Woods Megan: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woods Megan: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8211. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from my fellow Canterbury MP Eugenie Sage. Hearing her talk with such expertise and knowledge about water and conservation in Canterbury one wonders why she was sacked as a regional councillor by the National Government and why it is we are here debating this motion tonight. I want to talk to clause 5 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and pick on a clause that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove spoke to around the timetable for the review that will be carried out in March 2014. To reiterate some of the questions that my colleague asked on that we would like the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy to take a call and let us know whether the public will have input into this review in 2014. Will this be another chance for Cantabrians to try to have their voices heard? They can beat their heads against a wall because they overwhelmingly submitted against the piece of legislation we are debating here tonight. I think we have heard that over and over again. Fundamentally this is a Government that does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. This is a Government that does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to make the best decisions for their province. We want to know whether they will have a chance to have another say on this in 2014. 
One wonders what form this review will take in 2014. When you go through the number of submissions that were heard and what this Government— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 95. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: There were 95 submissions 90 of which were opposed. Then you look at the regulatory impact statement to this piece of legislation and you see all the advice. Not only was the commissioner saying “For goodness’ sake return to some form of democracy in Canterbury.” but you have advice from numerous organisations. Treasury gave advice that actually a transitional arrangement was preferable. We have the Canterbury Mayoral Forum—which this Government actually likes to hide behind and say that it was asked by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum to do it—quoted in the regulatory impact statement as saying that it would like to see a return to at least a transitional arrangement. This is a Government that is ignoring the views of Cantabrians. 
As we have heard most expertly from my Canterbury colleague Eugenie Sage there are a couple of things that lie beneath this. One is the need for National to deliver on irrigation. It is not that the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury; it is that it did not like the elected council because it would not let the Government do what it wanted to and to deliver on its election promises around irrigation. So hey presto here is a solution: cancel the elections and appoint some people to get through what you want your political agenda. It is truly shocking that we are standing here debating a piece of legislation that is about the cancellation of elections in pursuit of a political agenda by a political party. 
Also lurking beneath this legislation is the Government’s desire to explore the notion of a unitary authority for Canterbury. We have the Government making noises in this direction. We have seen this happen in Auckland. It is not going to work in Canterbury. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How do you know? 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Nicky Wagner the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee asks me how I know. Sorry Ms Wagner I will tell you why it will not work. It will not work because it has been tried before. It was called the Canterbury Provincial Government and the very reason that the provincial government had to be abolished in 1876 the very same tensions that existed mean that a unitary authority that brings together the city of Christchurch and the city of Timaru and tries to put these competing interests together—you can sit there and laugh Ms Wagner but I regret to inform you that those very same tensions are there. If you hold a review and you let public submissions be heard in 2014 you may just find that out. The very competing interest about the economic agendas of the two parts of the province will come to the fore again. 
This has been tried before and we can see—[ 
Interruption 
] I would like Ms Wagner rather than sitting in her chair and sniggering to take a call and tell us whether the people of Christchurch will have a chance to have their voices heard in March 2014 why it is that she thinks a unitary authority—which she was very quick to defend with her interjections I would like to note—will work and whether she would like to tell us that this really is the Government’s agenda. We know that water and irrigation are one of its agendas and we are hearing very much here that actually the unitary authority—what we were saying is lurking beneath—seems to be coming to the surface a little bit more in the Chamber tonight. So Ms Wagner we welcome your taking a call and explaining to us on this— 
Nicky Wagner 
: Mr Chair. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Are you seeking a call to explain this Ms Wagner? 
Nicky Wagner 
: Yes. Mr Chair. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: No you are welcome to take a call after me and we look forward to answers on this. We have put forward a range of reasons why we oppose this bill. You cannot get more fundamental than standing in a House of Representatives and saying that we oppose this bill because it is taking away the right of Cantabrians to elect their members. National knows that this bill is not popular and that is why the chair of the select committee Ms Wagner is polling her own electorate at the moment. She knows that this in combination with her failure to protect Phillipstown School has done her some damage because the people of Canterbury do not support this legislation. The people of Canterbury do not want their vote cancelled yet again. They have had it done once and they certainly do not want it done again. 
There is a moral obligation on this Government as elected representatives themselves to restore democracy to Canterbury. Labour will return it to an elected regional council after we are elected in 2014 because that is the right and proper way. To hide behind notions of the earthquake—well actually earthquakes do not stop you voting. I would like you to point to other parts of the world when you take your call—which we are awaiting with great anticipation—where it was necessary to cancel elections after a disaster because I did notice that in the select committee report on the legislation the earthquakes are used as a justification for the extension yet again of the denial of Cantabrians’ right to vote. So we welcome hearing the select committee chair’s view on that. 
Labour opposes this legislation quite simply because it is wrong to deny people their democratic rights but we do welcome and await with anticipation a call from Ms Wagner where she will answer the questions we have put forward in the Committee tonight. Thank you.