Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10858. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): If there is any legislation that demonstrates the increasingly arrogant nature of this Government then this legislation is a fine example of it. New Zealand and New Zealanders have been so proud for so long of being the country where women first won the right to vote. We are very proud of that. We boast about it at every opportunity and so we should. The movement that won the right of women to vote was started in Canterbury. We had the first woman member of Parliament from Canterbury actually from my electorate. So our region and our country have a very proud tradition in regard to democracy.But here we have a Minister Nick Smith who not just today not just once but on many many occasions has misled the people of Canterbury first of all by misrepresenting the reasons for sacking the democratically elected Environment Canterbury councillors and then by telling us—not once but twice and now three times—that this was a short-term plan. In 2010 we were told that this was short term and we would get back our right to vote. Then it was extended again and we were to get back our right to vote and now it has been extended yet again. Who could trust the word of that Minister with regard to restoring our democratic right to vote for our entire regional council in the same way that every other person in the country does?The 2009 Creech report led by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech—a man whose work I respect whose political views I do not always share but whom I certainly regard highly in terms of his integrity—made it very clear that there was no dysfunctionality in Environment Canterbury. The members who believe what Nick Smith just said should read Wyatt Creech’s report of 2009 because it has not one reference to Environment Canterbury being dysfunctional. The Minister knows it and the Minister knows the real reason why the council was sacked. It was solely to get more water out of Canterbury rivers and into irrigation—that is the sole reason for the Environment Canterbury being sacked. Actually the Speaker himself confirmed that at a conference. The Speaker the Rt Hon David Carter confirmed that on the public record at a conference for Irrigation New Zealand where he said that the election of four councillors in the previous election—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a longstanding practice and a very specific Standing Order that a member shall not bring the Speaker into the debate on a bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes I hear what the member is saying. The member who is speaking however is referring to an event prior to the current Speaker being the Speaker and in that context I am allowing it to continue.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The reason I can is that the presiding officer is aware of the contribution that the current Speaker before he was made—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no no.Hon RUTH DYSON: —the Speaker made at the Irrigation New Zealand conference.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. You are now bringing me into the debate and that is completely wrong. So just keep me out of it.Hon RUTH DYSON: So in April 2010 David Carter said to the Irrigation New Zealand conference: “We had to act [re EnCan] because the situation was untenable if we are to seriously make progress in delivering irrigation.” He said nothing about dysfunction nothing about corruption and nothing about mismanagement. As was the case in every other instance when the Government had to intervene to take away democratic rights there was always corruption or mismanagement or dysfunctionality. This was about getting more water out of Canterbury rivers for irrigation—sole reason. He said: “I would have thought what happened recently regarding ECan would be a signal to all regional councillors to work a bit more constructively with their farmer stakeholders.” Well I think they should work constructively with their farmer stakeholders but that does not mean that irrigation should win every argument.In Canterbury we have the greatest percentage of the total New Zealand water take. Our aquifers are polluted. The Canterbury District Health Board representative the public health specialist has said that in some parts of Canterbury newborn babies should not be fed with formula that is made with water that should be able to be drunk straight from our tap because it could poison a newborn baby. This is in New Zealand in 2016 and yet Minister Nick Smith is continuing the drive of irrigation over democracy by not giving us our vote in Canterbury to democratically elect our regional council. He is continuing that drive of irrigation over democracy.When challenged about his repeated change of circumstances his misrepresentation of when we were going to get our right to vote back he said that we are not going to return to a full election in Canterbury because it is too risky—it is too risky to give the people of Canterbury a right to vote. I wonder what the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for Women think about the fact that we are getting only half a vote in this bill. The country that was so proud of having women win the right to vote first is in this Parliament taking away half that vote for Canterbury.We have got a complete gerrymander in the numbers as well but that is not surprising. The people of Christchurch are going to have far less representation than people in the rural areas. Why would that be I wonder? Where is the drive for irrigation? Does it come from Christchurch or does it come from the surrounding areas in Canterbury? It clearly comes from the rural community where they will have a much stronger voice on the regional council because there are fewer voters required to elect a regional council memberI think this is an outrage. It is a breach of the faith that people had in 2010. We have had misrepresentation about the reasons for it and if any member doubts that they should read the Creech report of 2009.Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ll be shocked.Hon RUTH DYSON: They would be shocked because the Minister has said things about that report that are not true and I think the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech deserves more respect from this House. He was a Deputy Prime Minister in this Parliament and he deserves more respect than having his report misrepresented.Hon Dr Nick Smith: And he totally supports what we’ve done. He supports the intervention.Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not believe the Minister over what he just interjected. I challenge him to have that implication put in writing and I bet he cannot deliver it.In 2007 we had four Environment Canterbury councillors who were elected on a “save water” ticket. That was the wake-up call for the Government. That was the wake-up call to it that people in Canterbury were getting so upset at the draining of our rivers that we wanted to elect people who would put a stop to it who would look at the water management strategy.The other misrepresentation that the Hon Nick Smith makes regularly is to say that there was no water plan in place. In 2004—2004—that water plan was in draft form and it is basically the same as it is now. It was prepared by the previous elected councillors. He says that Canterbury was poorly managed and had lower outcomes. His own area of Tasman has poorer outcomes than Canterbury. Have its councillors been sacked? Have they been sacked? No they have not because there is no irrigation pressure there. There is no political pressure there.This is not an argument about functionality about corruption or about mismanagement. It is an argument about the fact that we have had our democratic rights taken away. We also had our rights to appeal to the Environment Court taken away and we had our protection—our special protection—for our rivers taken away. But there is no justification for that. If you have an elected body that has corruption or dysfunctionality or mismanagement I do not think that there would be a single member in the House who would not support doing this—of course reluctantly—until functionality was restored. But no such justification has ever existed in the case of Environment Canterbury.I think this is a very sad day for democracy in New Zealand. It is a very sad day that this Parliament sees a move as serious as this being taken on the basis of misrepresentation. It was quite clear throughout the select committee process that the submitters understood what the real driver behind this was for. There were 1167 submissions on this legislation and 1152 were opposed. Just 15—one-five—submissions supported it and they were primarily from irrigators. I understand why they supported it. So 1167 submissions with 1152 opposed and yet the Government in its out-of-touch and increasingly arrogant way rides roughshod over our democracy rides roughshod over the submitters and is going to ram this bill through.