatives were replaced with seven Government-appointed commissioners. Again by force through that legislation the people of Canterbury continued to be taxed to pay for the Government-appointed commissioners. I recall as many will including the people of Canterbury that the Government sugar-coated that proposal by imposing on the people of Canterbury a promise: a promise that the people of Canterbury would have their democratic elections in 2013. That is this year. This Government included that promise in that original Act—the Act that we now debate and its amendments. The original promise was that the people of Canterbury would hold their democratic and free elections in 2013. This Government and this bill will now break that promise. 
Ordinarily if any hard-working citizen of our country whether they be from the north or south—in this case the Canterbury people—breaks any law whether it be traffic laws or otherwise the consequences are that they are imposed with either a fine or a jail term. Yet this Government will break this law the original promise from 2010 by changing the legislation by ramming through another piece of legislation. It is now saying: “Look you’re not going to hold your elections this year. Instead you’ll hold your elections in 2016.” This is the silly part of it. Ordinarily any citizen breaking the law would be fined or thrown into jail and yet this Government is able to get away with it avoiding any consequential ramifications from breaking its legal promise and again imposing another promise by amending the original Act to say that now Environment Canterbury and the people of Canterbury can hold their local body elections only in 2016. That sends a message that this Government has forgotten about the people of Canterbury has forgotten about the value of democratic rights. That sends a strong message that this Government places no value on the rights of the people of Canterbury to be able to vote for their own representatives. 
The people of Canterbury will recall that the original Act was rammed through this Parliament by this Government under urgency in a single day. New Zealanders were not given the opportunity to have a say then least of all the people of Canterbury. I suspect that because this Government—and none of the Ministers has been able to say once and for all whether they intend to consult with the people of Canterbury about the changes that they are proposing particularly with the review that they are intending to bring in. So the people of Canterbury unfortunately will under this Government have to continue to pay taxes without representation. Yet the Government’s own Cabinet papers in 2010 stated that the deferral of the 2010 election should be only a temporary measure as it “did not allow for the rights of the people to participate”. In other words this Government was told to keep its promise in its own parliamentary papers. Its own Cabinet papers advised it that it should honour its promise—the promise that the people of Canterbury could hold democratic elections in 2013. 
Those same Cabinet documents explicitly state that the intent was to return to a democratically elected council as soon as the Government-appointed commissioners’ task was completed. In the Cabinet papers on this amendment bill we have both Ministers—the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams and the then Minister of Local Government David Carter—state categorically and clearly that any option except the return to a fully elected council would limit the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury compared with the rest of the country and violate article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In other words this bill means the Government would be in breach of its commitment in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to protect promote and fulfil the rights of people in New Zealand. As the Human Rights Commission submitted in its submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee the greater concern is how the Government will justify their deliberate determination to get rid of the rights of the people of Canterbury—rights many New Zealanders paid the ultimate sacrifice in defence and protection of. Those fundamental rights are now being cast aside by this bill being introduced by the Government. 
My colleague Grant Robertson referred to the regulatory impact analysis and I want to give acknowledgment to the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment because it is a thorough analysis of this bill and the impact. They truly recognise that this analysis and the proposal by this Government had no public consultation whatsoever. It is in their recommendation that public consultation take place. But we know from sad experience so far under the term of this Government that it despises almost talking to the people who are going to be affected by its decisions. 
 In the regulatory impact analysis there are five options given. The authors of this report recommend option one which states: “The intention of Option One is that ECan will return to a fully locally elected democratic body under a transitional plan …”. Here we have the advice from the two critical Government departments advising the Government on what it ought to be doing and yet this Government decides on “Option Three: Legislation to extend or entrench …”. So despite the original advice given that this should be only a temporary measure despite the promise of this Government that 2013 is when it will hold elections despite the words of the then Ministers that it is best if they quickly hold elections so that they do not entrench this kind of behaviour and despite the recommendation of the authors of the regulatory impact analysis that they quickly return to a fully locally elected democratic body what this Government does is it accepts option three. Option three entrenches a governing body of commissioners appointed by this Government. I think that for the people of Canterbury the message they will hear from this bill is that they have been a forgotten public that they are forgotten Cantabrians and that their democracy their rights to be able to elect their own local government representatives are being denied under this bill. 
Sadly I have to say in April of this year this House will play host to a number of members of Parliament from across this region. It will include Fiji amongst the other countries. In addition to the debates that members of this House can participate in in addition to some of the seminars that will be held and in addition to us hearing from the members of Parliament from the Pacific one of the aims of this forum is for us as a Parliament in New Zealand to be able to share with our Pacific counterparts the importance of democracy. I feel somewhat embarrassed because if any of those members of Parliament picks up on what is happening—