Sio Su'a William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9993] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill outlines the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of the bill is to empower the Government to rapidly address issues of the Canterbury Regional Council and to provide the commissioners with the necessary powers. It talks about giving the power to this Government and I have no doubt that what this Government is about to do is sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister but there are two Ministers responsible for driving this particular issue the Hon Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide. The ordinary citizen would be thinking that this is illegal. The removal of 14 officials who were elected by the 500000-plus people of Canterbury—and these councillors are significant citizens of Canterbury—would be illegal other than for this bill. Am I correct? This bill legalises the removal of 14 elected representatives of the 500000-plus people of Canterbury which under normal circumstances is an illegal act. But it has been made legal by the rushing through of this bill. 
National’s decision to replace Environment Canterbury with Government-appointed commissioners for the next 3 ½ years is an outrageous affront to democracy. Any way you cut it it is an affront to democracy. My colleagues are correct when they say that this is deliberate on the part of the Government. It is also a message that the Government does not care about democratic processes. I have to say that the people of Canterbury would be asking themselves what this says about their representatives. They are not insignificant individuals. They are significant members of their community. They are Alec Neill the chairman of the council who represents the Christchurch West constituency; Angus McKay who represents the Rakaia constituency; Professor Bob Kirk who represents the Christchurch South constituency; Bronwen Murray who represents the Christchurch North constituency; David Sutherland who represents the Christchurch East constituency; and Carole Evans Eugenie Sage Jo Kane Jane Demeter Mark Oldfield Sir Kerry Burke Pat Harrow Rik Tindall and Ross Little. My point is that they are not insignificant people. They represent the community they were elected by Canterbury and now they have been removed. Canterbury has been told it will not hold elections this year. It has to wait. That is all because the Government has seized the power in wanting to make its own decisions and has forced its decisions upon the people of Canterbury. 
What do the local people think about it? I have heard councillor Chrissie Williams who said that “Minister Nick Smith made a brief appearance at the Council meeting on 11 March at which Councillors were able to ask questions but there was no report discussion or decision by the council. He has not met with us at any other time. The Christchurch City Council does not have a view on whether intervention was required and has certainly not supported the intervention handed down by the Minister today.” To rush through a bill to take powers away from elected representatives and to give those powers and more to a group of appointed commissioners is a kick to the heart of democracy in this country. Is that not what they are doing? That is what this bill is about. 
I will read something else from councillor Eugenie Sage: “Sacking councillors would deny 500000 Canterbury citizens their elected voice in water management.” 
Paul Quinn 
: Another poodle. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: That is what those members might think but these people were elected. They were elected; they were not imposed upon the people. The people of Canterbury elected them through democratic process.