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: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7985. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I have to say at the start that I cannot recall any legislation that has enraged my electorate as much as this has. It sort of beggars belief really that in this day and age we have a Government that wanders into our region and says: “We don’t like what your regional council are doing. They’re not allocating enough water to the irrigators. Some of their performance standards aren’t very good. We’re going to get rid of them and we’re going to appoint commissioners.” That was bad enough. Thousands and thousands of people who had never before gone on to the streets to protest marched against the removal of Canterbury’s right to vote for a democratically elected regional council. That was bad enough. We perhaps foolishly believed the word of the Hon Dr Nick Smith at the time. Some people might laugh and say: “Well fancy that.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: More fool you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No I understand your cynicism but I am still of the view that when a member of Parliament makes a public statement about something as important as citizens’ right to vote all of us should be able to believe their word. I do not care what party they are from I would really like to think that we should be able to trust their word. What Nick Smith said to Canterbury was this: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” Those are the very words—an exact quote—from the Hon Dr Nick Smith who of course at the time was Minister of Local Government. We believed him. We thought it was bad enough that we were having our vote taken off us for 2 years but we thought that well come 2013 we would get our right to vote back again.  
Then we had a new Minister a Cantabrian come along. I remember the first time he came to the Local Government and Environment Committee. The Hon Nick Smith was at the select committee as a member during that time. We asked him about the quite tense relationship between local government and the Minister. David Carter who had been in the job 5 minutes said to the select committee which included Nick Smith: “Oh that was under the previous Minister. Now the relationships are really good.” Talk about embarrassing and whacking your colleague in front of other party representatives at the select committee. I was gobsmacked. Anyway along rides David Carter a Canterbury member of Parliament and he said: “No blow that. There’s still not enough water allocated to the irrigators and I am going to keep the loss of vote going for another 3 years.” So now we get this absolute nonsense an abuse of power and a disgraceful blemish on the face of our parliamentary law—the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Actually it is: “Let’s get the water through to the irrigators so they can put dairy farms all through Canterbury and South Canterbury. When they have done that to our satisfaction we’ll give Canterbury people the right to vote.” Well this is going to be the downfall of this Government in our region. People are so angry about it. On top of all of the other things that have upset people in our region this is the crowning glory.  
I want to stress that point though that what has upset people more than anything is that they fell for the story that Nick Smith told them. Nick Smith said publicly that we would get our vote back by the end of 2013—that is this year. Every other region in the whole country will have a right to vote for its regional council. Tragically half of the people do not even take up that opportunity. I guess that is a democratic right as well—to not vote—but I personally think it is abuse of the democracy that people before us have fought for. But in Canterbury we will not be getting that right back for another 3 years.  
The second point I want to mention is another point that has not been debated a lot during the passage of the bill so far and I think it is one of the most important. We have a form of statutory protection available in New Zealand that is called a water conservation order. We do not have very many. Fish and Game New Zealand is the body that has really promoted and brought into effect water conservation orders. I know that they have been described in the Chamber in the past. They are like the national parks of waterways. Despite the regulatory impact statement recommending that we get our water conservation orders back again this bill maintains that special protection for our rivers has gone as well. So it is not just our regional council vote; it is also the special protection that is given through water conservation orders. Let me read part of the regulatory impact statement from paragraph 45 at page 11: “The [water conservation order] 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 it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury [water conservation orders] and is not aware of any new applications for [water conservation orders] in the Canterbury region.” This is the critical bit and is in the Government’s own regulatory impact statement on this bill: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Primary Industries consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for [water conservation orders] in the Canterbury region.” The Government’s own advisers said: “Give back to Canterbury that special protection of water conservation orders.” And what did the Government do? Despite advice from three separate departments all singing from the same song sheet the Government just threw it out.  
I actually feel quite sorry for the incoming Minister the Hon Chris Tremain—talk about being handed a hospital pass. I do not imagine that that Minister has any idea at all of the damage that has been done by this legislation in my electorate and in my region. If he did I think he would have taken it back to his Cabinet colleagues and said: “This is wrong. This is making a liar out of the Hon Dr Nick Smith”—and most colleagues would not do that—“and it is denying throwing out the advice from three key ministries in regards to water conservation orders.”  
I want to just conclude my first comments on this legislation by again commending Fish and Game New Zealand which has done extraordinary work for us. We are very proud of our waterways in Canterbury. We are very concerned about the threat that they are under. We know the degradation that has already been caused by overuse and by inappropriate use. We know that additional take in some of our waterways may actually be fatal to them and we do not want to see that. We understand the need to support business—of course we do. But some parts of our country cannot sustain heavy irrigation and dairy use and some of our rivers just cannot have any more water taken from them. So our iconic rivers the Ahuriri the Rakaia and the Rangitata and we have got of course Lake Ellesmere—these are the waterways that are under threat in our region. They are under threat because this Government has chosen to put irrigation ahead of democracy. When the members of the select committee came to Christchurch they laughed at people who said: “You have taken away our right to vote and we want it back.” They said: “Ha so what? What’s the big deal?”. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was only the National members. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was the National members. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Who laughed? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Why is that a big deal? Paul Goldsmith you would be better off frankly if I may offer you a little bit of advice not to draw attention to yourself because you will be better identified as one of the members who laughed at my— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He was shocking. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: He was shocking. Now that he has brought himself to our attention he was shocking. The people of Canterbury asked for their right to vote back. The National members said: “Why is taking away your right to vote such a big deal?”. People in other countries have fought and died for the right to vote. We thought we pretty well had it sussed. We thought it was part of our culture part of our entitlement—a treasure. Actually in Canterbury I think we regard it more highly than anyone particularly amongst women because of the women whom we have had leading the right for women to vote.