King Annette: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Annette: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7775. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
What this bill does is to delay the elections of Environment Canterbury until 2016 with a little review in 2014. The Minister said it was a transition. That is not the transition that Dame Margaret Bazley—the woman he has just said was a very high public servant—suggested to him. I absolutely agree so why did they not listen to her? Why did they not take notice of what she recommended to the Government which was a transition to a fully elected council? They totally ignored what she said. So those were hollow words from the Minister of Local Government in regard to Dame Margaret Bazley. 
But this is a broken promise from the Key Government because when Nick Smith was Minister he said that whatever the circumstances—whatever the circumstances—the next Environment Canterbury election would be in 2013. He said: “the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent”—he went on to say—“is for the commissioners to withdraw and to be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.” The task has been achieved and the issues have been resolved. But he did not just say it he actually made it equally clear in the Cabinet papers he presented to the Government. He said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as the commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for 2013.” Those immediate issues have been resolved. Why is this election being delayed? 
 The first Cabinet paper put up by the next Minister of Local Government David Carter and the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams stated that any option except a return to a fully elected council would be a limit on the democratic rights of the residents of Canterbury compared with the rest of New Zealand. That was what was in a Cabinet paper from the former Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment. They said that any option except a return to a fully elected council would limit the democratic rights of residents of Canterbury compared with the rest of New Zealand. Well it is obvious they were rolled. They were rolled at Cabinet and the Government decided to extend Environment Canterbury’s term thereby denying the people of Canterbury a vote for another 3 years. 
And what is being used? The earthquake. It is a very convenient excuse for everything that the Government does. It blames it for the fact that there is rising unemployment it blames it for the fact that there is loss of jobs it blames it for the fact it is getting nowhere in its policies—it is all the fault of the Christchurch earthquake. And it has done it again on the Environment Canterbury elections which should be held this year. Our suspicion is that this latest U-turn is just a precursor to the Government’s plans for regional amalgamation in Canterbury on a grand scale. Why will it not be upfront and tell the people of Canterbury that what it really wants to happen is for there to be a major amalgamation of all those councils? No it is hiding that and it is hiding behind the earthquake in Christchurch as to why it needs to delay elections in this area. 
Well what did the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford say? He is not a Labour person; in fact he was appointed by the National Government. What did he say to the select committee? He said: “Our view continues to be that the undemocratic way in which the original legislation was introduced and its continuance is simply wrong from a human rights perspective.” That is what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford National’s appointment said about its legislation. Is it not all stacking up? You have got some very important people telling the Government to have elections in Christchurch but the Government is totally ignoring them. 
And what do the residents of Christchurch think? Well they are pretty outraged at what has been done to them and there has been a series of very significant protests held in Christchurch against the fact that there will be no elections for Environment Canterbury until 2016. They see that as a loss of democracy in this very troubled city. Even the Christchurch City Council has overwhelmingly expressed its opposition to the move and it said it was going to seek a meeting with the Minister to ask why the elections are being postponed. Well that will be a fat lot of use. That will get it nowhere because the Government decided that there was one issue and one issue alone—well two issues as to why it was postponing them. One is the major amalgamation and the other is the effect of irrigation—the effect of irrigation. To hell with democracy let us worry about irrigation for the farmers! To hell with democracy let us worry about whether or not the farmers get a bit of water! Let us protect their irrigation. Democracy does not count when it comes to whether or not the farmers get a fair deal. That is what the bottom line is in this. 
David Carter admitted in answer to oral questions in this House that his officials advised that there should be a transition to a democratically elected council and he actually agreed at that stage that there should be a transition. The option that was put forward was an option where you would have a mixed governing body as a transition. So when the Minister talks about transitioning by having a review that is not a transition Minister; that is a review. The transition model that was put up out of the five models and supported by Dame Margaret Bazley was that you actually have a transitional mixed governing body for Environment Canterbury with provision for the Minister of Local Government to review the arrangements by 2017. That was rejected by the National Government. It cancelled the election and cancelled the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury. We absolutely oppose this bill and we will continue to oppose it and so did the regulatory impact statement. 
Debate interrupted.