Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 As we embark on the debate on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill many of the points that were made in the debate on Part 1 about this being a unique piece of legislation in terms of the loss of democratic process apply equally to this part. 
The question that I would like to ask the Minister is that I note in new section 17A(1) inserted by clause 5 that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014. (2) The review must cover—(a) the governance structure of ECan; and (b) the membership of ECan; and (c) ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” I would like to just ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries—because I do not think we have had an answer to this question throughout this entire debate—about the notion put up that the Government somehow has some sort of support or mandate for this legislation. I think Nicky Wagner as she was polling her electorate about how unpopular she has become in terms of the Phillipstown School issues and this particular legislation tried to make a claim that there was overwhelming support in Canterbury for not only Part 1 but Part 2. We know that in terms of the evidence given to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were five submissions in favour and 90 submissions opposed. She forgot about that little detail in her various dissertations. 
But I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that there is widespread support in the community apart from the National Party in gumboots—Federated Farmers—apart from Ngai Tahu and apart from Local Government New Zealand. Apart from Ngai Tahu those other two organisations are not grassroots widespread representation of Canterbury. Where is the support and the mandate for this legislation? There is none. Not one speaker from the National Government—not Ms Wagner not “Curly” nor any of the others—has managed to get up— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes that is entirely—the member will withdraw that comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: How do you know it was directed at him? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will withdraw the comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Not Aaron Gilmore—sorry that is just clarification for those who are listening tonight. We sucked him out of the pack like the old ace in the pack of cards. He woke up. Not Aaron Gilmore who promised that there would be Environment Canterbury elections on time— 
Nicky Wagner 
: He got here. At least he’s got here. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they are all awake now including the clucker over there from Christchurch Central. All the low-altitude flyers on that side promised there would be elections on schedule and then they broke that promise. I would like one of them to get up. I would like the low-altitude flyer over there who has just come back into Parliament Mr Gilmore—or Ms Wagner or others—to get up and make one attempt to explain to the people why he feels that National has a mandate to put through this legislation. Would the member like to answer the question now? Oh no silence. He was quick to take a point of order about such things as haircuts but apart from that no— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: The member likes— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: If he has got something to say would the member like to answer the question? Could the member get up now—and I would be happy to yield to him—and answer where he believes his Government has a mandate to put this legislation through? Does he have a mandate or not? Is there an explanation? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Say something sensible. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh “Say something sensible.” So that member does not believe that he requires a mandate or public support to put through a measure that effectively cauterises the democratic rights of people in the province in which he has resided now and again over the last 2 or 3 years. I will ask him again: where is the mandate for that? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: It’s called election day. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh no “It’s called an election.” That member does not get the legislation. Look I have to say it is only three pages long so try reading it. It cancels an election—it cancels an election. Does that low-altitude flyer now residing back in Canterbury not actually get it? He does not read the bill. He does not have a mandate. He says that that is a silly concept to put forward. He says: “Say something sensible. Stop calling for a mandate.” And now for some reason he believes that there was an election when he cancelled it. Well I have to say that the man who once claimed that he had cheated me in the MBA programme at Canterbury University when he was not even there—I mean his CV is growing by the day—this boy is really good. Maybe he should do a political science class and work out what an election is. What a fool! 
I say to that member and to all those members opposite that as the Ministers under Part 2 actually go on to review Environment Canterbury I wonder whether they will take public submissions for that review. I wonder whether they will actually want to hear from the public who by that stage if this legislation is passed will have lost their democratic rights for two election periods of time. I wonder whether they will allow people to come and say to the National Government: “Why is it you broke your cast-iron promise? Why is it Nick Smith said the following: ‘I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners”—[ 
Bell rung 
] Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder whether they will allow public submissions on this ministerial review so that people can ask why it was that the then Minister of Local Government or Cabinet Minister—and he still is now—Nick Smith said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013.” We have not had the Minister— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s this year. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is this year—that is right. In case Aaron Gilmore missed it—the lunar calendar prevails—that is this year 2013. He has probably got a degree in astroscience as well tacked on to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He wrote the first one. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He probably did—he probably did. He probably did indeed. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The Gilmore calendar. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes absolutely. So I wonder whether the Ministers will take submissions. Not one Minister in the chair not the Minister of Local Government or his stand-in or any member—including the Canterbury members and I do not count Mr Gilmore as one; he is the fly-in fly-out member now and again—not one of those members has stood up and provided justification for this legislation. They have not even got up and defended Nick Smith for breaking his promise—and all the other Cabinet Ministers—because it is utterly indefensible. 
I would like to know from the Minister whether in this great review that Ministers will undertake on 1 March 2014 covering governance membership and powers and functions they will be taking public submissions. Hang on the empty tin is rattling. Will they be taking public submissions? Oh silence. They do not know—do not know. Mr Gilmore is hiding under the desk. I am sure he has got the answer. Will they be taking public submissions? I invite a Minister to get up and actually answer that question. I think after being done over as the people of Canterbury have and after being lied to—lied to—as the people of Canterbury have they deserve to know whether they will actually have a say and a part in that review. It will have been so long that they may forget what the vote is given that it has been taken away from them. 
It will be interesting in the Christchurch local body elections to see whether the venom is released from people who disagree with this measure because there is widespread opposition to this. Not one member of Parliament—I will give Nicky Wagner some credit. She did get up and say that as I said Federated Farmers Local Government New Zealand and Ngai Tahu had said it was a great thing. There were two other submissions in support of it but she could not remember those. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The irrigators. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The irrigators. But she forgot that 90 of the 95 submissions were against it. But she in her little world orbiting in the same stratosphere as Mr Gilmore does from time to time believes that the Government has widespread support. But I ask Mr Gilmore again: can he point to that support? Can he point to a mandate given that he is the fresh-faced little boy who won the lollipop raffle and got back into Parliament? You know he won the lollipop raffle got an extra packet of jellybeans and bounced back in here on the taxpayers’ purse. He should do his job tonight. He should get on his feet and he should actually answer some questions as a Government member. He should not just sit there vegetating and doing nothing. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Talk to the bill Clayton. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Talk to the bill! Well the bill is actually about you Mr Gilmore and your ilk taking away the rights of the people of Canterbury. That is actually what it is about. I will say again that it is only three pages the print is probably big enough and there are not too many big words in it—apart from taking away elections—and he might want to read it. So I say earn your $150000 Mr Gilmore. Stand up tonight as the newly minted member from somewhere actually answer some questions and answer the questions as to where the mandate is where the public support for this bill is and why you—and every member of your Government through you—broke your promise. Oh hang on. The genius is silent on that. He does not have an answer or I suspect—more accurately—he knows the truth. It is in writing it is on the record of the House and there is absolutely no defence and no justification for his actions or those of anybody else. 
It will be interesting to see what happens at the next general election when he pokes his head out of whatever burrow geographically he puts himself in—when he pokes his head out of a particular burrow and puts his head up for election—and is asked on the stump why he did this. The next general election of course will be right in the middle of the next period when Cantabrians are experiencing a lack of democracy at the regional government level. It will be interesting. I wonder whether Nicky Wagner in her recent poll of Christchurch Central asked about the Environment Canterbury issue. If she did why does she not release the poll results?