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: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 And I recognise the Chair as well—thank you very much. We are debating clauses 1 to 3 traditionally known as the title and commencement clauses and in particular I do want to address the title of the bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It is that word “temporary” in the title that concerns me greatly because they are rapidly becoming permanent not temporary commissioners. 
The approach that this Government took initially was for this to be a temporary measure. Nick Smith said: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” That is what he said—“whatever the circumstances”—and yet we have in front of us today a bill that really is not about temporary commissioners any more. It is about making permanent the taking away of democracy from the people of Canterbury. So this bill is misnamed. It should not be called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill because this Government appears to have no intention of returning democracy to Canterbury. 
Yet time and again not only has the Government told the people of New Zealand that this would be temporary and that there would be elections in 2013 but also its officials have told this Government that it should move to a different model. In fact if the officials had had their way this bill would have been called the “Environment Canterbury (Mixed Model of Commissioners and Elected Officials) Bill” because that is what was proposed by the officials. The Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment recommended to the Government that it move to a model where there was at least some democratic representation on Environment Canterbury. But no the Government dismissed that. It did not want to see democracy returned in any form whatsoever for the people of Canterbury when it comes to their regional council. 
The Government was not interested in a mixed-governance model like this. David Carter actually when he was the Minister said that he was interested in such a model but the mind was changed and it was changed fundamentally because this legislation is not about democracy; this legislation is about irrigation. That is what this legislation is about. The bill could easily be titled the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Ensuring We Can Get Irrigation for Our Mates) Bill”. That is what it could be called because the Government is actually being quite clear that this is all about irrigation. 
Let us just stop for a moment and think about a country where democracy can be suspended in a large region—suspended not just temporarily but on into the future—so that a small group of people get to benefit financially or get to benefit in terms of irrigation for them. What kind of country is that? It is no kind of country that I want to be part of. It stinks of cronyism. It is anti-democratic; fundamentally that is what this bill is. It is anti-democratic. It is not about some temporary arrangement for some misguided view that perhaps there was chaos reigning down in Canterbury. It is an arrangement where democracy has now been denied for two successive elections to the people of Canterbury. It should actually be called the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy) Bill” because that is what this bill is doing. It is saying to the people of Canterbury that the needs and wants of a small group of people for their irrigation is far more important than the democratic will of the people. That is a shame and a stain upon this Government. 
The Government was told time and time again in this process that it did not need to carry on this intervention. Again from the regulatory impact statement from the officials: “given the progress made by the Commissioners there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention”—so the Government had the advice from the officials. The commissioners themselves said that they would prefer a mixed-governance model and yet the Government carried on and said: “We don’t want to see democracy returned to the people of Canterbury.” That is not on. It is no way to run a region and it is no way to run a country to base it on cronyism and inside deals. 
It is time this Government got real and remembered that this is a country that is founded on democratic principles. It does not get to trade those away in deals with multinationals overseas or Skycity in New Zealand and it does not get to take away the rights of people in New Zealand to have a say. 
This bill should be renamed. It is the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy) Bill”. It is not about temporary commissioners; it is about taking away democratic rights from New Zealanders and that is a shame on this Government.