Robertson Grant: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7993. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting that Nicky Wagner said that Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill was really just a technical matter about a date—just a small matter of a date. A small matter of 2013 being the date like how 31 December 2014 is I think when Phillipstown school is due to merge with Woolston School. That is just a date as well—just a date. In fact I notice in changes to section 4(1) of the Act that what is actually happening here is the replacement of the definition of the 2013 election—the definition of the 2013 election. How Orwellian can you get? The definition of the 2013 election becomes “2016 election”. The Government is actually changing the definition of the 2013 election and trying to tell us that you can have something in 2016 and it can still be the 2013 election.  
In all seriousness I think it is important for the Committee and those people watching and listening to Parliament tonight to understand the significance of what the Government is proposing to do in this bill. The Government is proposing to cancel an election; to take away—further take away—the rights of our people in a large region of country to vote. Just stop and consider for a moment what that means. What kind of country are we living in when the central government decides that local people in a large region do not have the right to exercise their vote? I found a quote that I think sums this up. This quote is: “Elections are central to democracy but they are not always on their own a magic or quick-fix solution”. That sounds like something that perhaps the Minister in the chair the Minister of Local Government might say or one of the other National members but no it was Frank Bainimarama talking about Fiji. That is what he said—“Elections are central to democracy but they are not … a magic or quick-fix solution”. The National Party members as Andrew Williams said may not like being compared to Fiji but I would actually wager that there is a chance of an election in Fiji before there will be an election for Environment Canterbury under this Government. That is how bad things have got. This kind of decision is being made— 
John Hayes 
: You’re exaggerating.  
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: John Hayes says I am exaggerating—John Hayes says I am exaggerating. Do the people of Canterbury have the right today to cast a vote for their regional council Mr Hayes? Silence from Mr Hayes on the other side of the Chamber—silence now because the people of Canterbury do not. There is no way I can exaggerate this issue.  
John Hayes 
: Yes there is. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: There is no way because democracy has been taken away from the people of Canterbury. It is not possible to exaggerate that Mr Hayes. What that is is a fundamental assault on the democratic values of this country. I actually thought despite all the differences I might have with National Party members that they would stand up for democracy; that they would actually believe that this mattered but they do not.  
Hon Annette King 
: Arrogant. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: They are arrogant and they do not care about giving the people of Canterbury a say in who governs their region. John Hayes says it is an exaggeration; it is not Mr Hayes. They do not have a say in this.  
John Hayes 
: Anything that keeps Kerry Burke out. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: See here we go. It is all about personalities for the National Party. It is all about personalities and trying to take down the right to a democratic process for the people of Canterbury because of some personal score that John Hayes and the National Party want to have.  
 It is interesting. David Carter when he was responding to some questions about this when he was the Minister of Local Government said that the problem with the regional council was that it was “ineffective and dysfunctional”. Well if that definition or criteria of being “ineffective and dysfunctional” was a problem the whole National Party would be out today. Mr Hayes would certainly be out because “ineffective and dysfunctional” describes him to a T. So this Government has fundamentally undermined democracy but if we look at this provision in Part 1 let us see who else thinks that this is a bad idea because it is not just us it is not just the Opposition parties and it is not just the people of Canterbury but it is actually the Government’s own officials. The Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Internal Affairs actually told the Government not to do this—not to extend the bill out. They actually said: “Let’s work through a process of having a mix of commissioners and elected people and work their way to a fully democratically elected council.” That was the advice from officials.  
Funnily enough it was also the advice that the Government was getting from the commissioners themselves. The commissioners themselves were saying: “We think we should move to a more democratic model but this Government wouldn’t have it.” But even within this Government there were people who wanted it. Nick Smith went on the record and said that we would be seeing democratic elections in Canterbury. So we have got the commissioners we have got the Ministry for the Environment we have got the Department of Internal Affairs— 
Hon Annette King 
: The people. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —and the people of Canterbury but this Government carries on in its arrogant way saying: “We know best. We know what’s right for the people of Canterbury. We know”—this Government tells us—“that the people of Canterbury will be better served by not having a say.” Well that fundamentally undermines the principles that this country is built on. That is why David Rutherford and the Human Rights Commission came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and told it— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What did he say? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —Lianne Dalziel wants to know what he said. It is worth quoting again: “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.” New Zealand likes to stand up in the world and tell the rest of the world about the importance of human rights. John Hayes when he used to run the UN division—proudly run the UN division—of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was part of saying that New Zealand would go out in the world and promote human rights and yet inside New Zealand this Government tarnishes our image by promoting legislation like this which fundamentally undermines those human rights.  
I want to move on briefly to another aspect of this which is covered under Part 1 and that is the question around water conservation orders. I think it is very important that we get to the heart of what this is about. This is about water and this is about irrigation and about the fact that that party over there was concerned that the people of Canterbury might have some different ideas about how water would be used. But let us be absolutely clear. As Eugenie Sage has said—and she has a Supplementary Order Paper on this—there is now a process in place for water conservation orders in the Canterbury region that is different from everywhere else in New Zealand and there is now no justification for carrying that on. We have just seen a decision the other day about the Rakaia River going through under the process covered in this legislation which meant that no one in the public was able to have a proper say through the Environment Court and the decision was simply rammed through. So now they are in a position where they can apply to have a resource consent to build a canal. There are all sorts of things that come out of that decision and that decision did not go through the same process that would have been in place for any other water conservation order anywhere else in New Zealand.  
That is the problem with this legislation: the Government cannot make the case to extend out this denial of democracy to New Zealanders. It might have thought it could have made the case originally. It might have thought it was possible for it to say at the start in 2010 that it could do this. But when it shows up here today and says that it wants to carry it on to 2016 that is a fundamental breach of human rights it is a fundamental breach of democracy— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Broken promise. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —and it is a broken promise and this Government cannot mount a defence for that because it is anti-democratic. But it is also very important when we look at the regulatory impact statement—and my colleague Lianne Dalziel is a well-known exponent of the regulatory impact statement which is a very important thing to look at. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh no don’t use my speech! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Ha ha! I am going to introduce the member’s speech by making brief reference to the regulatory impact statement because it is important. In the regulatory impact statement the point is made: “The extension of the Commissioners’ terms would continue to deny Canterbury residents the opportunity to vote for representatives … Also given the progress made by the Commissioners there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention which was used in response to ECan’s previous serious and systemic dysfunction.” So even if the National Government tries to sell us the argument from 2010 what the officials are saying through the regulatory impact statement is that that justification no longer exists. So fundamentally and at its principle this legislation is wrong but it is also wrong in practice. It is wrong because there is now no argument and we have heard no argument from the National Government that justifies this.  
This is an incredibly sad day for this Parliament to be here and standing having to debate whether or not a region’s people are allowed to vote for their own representatives. I thought that was fundamental in our democracy; it is quite clear that National does not. We have committed to telling the people of Canterbury that when we are elected to Government next year they will have the right to vote for their representatives because that is what is fair and right in this country.