Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8219. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by picking up the point that my colleague Dr David Clark—recently promoted and a well-deserved promotion—the member of Parliament for Dunedin North concluded on and that is the huge disappointment and anger that people in Canterbury feel about this legislation and the primary Act that it is amending. I suppose the most important reason the driving force for the disappointment and anger is the fact that we trusted the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he said publicly consistently and strongly: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” We believed the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Some people think we may have been foolish to believe him but I am old-fashioned enough to think that if a member of Parliament says that in this House or out in the public arena if he is quoted in the media if he says so on TV on the radio in the press we should be able to believe them. But we have discovered that that was an absolute direct lie to the people of Canterbury which has made us incredibly frustrated and angry. 
The anger was very evident at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. The current member of Parliament for Christchurch Central got very agitated during those hearings when members of the public while presenting their submissions got so upset and expressed it in very strong ways. I know that she is concerned about the impact of this legislation on her wafer-thin majority in Christchurch Central because she has been polling recently. The poll that Nicky Wagner has conducted asked six questions none of which directly related to this bill but actually all of which arose as a result of this amendment legislation. Her poll in Christchurch Central asked how people were going to vote in the next election with their party vote and with their candidate vote and whether they knew who the MP for Christchurch Central was. I would love to see the results of that. I think a lot of them said: “Who cares?”. Then in a very courageous move she asked them to rate her. What did they think of her performance? I would love to see the results of that too. And then she asked whom they had voted for in the last election both in the party vote and in the electoral vote. 
That poll will be reflecting the anger and frustration that Cantabrians feel at this legislation not just taking away our democratic right to vote not just making an absolute liar of the Hon Dr Nick Smith which I think in itself is a pretty offensive thing for colleagues to do but also taking away our water conservation orders and that is referred to in Part 2 in new section 17A(2)(c) inserted by clause 5 “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3”. Those are the reasons that Cantabrians are so angry. We are losing our vote. We have been lied to. We are very angry and frustrated and disappointed that we believed a Minister who said we would have our right to vote back this year. We were angry that it was taken away but we were assured regardless of the circumstances Nick Smith said that we would have our vote back next year. 
Of course we know that the submissions to the select committee were overwhelmingly reflective of the points I am making—of anger of frustration of extreme disappointment. There were 95 submissions received on this legislation and 90 out of 95 were opposed to it. What bit of that maths is too hard for Government members to understand? Ninety out of 95 submissions said they did not agree with it. People said it undermined their basic democratic rights. Well that is actually not rocket science. That is the point of the legislation. The point of the legislation is to take away our democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner was very upset not just about the outcome of this legislation but about the totally undemocratic process that it had undergone in order to be introduced. He talked about the Cabinet paper that accompanied the original legislation. It was specifically stated in the Cabinet paper that the deferral of what was then the 2010 election should be seen only as a temporary measure because of concerns that it constrained the right to public participation. 
I suppose as a member from Canterbury what I am most disappointed about is that the Minister who took over from Nick Smith the Rt Hon David Carter who signed this paper off is also a Cantabrian. I really thought that when the new Minister the Hon Chris Tremain was given the jobhe might say: “You’ve got to be joking.” Why would anyone in their right mind—and I have always assumed that he is in his right mind—why would any Minister in their right mind want their name attached to this filth this bit of dirt this blight on the face of democracy? Why would any Minister want their name attached to it? However I suppose that is the price you pay for getting into Cabinet. But I certainly know that other members would have said: “No—enough. I’d rather make an honest man out of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith.” 
The final point I want to make is one I referred to earlier and it is also alluded to in Part 2. It is the continuation of the removal of the water conservation order processes. In paragraph 45 on page 11 of the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill it says this: “The WCO processes are set to return to those in the RMA (the special provisions are scheduled to lapse at the expiration of the Act). ECan has advised that it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury WCOs and is not aware of any new applications for WCOs in the Canterbury Region.” This is the critical bit. In the Government’s own regulatory impact statement it says this: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Primary Industries”—three critical advisers on this legislation—“consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for WCOs in the Canterbury region.” Maybe the Government was waiting for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to say that it is all right to get back to proper processes under the Resource Management Act for water conservation orders. Maybe it was waiting for some sign for the stars to be in alignment. Frankly there is very little else that could happen to give advice to Ministers that this legislation is the wrong thing to do in regard to water conservation orders. 
Their own regulatory impact statement—unanimous advice from the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Primary Industries—says that this should not happen. And once again we see ignorant arrogant dismissive—I do not know the corrective adjective to use because it just beggars belief to think that a Minister in his right mind would ignore that advice would ignore 90 out of 95 submissions and would ignore I suspect the pleading of the chair of the select committee the current member for Christchurch Central Nicky Wagner. I am sure that she would have raised concerns about this bill. But if she raised concerns about this bill as quietly as she has raised concerns about Phillipstown School no wonder this bill is going ahead and no wonder Phillipstown School is scheduled to close at the end of the year. 
This bill is a huge disappointment. It has caused anger and frustration for people in Canterbury. That was strongly expressed at the select committee. It has made a liar out of a Minister who has recently been returned to Cabinet and I personally am offended at that. I do not think there should be any attempt by this Parliament to position a Minister of the Crown into that position. I am sure the Hon Dr Nick Smith deeply resents it as well. This legislation just frankly should not proceed. It is wrong. In Canterbury we have endured a lot and we have shown how resilient we are. We are now asking for one request to be granted and that is for our right to vote for our own regional council to be restored to us in the way that was promised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is not a big ask and it is one that I want Parliament to reflect on.