Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 That was a very interesting speech by Colin King on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It was a very interesting speech in its so-called definition of “democracy”. In Mr King’s small world in the last 2 or 3 years since the commissioners have been in place—unelected accountable to no one in Canterbury accountable to their paymasters in Wellington unelected but appointed—apparently the province of Canterbury has enjoyed uninterrupted democratic activity— 
Andrew Little 
: That’s what George Speight said. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yeah that is what George Speight said. Well I do not know; I think George Speight might have been a bit brighter than that. Apparently democracy goes something like this in Mr King’s little world: if local authority - elected folk—those who are left in the outer reaches of the province those who have not had their democratic rights cut asunder from them—are happy interacting with the commissioners then this is nirvana in respect of democratic practice. 
I invite Mr King to do a couple of things: maybe talk to Peter Dunne because—I mean this in all seriousness—Peter Dunne I think graduated from the political science department with a Bachelor’s degree in political science— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Master’s. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Forgive me a Master’s in political science. I am sure—and I mean this in all seriousness—that the Hon Peter Dunne of what A grade university— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: A good university. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sorry? 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: A good university. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —a great university; the one I went to too—could give Mr King a lesson on the definitions of “democracy”. Because I have to say to the member over there Mr King that “democracy” means that you get a say you get a vote—hopefully every 3 years—and you have representation with taxation as it were. That is the sort of tried and true definition of “democratic discourse” in a democratic nation. I invite him to maybe grab hold of the  
Encyclopaedia Britannica 
. I am sure he can dust a couple off there. He may not have progressed to the internet and some of that sort of amazing technology we have got now. I invite him to dust off the  
Encyclopaedia Britannica  
and have a go: look up “democracy” under “d” and learn about it—learn about it. 
Andrew Little 
: Apparently you can google it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Apparently you can google it. But I say that this is all about a simple thing. This is about a Government that came to power took action stripped out the right for Cantabrians to have a regional council that is voted in and then made a promise. I refer back to the great quote of that great genius Nick Smith who said “Under any circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than the election scheduled for late 2013.” 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Broken promise. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Broken promise. There is another word for it. It has been used a bit liberally this afternoon. I think we know what it means and every Cantabrian knows what it means. 
What we are faced with in Canterbury is a rather extraordinary situation. We gave the Government wartime powers in respect of the earthquake. Gerry Brownlee got wartime powers. There was some controversy about that. We on this side voted for that because we believed that it would be appropriate to get things done. Sadly we now wonder whether Mr Brownlee will ever dust off the warrant and actually use those powers in an appropriate way. 
We have a city council that is in great difficulty apart from—and I will mention a few names here hoping not to destroy their political careers—Tim Carter Yani Johanson Glenn Livingstone and others. They are elected people on that council who are trying to get some cohesion there but are left wanting sadly by the mayor and the chief executive of a dysfunctional council. Then we have a regional council of course that exists in effect in name only in terms of its lack of democratic principles. I mean no disrespect to the commissioners because the commissioners are doing a job but the question is whom they are responsible to. You see in the old days Mr King—through you Mr Speaker—you could ring up a regional councillor like Jo Kane the former deputy chair and a good person and say “Hey we’ve got a constituent who’s got some problems. Can you sort them out for us?”. The councillors may not have been able to kick a goal but they were accountable to the constituency that elected them. 
The problem with the commissioners—not a personal problem with them—is that they are not accountable to people like us who live in Canterbury. They are not accountable to the local communities. They are accountable to this Government and because of that the Minister of Local Government and this Government will bear the responsibility for this situation. They made a commitment. They made an absolute commitment that in 2013 democracy would be restored to Canterbury. 
It is interesting as Annette King said when you have a look at the regulatory impact statement to see who was against this. Well there was very little opposition to the proposition of restoring through a transitional phase democracy to Canterbury. The commissioners proposed option one. Option one—to inform Mr King—was where you elected and appointed a combination of the two which would be a transition to full democracy. The commissioners were in favour of that. The Department of Internal Affairs was in favour of that. Treasury said in the regulatory impact statement that there had been virtually no Crown-led consultation with stakeholders Government departments or the communities; therefore it was hard to provide proper advice on this. Very few people or agencies were opposed at the very least to option one which was a transitional combination of appointed and elected folk to transition to democracy. But oh no the Minister and the Government know best. 
So what do we have in Canterbury in terms of participatory instruments to allow the community to have a say? Very little. Sadly as I have said we have a dysfunctional city council. Secondly we have an appointed and soon to be reappointed if this legislation goes through regional authority. And we have the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority which of course with wartime powers and a Minister with wartime powers can effectively do what it wants. It has done some good things—I accept that. It has made some blunders. 
We have already debated this afternoon—and I will not go there again—the sad state of affairs in respect of the Draconian decision to cut across everybody in terms of our schools and the communities that sit alongside those schools. So the question I have got is why the broken promise? We have heard a lot about water and a number of esoteric things but it comes down to this: it comes down to a Government—every one of those members sitting there goggle-eyed from Canterbury and other places—that stared the constituencies in Canterbury in the face and said “You’re gonna get your democracy back in 2013.” Now without the support even of the Environment Canterbury commissioners whom that Government and that Minister appointed they roll over the top and say “No no no. It’s gonna be a total of 6½ years from the time we put in the original legislation. Basically it’s another 3 years—2016—before you get a go.” I say that that is wrong. I say that not only is it wrong that the promise was broken but it is wrong that this Government has not even fronted up to the constituencies and the community consulted with them and provided a justification as to why this legislation should be before us today. It is the usual slipshod stuff—that is punch a piece of legislation out make an arbitrary decision consult with nobody do not take the advice of your officials your appointed commissioners the Department of Internal Affairs or anybody else and just make it happen. 
I have got to say to Minister Carter—a longstanding member of this House who has a member of his family Tim Carter on the Christchurch City Council who along with others I say is doing an outstanding job—and others that Cantabrians are getting to the point where they have had a gutsful of being driven over by the proverbial political steamroller either in the form of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery or in the form of the Minister of Education and now in the form of the Minister of Local Government with no consultation not even the meekest reference to engaging with the community. They are getting a bit tired. They are getting a bit stressed. They have got enough to cope with and they would not mind if occasionally somebody in the Wellington offices of the Beehive actually said “You can have a say—you can have a say. You can be the masters perhaps of your own destiny. And by the way they in Wellington in Government feel that there is leadership capability in Canterbury there are smart people and innovators in Canterbury and there are entrepreneurial and socially entrepreneurial people who could take control of an organisation like Environment Canterbury show some acumen show a high degree in world-class management and actually run the show.” Because last time I checked I do not think that all roads of intellect and a monopoly on all knowledge and all good ideas emanated from the Minister of Local Government’s office or the ninth floor or the seventh floor of the Beehive. 
Andrew Little 
: Have you got any evidence for that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well Gerry Brownlee will be around here somewhere I am sure. He provides enough evidence of that. I just say in all seriousness that people are actually entitled to have a say or at the very least if this crew is going to march forward and punch this legislation through then the Government has a duty Mr King under our little democracy to make the case and justify the position to the people of Canterbury. It has not made the case it has not justified the position and this bill is a disgrace. Yet again the Government thinks it knows best and the boot goes in to Cantabrians.